Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This is the spoiler thread for our quarterly read Dracula.

In the other discussion thread I said I didn't think there were any heroes in this book. I can't explain it there without potential spoilers. It's been a while since I read the book and I'm only at the early stages of the reread so I amy need to come back and add to this at a later stage.

We all know this book is about sex. It's a 19th century gothic novel, which are pretty much universally about vice (drugs, sex, the evil within). All those things proper Victorians did not peak about in polite society. Freud must have had a field day reading it. It's full of metaphors and allusions to sex. There is a veneer of a battle between good and evil, the brave heroes protecting the innocent women but I'm not buying it.

In one corner we have Dracula, the embodiment of vice. In the other our would be heroes, Hawker, Van Helsing etc. In the middle the girls, Mina and Lucy. Every single man in this book wants to sleep with one or both of them, but by the social code of the period this is forbidden. Dracula is a foreigner and has no such scruples. He bites both of them, removes their innocent. The men act all "we must protect our women" but the reality is they are driven by the same thing as Dracula, they just can't act on it. They are driven by entirely selfish desires, primarily anger and jealousy that someone else got there first and defiled their property. Definitely not heroes in my book.

I think the way the two women are portrayed is quite funny. You have Mina who is the perfect woman-beautiful, intelligent and demure, dutiful wife. Then you have Lucy who he has been sexed up so much that she would have to be dracula's first victim because it's such easy pickings.
And all the men fighting for their honour is quite laughable.
I think you could nit pick this book to death but at the end of the day it's a great book. Dracula is beyond evil in it, even while listening to the audiobook I could picture the old black and White film which was probably the best vampire film ever. There is a constant sense of dread whilst Jonathan is in dracula's house, you are just waiting for Dracula to pounce. It's brilliant.

Interesting take on it and it is true. The mens motivation actually reminded me of The Illiad where all the suitorsof Helen are dragged into the war all because they wanted her.
It is true that the motives on all sides are sexual in origin.
One thing I think is very interesting is Draculas original sexual target is Lucy . He is portrayed as feeding on blood but she is described as pretty much anaemic right from the start. So Dracula doesnt really need the blood for any nutritional value, more the sexual control aspect.
Where I would disagree with you Emma is that sometimes impure motives can still lead to heroic action and despite being quite afraid some of the characters do rise to the occassion in quite dangerous circumstance.

And I agree Seraphina. There are easily pulled faults in the book but they don't stop it being a great read. The atmosphere is brilliantly set up. Even in a reread I'm on edge with Jonathan in the Castle.

Paul in general I would have no issue with impure motives resulting in heroic actions. It would be common enough with anti hero's etc. In this instance it is hypocritical though as the men would all claim their motives are pure when they are far from it. That I suspect is Stokers point. Victorian society/ the men hypocriticaly denies the idea concept of sensuality or sexuality yet it is an element of humanity and can be people's motive in certain things. Dracula stands as the foil for this believe in that he denies neither, which by Victorian standards makes him evil, corrupt and a degenerate.

I'd forgotten Lucy is already anaemic before Dracula gets to her. I assume the implication is meant to be she was no longer a virgin long before Dracula.

I agree that Stokers real power lies in his ability to create suspense and portray the atmosphere. You constantly feel like screaming "No don't go in there".

They are all "Gentlemen" in their own heads so they do fool themselves if not the readers. Dr Seward in particular is quite the class snob when it comes down to it .
Definitely hypocritical figures , which makes them more interesting.
I do like the idea that the only thing dividing them from the "evil" Dracula is this Victorian set of enforced morals.

Interesting thought on Lucy as well. I didn't think of it as a sexual symbol of innocence or lack thereof. I took it more as her being the exact opposite of Dracula hence his attraction. Maybe too simplistic.

I think it depends on how deep you want to go into the symbolism. Dig deep enough and everything in the book will have some deeper meaning intended or not. In the case of Lucys anaemia it seems a plausible intended symbol though. The concept of blood, loss of blood and the mixing of bloods has a history of association with sex and loss of virginity in literature. Look at John Donne's The Flea

I'll have to look up Donne. Think I only remember one of his poems.
But it is a fairly obvious symbol and considering how much vampire literature I've read I should have got it. In saying that its a tad less subtle in the likes of The Vampire Chronicles and other works .

More modern works don't need to be as subtle or use the same degree of symbolism and metaphors. There was no way Stoker could have written openly about sex the way modern writers can. He had to bury it deep.

On the idea that only Victorian morals stand between Dracula and the others it's a common theme in gothic horror. That whole idea of "There but for the grace of God go I". Look at Jeckyll and Hyde. It only takes a potion to turn one into the other.

Its an interesting theme.
Possibly why its made clear that Dracula is of another time all together.

I've studied Donne and I'm surprised I never made the connection between the Flea and Dracula. Between the sex and the blood sucking metaphor they are incredibly similar only Donne's intention isn't as dark as Dracula.

Its quite interesting reading the tranfusion section. While the three suitors are idiots I still see some redemption, this scene being one of the points, Arthur severely weakening himself to give Lucy blood. For any of the sexual connotations he freely gives , as would Seward . They are never self aware of their own flawed perspective but at the same time they willingly give while Dracula only takes( unless you count him sharing the babies)

I'm also finding Van Helsing a bit funny to read . His broken English is almost a bad cliche but his similes are fun for how laboured they are.
The annotations compare his accent to Donald Ducks mad scientist uncle.

An interesting one for Emma as i know we have a similar view of Lucy�
Reading a few of the notes and the chapter where the wolf breaks Lucys window it leads to some interesting speculation.
Dracula can only enter where invited (Van Helsing makes this clear) and its also argued he can only take blood when allowed . Plainly Lucy is as "guilty" as Dracula then. What adds to the interesting thought process is the drugging of the maids. Dracula has powerful hypnotic skills so why would he need opiates to put the maids out of action. Surely the more likely culprit is Lucy who is trying to buy time with Dracula while lying to her own journal.

Hmmm that's an interesting theory, I never would have thought of that.

Theres some interesting notes by a guy called Fred Saberhagen (Salems cousin) who is completely of the opinion that Dracula is the innocent victim in the whole affair

I'd fully believe Lucy to be capable of fabricating events in her journal. She's little more than a teenage girl, its not unheard of in literature/films for them to do something like that even in the normal run of events.

Interesting thought on the idea that the biting has to be consensual and invited. Dracula also bites Mina from what I remember. That would mean the paragon of virtue also had to consent :-O.

I can buy Dracula not being as evil as some of the characters would like us to think....but innocent victim? I think that might be stretching it a bit too far.

I definitely don't see him as the innocent victim but its still curious to see some can see him that way. Mina is a curiosity. She seems to be portrayed as quite the golden girl all right but applying some of the theories would lead to quite the opposite conclusion and like Lucy shes not so pure.

I'd class her as purer the Lucy but possibly not quite the angelic figure as she comes across.

Not hard to be purer than Lucy I think �

Paul wrote: "Not hard to be purer than Lucy I think �"

Isn't Lucy really being punished for abandoning the restrictions Victorians placed on women? It must have been incredibly difficult in those days for women who just wanted the freedom to live their own lives. They were as bound by the era's concept of propriety as they were by the corsets fashion dictated.

Playing four men off each other isnt something I'd see as acceptable now either � But to some degree she is punished for breaching the social convention

I don't think Lucy went out to play 4 men off against each other. She didn't seem clever enough to do that. I thought the only time she used her sexuality was after becoming a vampire when all Victorian restrictions could be ignored. This was why the men were so determined to kill her, in order to restore her to being good and pious. So that the men could feel better in themselves.

Interestingly she was actually dumbed down from Stokers initial draft so maybe that is exactly what he was going for and her sounding too smart didn't help.
But she received three proposals before Dracula was in the picture and I can't help but feel the three guys weren't encouraged by her to go to that point.

It's true Paul, in a few of the Victorian novels I have read this is often the case. The women string a few men along until the right suitor turns up. So as to have another option. But only the girls with large dowrys or extreme beauty are able to do this so it doesn't say much for either gender.
I suppose things haven't changed too much for the rich, beautiful, famous people of today

So sad but true. Its interesting that Arthur /Lord Godalming goes on to inherit all Lucy's mothers property and money due to a conveniently recent will change. Was she even the prize for him .

I'm trying to think of the hidden meanings behind the death of Quincy Morris and besides from the idea of Europe being dangerous for the American adventurer, I can't really come up with any other reason. I'll have to do a re read first I suppose :)

Maybe he's just the red ensign of the group. One of em had to kick it.

Since Dracula is going down so well among the group I may nominate this The Quick http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18... in the near future. An

Since Dracula is going down so well among the group I may nominate this The Quick http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18... in the near future. An excellent debut.

I read that Stoker may have killed him off as a little dig at America since there seemed to be a great rivalry between GB and the States at the time. Thinking about it, between all the characters, Morris is the one we know and care least about so it makes sense to choose the weaker character for the sacrifice.

Could be somewhere between both.

So after her funeral Van Helsing describes Lucy as a polyandrist , with the blood exchanges with 4 men symbolising a marriage but interesting the word , while technically meaning a woman with multiple husbands, more commonly meant a prostitute . Nice way to speak of the dead

I hope it is not a silly question but here it goes: you were talking about the dame in distress and her 3 silly admirers, and I was wondering if this book could be considered as a product of the Romantic era, even though is a horror novel?

It can definitely be seen as an off shoot. Some of the characteristics reflect characters in other books.
Van Helsing is the frustrated Rochester of Jane Eyre, lusting after a woman while he is tied to an insane wife , Stoker definitely takes reference to romantic novels

It is gothic horror and books like Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre etc are considered gothic romance so there would be an overlap, and both genres are shaped by similar cultural forces in a similar period of history.

Put so much better than I could Emma �

Frank wrote: "Paul wrote: "Not hard to be purer than Lucy I think �"

Isn't Lucy really being punished for abandoning the restrictions Victorians placed on women? It must have been incredibly difficult in those..."

I'm only really catching up on this thread now.

Yes Frank to a point Lucy is punished for breaking convention, and probably would have been censored just as much for sexual exploits with one man as potentially 4. However overall this is not a book which places restrictions on women in general. There is a lot of talk of the "new woman" in it. For all Mina is the perfect Victorian woman, she is also portrayed as a new woman, learning shorthand and typing.

Seraphina wrote: "It's true Paul, in a few of the Victorian novels I have read this is often the case. The women string a few men along until the right suitor turns up. So as to have another option. But only the gir..."

The reality is people didn't marry for love, but for money and social position. It's the "A man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife" factor. There also was no real concept of dating. You basically went from being friends, to engaged, to married. It was entirely possible to be welcoming the attentions of many men and for all of it coming under the heading of being polite and sociable.

Kevin wrote: "I read that Stoker may have killed him off as a little dig at America since there seemed to be a great rivalry between GB and the States at the time. Thinking about it, between all the characters, ..."

Was there a great rivalry? Britain was the undeniable world power. America was still only finding its feet.

Thanks Paul and Emma. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite books, so, yes, I understand what you mean.

So true and sad the marriage for money and social position thing. I was almost shocked with Mina's anxiety over her husband illness. She sounded more concerned of he not being able to take over the business he had just inherited than with his troubled mind. And how happy she was while mentioning their unexpected fortune on her diary!

Luciana wrote: "Thanks Paul and Emma. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite books, so, yes, I understand what you mean.

So true and sad the marriage for money and social position thing. I was almost shocked wi..."

We would consider it sad now but marrying for love is a modern construct. Mina's anxiety isn't surprising. Women married for social security. Men got someone to look after their house and women got security, that was the deal, the social contract. This is a world where the new woman may be emerging, but employment options for women were limited, especially women belonging to the middle or upper classes.

It certainly is intriguing here and in other novels the social merry go round that had to be observed but is so alien to our current lives.
I suppose there can be the danger of judging in modern terms something so different to us

Re. America and GB rivalry, it was the turn of the 20th century when the British Empire was losing power and America was booming so I suppose there may have been a tension there. Did Americans still hate the British? I doubt it, it's fairly weak motivation for killing off a character.

Re. America and GB rivalry, it was the turn of the 20th century when the British Empire was losing power and America was booming so I suppose there may have been a tension there. Did Americans still hate the British? I doubt it, it's fairly weak motivation for killing off a character.

Britain doesn't really lose power till after WW1 and the empire begins to break up. This is set still in the Victorian reign, with the majority of Europe still under monarchies and most of them related to Victoria. The pieces which would make America a world power may have been starting to fall into place but it would have been a long way off rivalry I'd have said.

I don't think it was so much rivalry that induced Stoker to use an American character as the wish to include an exotic element. If you remember, Conan Doyle did something similar when he interpolated in his first Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet, that sentimental episode set in Utah. Of course, once it's time to kill someone off, it might as well be the foreigner rather than a stalwart Englishman. :-)