I’ve written recently about mythos and logos in response to Randy Hoyt’s article at Journey to the Sea. I think it can be argued that hints of mythical thinking are working their way slowly back into our previously overly-rationalistic culture. Postmodernism is more friendly to it than modernity was.
Dracula, which I’ve finally read, was such a fantastic book that I immediately purchased an audiobook through iTunes (you can get it there for $1.95!), and I’m listening to it presently. It will come as no surprise to you, having followed my appreciation for the character of Albus Dumbledore, that Van Helsing is one of my favorite characters in the story, eclipsed only by Mina.
Van Helsing has a lot to say about belief, truth, superstition, and tradition. One quote among many:
You are clever man, friend John; you reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? But there are things old and new which must not be contemplate by men’s eyes, because they know – or think they know – some things which other men have told them. Ah, it is the fault of our science that wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain. But yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which think themselves new; and which are yet but the old, which pretend to be young – like the fine ladies at the opera.” ~ Chapter XIV, in Dr Seward’s Diary
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
I read Elizabeth Kostova’s The Historian (very good book; highly recommended) last fall, and I had been meaning to add Bram Stoker’s Dracula to the list. Thanks for the tip about iTunes … downloading now.
I’m really intrigued by your statement that postmodernism is more friendly to mythical thinking than modernism is. The more I think about it, the more I think that people today do in fact employ mythical thinking quite often. Whenever we engage in intellectual discussion about this topic (whether in a university class or in a coffee shop), logos always seems to have the upper hand — but I think that might primarily be because we use logos when we have that discussion. I’m incredibly interested now in understanding when we all use mythical thinking without any qualms in our daily lives. I think this might be a good first step to giving mythical thinking a little more validity.
I can see how you’d find Van Helsing’s thinking sympathetic to your own. I need to point out, however, that the main reason why we find him such a wise and compelling teacher is because in the book, vampires are not superstitious folk lore but reality. In that context Van Helsing is very much like a physician dealing with a disease. But the book is fantasy, and we know that vampires are not real, and anyone who went around decapitating corpses and filling their mouths with garlic would be charged with desecrating the dead and sent for a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. In other words, Van Helsing is wise only in the specific context of a fantasy tale where a piece of folklore is actually a fact.
I think that the bigger question is whether folk tales, folk wisdom and myths in general have anything to teach us, or perhaps they have something more to teach us than science or the scientfic method. I’d say, yes, they do have something to teach us – about human nature, about the meaning of life, about the spiritual realm. About the intangibles. Do they have something to teach us about practical matters, such as medicine? Well, again, yes: willow bark and foxglove led us to aspirin and digitalis. But it was the scientific method which allowed us to figure out how to best make use of the knowledge of folklore. And there are a lot of cures suggested by folklore which are ineffective and downright dangerous or destructive (some of the cures suggested for AIDS in Africa come to mind, or the use of salt petre). So folk lore can be helpful for scientific matters, but only as a starting point, for generating hypotheses.
My point – if I have any – is that Van Helsing’s expertise is in the scientific realm, because in the book, vampires are a matter of science. Van Helsing is a good scientist because he bases his conclusions on evidence and not beliefs and suppositions. His plea to Dr. Seward is to use his eyes and senses, rather than accepting beliefs – what other men have told him. He is pleading with him to be a good scientist.
Red Rocker, I originally wrote a follow-up to that quote, but decided to let the conversation go without any particular “first thoughts” on my part. That follow-up comment was in many ways similar to yours – that it’s not against science itself that Van Helsing is arguing, but against the belief that science can explain all there is.
Still, the rest of the book doesn’t bear out the idea that Van Helsing is appealing to scientific fact – those that belong to that particular fantasy – in order to establish his case about vampires and deal with them. He does almost the opposite, arguing that in figuring out how to deal with vampires, they would need to let superstition and tradition be their guides.
Van Helsing, in Dracula, Chapter IV, in Dr Seward’s Diary:
Van Helsing, Chapter XVIII, Mina Harker’s Journal
It seems to me Van Helsing is asking Seward and the others not to be good scientist, but to explore other ways of knowing that work along side of science.
@Red Rocker, Great comment!
I haven’t read Dracula and cannot comment on what you say about Van Helsing specifically; Travis seems to think it does not apply to him. But I think it’s incredibly important for fans of myth, fantasy, etc., to keep this comment of yours in mind. I agree with you and others that fantasy and myth have things to tell us, but I think it cannot be as simple as this:
The goal of fantasy should not be to get readers to confuse their world with the world of the story. I think Travis is definitely on to something when he talks about imagination in this context. Unlocking our imagination seems to be a big part of how fantasy tells us what important things it has to tell us.
Well said, Randy, and Red Rocker’ comment does have a lot of exceedingly important things to take into consideration. This is what interests me about postmodernism, and more importantly, where we’ll go from here. Pre-modernity had its problems which modernity sought to correct, but I think far over-corrected with its anti-supernaturalist tendencies. Still, Many of modernity’s corrections of pre-modernity were good and welcome, and modern medicine is one of the many.
I read Dracula in January 2008, after hearing John Granger say in a podcast it was a book everyone under 20 should have read (or something to that effect. Feeling my education sorely neglected, I bit (pun intended). As I thought the book might be difficult, I attempted to find an annotated version, but learned one wouldn’t be available for several months. John sent me the three articles below with a tease about Dracula and modernity. I chose to dig in, unaided, to form my own impressions, and I recommend this method. (Afterward I wrote a summation of my thoughts about what each character represented, sent it to John, and then read the articles he’d sent.)
To my surprise I was enthralled by the book. I have the Van Helsing quote above (and others from the book) in my quote file. I was even surprised that, in horror-blase times, this 1896 book had me often immersed in dread. Yet most of the book is great turn-of-the-20th century detective fiction, filled with that era’s style, mores, attitudes, and yes modernity themes (which you can perceive in two ways). Not to mention towering Christian themes, including Van Helsing as a scientist of great faith (no exclusivity of faith vs. reason here).
Here are the articles John had sent me:
No Dread of the Undead (www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-022-v – 26k)
Monster in a Box, The Phonograph in Stoker’s Dracula: http://www.hauntedink.com/ghost/ch2.html – 61k
A great Dracula book intro in PDF format: Dracula Typewriter Shorthand (Google this title direct or click on (if this works) books.google.com/books?isbn=0415213568…
The New Annotated Dracula, editor Les Klinger is out. As it adopts the conceit that Stoker’s story is based on fact and appears to possibly deconstruct or belittle Van Helsing (I read some of Klinger’s work online and comments on it), I’m not sure about it, although Klinger had unfettered access to Stoker’s notes. I’m more likely to look into 1993’s The Essential Dracula: The Definitive Annotated Edition, editor Leonard Wolf. You can read reviews on both at Amazon.
Here’s the link (hopefully) for Touchstone Archives:
No Dread of the Undead
Second attempt with Dracula PDF:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qF5E5_GqG9sC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA12&ots=vexbNYemyy&dq=dracula+typewriter+shorthand#PPA10,M1
@Arabella, The web site tinyurl.com provides an easy way to create short web links for web pages with really long ones. Here’s a short link to “No Dread of the Undead”: touchstonemag.com/archives …
If Stoker was trying to get us believe that vampires were real, I think we’d have a lot more to be cautious about. However, he’s not. He’s using vampires as a literary device & foil for Van Helsing to offer his critiques of rationalism & materialism.
I think it cannot be argued that Stoker was trying to get us to abandon science or medicine et al, especially since his critique comes through the voice of a man who has doctorates in medicine, philosophy, & literature, etc., etc. He’s just trying to get us to think about whether or not “science” has the totality of reality & truth in its province & that if science cannot prove something or explain it, therefore it must not be true or real. He’s trying to get us to examine our prejudices & presuppositions about rationalism & materialism & their claims.
Thanks, Randy. Computerese is not my first language. It was frustrating trying to get that one.
I agree, revgeorge, and also wonder if Stoker was saying something about the rise of spiritualism (and its error) along with modernity at that time. I think his focus on Christian traditionalism may have meant to address that.
Two comments, almost totally out of context.
If you liked Dracula you might consider getting your hands on Alan Moore’s graphic novel League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There are two volumes, set in the early 20th century. Volume III, which starts out in the early 20th century but ends in our own, is due to be released this April. (Dave are you tracking?) Vols I and II present a Mina Harker quite different from the virginal innocent of the Stoker version. Travis you might also be interested in the League because it was Moore’s attempt to bring together as many works of the imagination as he could:
According to Moore, the initial concept behind the series was initially a “Justice League of Victorian England” but quickly grew into an opportunity to merge all works of fiction into one world. Says Moore: “The planet of the imagination is as old as we are. It has been humanity’s constant companion with all of its fictional locations, like Mount Olympus and the gods, and since we first came down from the trees, basically. It seems very important, otherwise, we wouldn’t have it.”
And since we’re on the topic of vampires, I have to mention my favorite vampire movie ever, Roman Polanski’s The Fearless Vampire Killers. It has curiousity value now because it features his wife, the subsequently murdered Sharon Tate. But its strength is its deconstruction of the vampire myth. My favorite scene? Where the teriffied village maiden thrusts a crucifix at the vampire who’s threatening her, whereupon he says with a Jewish-Bronx accent: “Oy, have you got the wrong vampire!”
Red Rocker wrote, “Vols I and II [of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen] present a Mina Harker quite different from the virginal innocent of the Stoker version.” Just a brief word on historical biases. And this isn’t necessarily directed at you, Rocker, but all of us who live in this day & age, where the tendency is always to think that we are more progressive & more enlightened than all those who have gone before us.
I found this section of the wikipedia entry on Bram Stoker to be annoying, “Stoker was also sexist by modern standards and strongly opposed to the idea of the New Woman and several of his novels use this as a theme with the danger of assertive woman represented by a Femme fatale.” The key words being “by modern standards,” with the assumption being that modern standards are ipso facto correct & proper & standards of the past are somehow lacking simply because they were in the past & now we’re much smarter than that. Of course, I’m also not saying that everything should be as it was in Victorian England but that we suffer from our own historical & cultural blinders that prevent us from really finding anything good in the past & only thinking it’s our “modern times” that have really contributed to the progress of the human race.
That little rant aside, I find it interesting that Stoker, being an Irish Protestant, has one of the main protagonists of Dracula, Van Helsing, portrayed as a devout Roman Catholic, with nary any sarcasm or criticism of this. I’m assuming this, of course, but I’m guessing that Holmwood, Seward, & Harker were all members of the C of E & yet they end up taking spiritual direction from a Roman Catholic!
I also find it interesting that Stoker, as someone who had a strong interest in science, medicine, & human progress, ends up putting some very strong critiques of such things into the mouth of the most highly educated character in the novel, again Van Helsing.
Oh, on the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I have never read the graphic novels, but I do love the movie. I can’t not watch that movie if I come across it on TV. I know it was totally panned by the critics & that it departs wildly from the novels, but I just love it anyway.
Again, on a side note, doesn’t anyone find it funny that Harker on his journeys is always making comments on how superstitious the natives are & yet they’re the ones who turn up being right almost every time about Count Dracula! Isn’t Stoker here poking fun at the British tendency of that age to be paternalistic & supercilious towards anyone who was considered to be less civilized?
We read Dracula in year 8 English and it really surprised me. I need to read it again.
Do you think that Stoker is suggesting that werewolves and vampires are the same creature?
Also, I think it is interesting to compare Dr Frankenstein and Van Helsing. Frankenstein is the holder of almost exhaustive scientific knowledge and ability and ends up creating something beyond his control and against his moral sense. Van Helsing is the pinacle of science, humanities and religion and takes the role of mentor, protector and bane of evil things.
Hey revgeorge, your comment reminds me of something I was mulling over.
I have always been intrigued by the difference in the fates of Lucy Westenra and Mina Murray. Lucy is the more outgoing “vivacious” sexy friend. At the start of the novel she gets not one but three marriage proposals (the rich aristocrat wins the prize, as is fitting), attesting to her sexual desirability. Her friend, Mina, is less of a prize on the marriage market, is wooed by and settles for one man. They are each of them stalked and victimized by Dracula. And what happens to them? Lucy goes native and embraces her inner vampire, and summarily gets staked and decapitated as well as the traditional mouth full of garlic. The virtuous Mina, on the other hand, resists Dracula’s influence, hangs on to her day diet, and lives to see the dawn.
What does it mean?
There are several ways of looking at this. If we accept the hypothesis that vampirism is a thinly veiled metaphor for sexuality, then the woman in the book who is more flagrantly sexual is punished. The one who shrinks from sexuality and tries to remain virtuous, is rewarded.
But is this Stoker’s message? If you read his depictions of Dracula’s brides, and of Lucy herself, it’s hard to miss the glamorization of vampire women. Stoker dwells on their physical appearance; the descriptions are very sensuous – they wouldn’t be out of place in a soft-core porn novel. With Mina, on the other hand, the emotional and spiritual is emphasized over the physical; we are barely aware that she is a woman and has a woman’s body. Stoker seems to be firmly condemning woman as Lilith, or devil woman, but really taking his time in describing how tempting she is.
But what really brings his message home to me is the inevitable comparison with how modern horror movies treat the same subject: the sexuality of women. Ever notice that in slasher films the first victims tend to be the promiscuously sexual teen-age girls? The heroine – the one who survives – usually only has one boyfriend (or find one during the movie) and wears more clothes than her soon-to-be-dead friends?
Lucy and Mina – slasher movie archetypes.
revgeorge, you wrote: I found this section of the wikipedia entry on Bram Stoker to be annoying, “Stoker was also sexist by modern standards and strongly opposed to the idea of the New Woman and several of his novels use this as a theme with the danger of assertive woman represented by a Femme fatale.”
I’d like to see this documented in a more legitimate place than Wikipedia. Because, aside from Van Helsing, Mina, the New Woman, is the strongest, most intelligent and courageous character in the book. Enthralled with and employing every modern device that comes her way to defeat Dracula, she is the most equal partner to Van Helsing, far surpassing the male characters. In no way is she a “femme fatale.” Lucy, the lingering gasp of the innocent Victorian damsel, who is overtaken by Dracula, is.
Arabella, you saying that Wikipedia isn’t reliable?
Unfortunately, Wikipedia, while not totally reliable, does represent a sort of common man’s view of things. And it’s that common view of things that I find disturbing; not that scholarly analysis is sometimes so prejudicial either.
I always thought of Mina as a strong woman too, one of the primary characters & movers of the novel. She’s intelligent, perceptive, adaptive to new technology, compassionate, devoted, loving, & most of all, steeled for battle. It is she, after all, that forces the men to vow that they will kill her rather than let her become a monster.
And she is treated with love, respect, devotion, even outright adoration by the group of men, who come to see her as equally their partner in this desperate venture of seeking & destroying Dracula. There’s no indication that they find all these qualities distasteful in her but instead seem to view her as the epitome of womanhood.
As such they cherish her & seek to protect her, as men are wont to do of women they love & adore. At first, yes, because they’re not quite sure she could bear up under the strain of the gruesome business but later, when they know she can, they still endeavor to do so because of what is most noble about them & their calling as men.
Of course, as bad as Wikipedia can be in some aspects, it can be good in others. I found the section under Themes of Dracula to be very interesting & perceptive. It can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula#Themes
Lots of great discussions going on here. There are definitely moments in the story when what might be perceived as “sexism” can be found – when Lucy laments that men are so courageous and wonderful, and why on earth do they put up with cruel and silly women; and how Mina goes on about the courage of the men, and how she, as a woman, couldn’t handle what they handle. (These are paraphrases.) But it’s probably important to remember that while these common-beliefs of the time are found in the diaries of the protagonists, they are undermined by Mina’s tremendous courage and heroism.
The first several chapters, which are Harker’s journal, really are fascinating, revgeorge. Those entries, and several other early comments in the book (like Seward’s willingness to accept hypnotism, but not other “supernatural” ideas) demonstrate some brilliant foreshadowing on Stoker’s part.
Huh, I get a comment by Red Rocker through my email on this post through the automatic subscription but it isn’t on the website yet? Could it be because the ’s’ word is used frequently in Rocker’s post?
It’s a great comment & I want to comment on it but I’ll wait until it shows up here.
Travis, yes, the foreshadowing, whether Stoker is meaning that or not, is great. The fact that rational, men of the scientific age are, one, in Harker’s case confronted with the totally unbelievable but yet real, & in Seward’s case, a man who accepts things that would’ve gotten him burned at the stake a few centuries earlier, i.e. hypnotism, can’t open his mind to get beyond his “scientific” presuppositions regarding the supernatural until it’s staring him in the face.
Van Helsing is brilliant but so simple in fronting Seward up to reality. “Look, John, we put the blood of four strong men into little Miss Lucy. Where’d it all go?!”
revgeorge, look back a few comments. Red Rocker’s was held up a while ago. It came to your email late, after I approved it, but showed up here in chronological order from when the comment was initially made.
Yes, I love the way Van Helsing facilitates Seward’s process of coming to believe in vampires, rather than simply telling him something he wasn’t prepared to believe. In some ways, similar to the Professor with the three disbelieving Pevensie siblings. Belief in Narnia was, after all, logical, given the facts at hand.
Red Rocker, your analysis is fairly decent if vampirism is a thinly veiled metaphor for sexuality. I think it is to a great degree, or at least has become so as the years have gone on.
But I would argue that Lucy “embraces her inner vampire.” I think she is more the victim of the vampire’s cravings. Lucy doesn’t want to be a vampire per se. In fact, some of her final words are to Van Helsing asking him to protect Arthur. So, in none of this do I see her going native as it were. And if there’s anything sexual going on, it is that the vampire is forcing himself on her.
As for Mina, I think she is seen as a woman but quite differently than Lucy, of course. Lucy is beautiful, the daughter of gentry, having spent her life in luxury & being waited upon by others. We don’t know much of her personality beyond that, save that she is gentle, kind, & has some sort of charm about her that impels three men to declare their undying devotion to her all on the same day.
Mina, however, is from working class stock. What she has she earns of her own right. Her fiance, her skills, her position, & eventually just as much love & devotion as had Lucy but given because the men come to see her not just as a woman but as an equal in many ways.
Mina’s sexuality is present but it’s channeled in a way a good Victorian would think proper, into marriage & family. But in Stoker’s novel she’s not denigrated because of that.
Thanks, revgeorge, you elaborated on my position beautifully.
Unlike Lucy, Mina moved beyond the Victorian illusions/restrictions of womanhood, yet is never portrayed as unfeminine. You can almost take the book’s view of women and see its renewed reflection in the feminist revolution of the 60s and 70s, another upheaval in societal definitive norms. Lucy is the passive Victorian, representing the traditional home and hearth female. Mina is the progressive modern, whose intelligence and adventurous spirit drives her to participate in the business world. Yet what both represent is not lessened in the reader’s mind.
Pretty good for an author in transitional times.