Quotation:
“As usual Van Helsing had thought ahead of everyone else, and was prepared with an exact ordering of our work. […] in all probability, he does not know that such a power exists to us as can sterilize his lairs, so that he cannot use them as of old. We are now so much further advanced in our knowledge as to their disposition, that, when we have examined the house in Piccadilly, we may track the very last of them. […] He is confined within the limitations of his earthly envelope. […] And so we have this day to hunt out all his lairs and sterilize them.” (255)
Comment:
I find it interesting that Van Helsing always has a well-thought-out plan for dealing with vampires while all of the other characters seem almost oblivious to some of the most basic vampire principles. I talked a little bit about this in my commonplace book last week, but the legend of the vampire had been around long before Stoker even considered writing Dracula, so it feels odd that the majority of the characters have little to no frame of reference when it comes to this topic. Meanwhile, Van Helsing, who just happened to be called by Dr. Seward about Lucy’s condition, knows exactly what is going on, presumably from the start, and how to handle every situation that arises because of it. Even though Seward explained that Van Helsing is a professor who is educated in a wide range of subjects, if no one else had any interest in the topic of vampires, what would make Van Helsing decide this was a necessary area of study?
Question:
Why is Van Helsing the only person who seems to know anything about how to keep vampires away and how to kill them? Why does he have this information in the first place? What does this have to do with Stoker’s intentions for his novel?
Quotation:
“Of one thing only am I certain: that it is no use making my ideas known to the Count. He knows well that I am imprisoned; and as he has done it himself, and has doubtless his own motives for it, he would only deceive me if I trusted him fully with the facts. So far as I can see, my only plan will be to keep my knowledge and my fears to myself, and my eyes open. I am, I know, either being deceived, like a baby, by my own fears, or else I am in desperate straits; and if the latter be so, I need, and shall need, all my brains to get through.” (32)
Comment:
This quote highlights one of the most horrific moments of monster stories for me, which is when the main character realizes the danger they’re in with no one to help them except themself. Based on Cohen’s first thesis, which is that the monster’s body is a cultural one, I see Jonathan’s realization as mirroring the fears of Victorian readers. At this point, I’m still uncertain what fear Count Dracula himself represents, but it’s clear that readers didn’t want to be trapped in that situation, most likely in the figurative sense. In thinking back to The Beetle, which was released around the same time as Dracula, I know that a lot of Victorian people had a fear of foreign cultures. I think it’s possible that Dracula stems from the same fear, but was simply illustrated using the more abstract form of vampires. This form, I believe, is what made Dracula more well-known than its competitor because it didn’t choose an existing culture to be feared, which made its fear more relatable to a wider audience over time.
Question:
What cultural fear was Stoker actually drawing from when he wrote Dracula?
Quotation:
“‘If you think it necessary, by all means follow to see where he goes,–you are sure to meet somebody whom you will be able to send before you have gone very far.’
‘I suppose I shall.–You won’t mind being left alone?’
‘Why should I?–I’m not a child.’
[…]‘If I don’t make haste I shall lose him. I’ll do as you suggest–dispatch the first individual I come across to hold watch and ward with you.’
[…]I waved my hand to him. I watched him till he reached the end of the road. Turning, he waved his hand to me. Then he vanished, as Mr. Holt had done.
And I was alone.” (227-228)
Comment:
This quote was a conversation between Marjorie Linden and Sydney Atherton when they were at the house Robert Holt initially broke into. Something I’ve noticed is that this story contains a lot of the elements of horror that have become cliche in modern monster stories. Most notably is the fact that ‘The Beetle’ is a mystical, shapeshifting entity that can control minds, but another common trope, which is represented in this quote, is a group of people who split up in the monster’s lair. I recognize that this is probably one of the first monster stories that contain this trope, but even still, it just seems unrealistic. Based on my limited knowledge of the time period, and knowing about Sydney’s initial reluctance to bring Marjorie along, it seems doubtful that he would leave her behind in a decrepit house that is likely the source of all the weird happenings that have been going on.
Question:
Is there any logical explanation for where this trope came from? Has it ever been used in a way that stays true to the story it’s used in?
Quotation:
“He is a devil,–hard as the granite rock,–cold as the snows of Ararat. In him there is none of life’s warm blood,–he is accursed! He is false,–ay, false as the fables of those who lie for love of lies,–he is all treachery. Her whom he has taken to his bosom he would put away from him as if she had never been,–he would steal from her like a thief in the night,–he would forget she ever was! But the avenger follows after, lurking in the shadows, hiding among the rocks, waiting, watching, till his time shall come. And it shall come!–the day of the avenger!–ay, the day!” (64)
Comment:
This quote comes from chapter 5, “An Instruction to Commit Burglary,” when the strange creature that Robert Holt was mesmerized by explains why Holt was to steal from Paul Lessingham. This explanation is very vague, essentially just stating that he is a bad person. Other characters also have a dislike for Lessingham, and it seems like they all have similar reasons for feeling this way: Marjorie Lindon. Every character that hates Paul Lessingham does so because they don’t want him to marry Marjorie either because they want to marry her, as in Mr. Atherton, or because they don’t want her to get caught up in his politics, like Marjorie’s father. The way Lessingham’s horridness is talked about in such an nondescript way suggests that every character already knows how he got to be this way, and that there is no need for the reader to question it, though I feel that is exactly what we are supposed to do. Also, everyone’s behavior thus far makes me wonder if Lessingham is actually as bad as everyone says or if they are all just upset about the marriage.
Question:
What, if anything, did Paul Lessingham do to be called “a devil” and what does this have to do with him marrying Marjorie Lindon?
Quotation:
“The ugly and the stupid have the best of it in this world. They can sit at their ease and gape at the play. If they know nothing of victory, they are at least spared the knowledge of defeat. They live as we all should live, undisturbed, indifferent, and without disquiet. Then neither bring ruin upon others, nor ever receive it from alien hands. Your rank and wealth, Harry; my brains, such as they are – my art, whatever it may be worth; Dorian Gray’s good looks – we shall all suffer for what the gods have given us, suffer terribly.” (46)
Comment:
This quote by Basil stands in stark contrast to Lord Henry’s beliefs that beauty and youth are the most important aspects of life and that these qualities are superior to intellect. It feels like Basil is trying to warn Lord Henry that it hurts more than it helps to have beauty, wealth, or intelligence because those who have these things rely too much on them and those who don’t will try to exploit you for them. This is an incredibly rational way of thinking which is interesting because Lord Henry is the one who feels strongly about science and philosophy, not Basil. I feel like this warning may come up again because Lord Henry doesn’t seem to be taking it very seriously as he goes on the same tangent that precedes this quote with Dorian in the garden. I get the impression that Basil may act as a voice of reason because his dialogue and actions are distinctly reserved in comparison to Lord Henry and Dorian.
Question:
Is this quote foreshadowing how The Picture of Dorian Gray ends, or in other words, will we see each character meet their downfall as a result of their apparent “good” qualities?
Quotation:
“Henry Jekyll stood at times aghast before the acts of Edward Hyde; but the situation was apart from ordinary laws, and insidiously relaxed the grasp of conscience. It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty. Jekyll was no worse; he woke again to his good qualities seemingly unimpaired; he would even make haste, where it was possible, to undo the evil done by Hyde. And thus his conscience slumbered.” (81)
Comment:
Dr. Jekyll starts off this chapter by noting his goodness of character, which should make him the more morally sound half of the title pair, but this quote suggests that Jekyll isn’t either of those things. Since Jekyll is Hyde and is aware of Hyde’s actions, the ignorance Jekyll feigns when confronted with his other half’s activities is an allowance to Hyde’s evil. In other words, if Jekyll was really an upstanding member of his community who abhorred Hyde’s evil ways, he shouldn’t have been okay knowing the Hyde was causing pain and suffering. I think when Jekyll first became Hyde, all of the negative and evil tendencies in Jekyll were concentrated in this new form, but I don’t think Jekyll himself ever eliminated those urges. It wasn’t like Hyde was a new body that Jekyll created, but rather it was another side of Jekyll that was pent up in his same body and mind. All of the bad that existed in Hyde would also still exist in Jekyll, but Jekyll didn’t realize that that side of him was in control until it was too late.
Question:
Was Jekyll influenced by Hyde to find justifications for his darker side’s actions or was this of Jekyll’s own volition? What does this say about Jekyll’s character before Hyde came to be?
Quotation:
When Jane seeks Mr. Rochester out at Ferndean Manor, knowing he is blind, she tells Mary “When you go in [to Mr. Rochester’s parlor], […] tell your master that a person wishes to speak to him: but do not give my name” (533). Mary does as Jane requests and returns to her relaying that Mr. Rochester wants to know “your name and your business.” Jane doesn’t submit to this request, but she notices Mary preparing a tray of candles and water for Mr. Rochester and says “Give the tray to me: I will carry it in.” Jane proceeds to pretend she is Mary until Mr. Rochester, hearing commotion upon Jane entering the parlor asks “This is you, Mary, is it not?” to which Jane replies “Mary is in the kitchen” (534).
Comment:
I thought this scene was interesting because it has some similarities to when Mr. Rochester tricked Jane by dressing up as a fortune teller. The most obvious similarity is that they each pretended to be someone they weren’t in order to gauge the other’s reaction. When Mr. Rochester acted as a fortune teller, he was trying to get Jane to reveal if she had feelings for him because he wouldn’t have reliably been able to do so as her master. Similarly, Jane acted as Mary which was to get her close enough to Mr. Rochester to find out if he still cared for her. I think it’s important to note that both events shifted the power dynamic within the duo: Mr. Rochester made himself a figure that Jane would have no problem revealing her secrets to, giving him more power in the relationship then, while Jane got the upper hand in this scene by catching Mr. Rochester off guard by relying on his blindness to avoid immediate detection.
Question:
Jane becomes much stronger and more independent after she leaves Thornfield, so I wonder if Mr. Rochester hadn’t been blinded, would Jane have held as much of the power in their relationship when she eventually returned to him?
Quotation:
“Whitcross is no Town, nor even a hamlet; it is but a stone pillar set up where four roads meet: white-washed, I suppose, to be more obvious at a distance and in darkness. Four arms spring from its summit: the nearest town to which these point is, according to the inscription, distant ten miles; the farthest, above twenty. From the well-known names of these towns I learned in what county I have lighted; a north-midland shire, dusk with moorland, ridged with mountain: this I see. There are great moors behind and on each hand of me; there waves of mountains far beyond that deep valley at my feet. The population here must be thin, and I see no passengers on these roads: they stretch out east, west, north and south – white, broad, lonely; they are all cut in the moor, and the heather grows deep and wild to their very verge.” (414)
Comment:
Whitcross is an interesting location because it acts as a literal crossroads for Jane. On one hand, she could return the way she came and give in to the love she still has for Mr. Rochester despite the news of Bertha Mason, or she can take any of the other paths which will take her to new places where she can start over again. Whitcross seems to be a reflection of Jane: the mountains around her represent how she is closing herself off from her past and the lack of people shows how alone she is in the world. Despite these qualities, both in herself and the landscape, Jane persists, which I think may demonstrate how much she thrives on adventure, even if it was forced upon her by the unhappy circumstances at Thornfield. Even though it pained her to leave Mr. Rochester and her other friends, she determined it had to be done, and I think that fact that this was a new experience for Jane made the decision bearable.
Question:
Jane decides not to go back to Thornfield, but she left so quickly that the tension there doesn’t seem resolved. Is there going to be a resolution, and how will it fit in with the new life Jane chose for herself?
Out of the three QCQs I read, two focused on the scene where Mr. Rochester pretends to be a fortune teller and both QCQs questioned his motives and reasoning for doing so. Because of my own QCQ where I discussed Jane’s nonconformity, I started thinking about the expectations of different social classes and how they affect the characters. In regards to Jane, she can get away with a lot because she doesn’t quite fit into a social class, but it’s important to remember that she was raised as if she was of lower standing and portrays herself in this way. This relates to Mr. Rochester’s fortune-telling because he comes from a higher standing than Jane, which makes her less likely to reveal her true self to him and he could have used the ruse as a way to get her to open up to him. It’s interesting to think about the role that social class plays in the interactions between characters and I think I’ll be keeping a closer eye out for it as I read further.
Quotation:
After leaving Lowood, Jane finds herself at Thornfield, where she is the governess to Adele, a young French girl. Upon getting settled into her new position, Jane critiques the idea that “human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquility,” suggesting that “they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.” She further says “women feel just as men feel,” and that “they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, to absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags.” (178)
Comment:
Throughout the book, we’ve seen that Jane doesn’t conform to society’s expectations of women as she is consistently outspoken. In this section, we’re also beginning to see this nonconformity in the sense that she is not content to stay settled in one place, and that she is drawn to peculiarity. The above commentary on the human desire for adventure, especially coming from a woman, is intriguing because Jane acknowledges that she is an exception to her society’s commonly held beliefs regarding men versus women and their wants. Additionally, coming from Brontë, this likely would have been a controversial viewpoint at the time, making this all the more impactful as it would have sparked a larger conversation about the similarities between men and women in her era.
Question:
Despite Jane not always adhering to the expectations set forth for women, she rarely suffers any consequences. So, what is the actual importance of these expectations during this time period? Is it possible that Jane is excused from following these rules because she doesn’t come from high society?
Quotation:
In Martin Willis’ article about how Frankenstein shaped the opinion of Victorian medicine and science, he talks about how the story was weaponized against scientific communities. He notes that “When the institutions of science are criticised, Victor is the unfortunate victim of error. When individual colleagues are being marked out, Victor is the overbearing madman destined for failure. The flexibility of the metaphor is certainly one reason for its continual use. It is equally telling, nevertheless, that the creature is exclusively employed in metaphors aimed at organisational structures and decision-making” (Willis 10).
Comment:
One of the reasons why Frankenstein has had such a negative impact on the medical and scientific fields is because of its ambiguity; that is depending on which parts of the story you emphasize, the true “monster” could be Victor or the creature. Historically, as Willis discussed, the comparison to Frankenstein proposed an either/or relationship, that is either Victor, the scientist, or the creature, representing the entire scientific community was the monster. However, it seems like those who criticize medicine and science now, even if they don’t explicitly mention Frankenstein, are looking to villainize both sides simultaneously. This trend can be seen as recently as the Covid-19 pandemic, where people who are against vaccination are attempting to create a monster out of the individual scientists working on vaccines and the scientific community as a whole that is allowing vaccine research to take place. Though I haven’t seen anyone reference Frankenstein in debates about vaccines, fear is often a running theme in these conversations, and as we know from Cohen, monsters regularly arise from fear.
Question:
Since monster stories are frequently ambiguous, and this characteristic enhances the reader’s experience with the monster, how do authors maintain this in their writing?
Quotation:
“How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch from with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same color as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips.” (Shelley 59-60)
Comment/Connection:
This passage comes when Victor Frankenstein is finally successful in his attempts to bring life to an inanimate form. As he tries to figure out how he feels about his creation, Victor grapples with the creature’s outward appearance, juxtaposing its ‘beautiful’ features with its more corpse-like qualities. Almost immediately, he realizes that despite his desire to create something as beautiful as life, he has taken his experimentation too far and has done an unspeakable thing. I think this mirrors how Victor feels about the pursuit of knowledge because he highly values his studies, but in engaging with the subjects that most interest him, he allows himself to get carried away. This quite often causes him harm, especially if he neglects his health, such as when he is trying to reanimate the dead. I think it’s also important to note the parallels between Victor’s and his creature’s appearances, but I’m unsure what meaning can be ascribed to their similarities.
Question:
How does the relationship between the monster and its creator affect how we as the reader interpret the story? When the monster and its creator share certain likenesses, where do we draw the line between the two?
A contemporary monster that is interesting to me is a creature known as a Goatman, which, as the name suggests, is a half-man half-goat hybrid. It’s categorized as a cryptid, like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, and there are different, distinct legends surrounding it depending on where the story takes place. Goatman legends have sprung up in Maryland, Louisiana, and two locations in Texas, but the most intriguing to me is the origin of the Goatman that supposedly resides on the Old Alton Bridge which connects Denton and Copper Canyon, Texas. It’s said that there was a man named Oscar Washburn, who was a black goat farmer living in the now-defunct town of Alton, Texas during the late 1930s. He ran a very successful business, but not everyone was happy about this, including several Klansmen who decided to take matters into their own hands. They kidnapped Oscar and attempted to hang him from the Old Alton Bridge, but when looked down to see if the goat farmer was dead, he was nowhere to be found. According to local legend, the Goatman will appear on the bridge if you cross after dark without lights, you may be grabbed or touched, and objects may be thrown at you.
This particular story of a Goatman parallels the idea from Cohen’s “Thesis IV: The Monster Dwells at the Gate of Difference.” This thesis states that monsters are born out of fear and intolerance for people who are unlike you. Out of all the differences between human beings, Cohen notes that race has played a large role in the creation of monsters: “From the classical period into the twentieth century, race has been almost as powerful a catalyst to the creation of monsters as culture, gender, and sexuality. Africa early became the West’s significant other, the sign of its ontological difference simply being skin color. […] These differences were quickly moralized through a pervasive rhetoric of deviance. Paulinus of Nola, a wealthy landowner turned early church homilist, explained that the Ethiopians had been scorched by sin and vice rather than by the sun, and the anonymous commentator to Theodulus’s influential Ecloga (tenth century) succinctly glossed the meaning of the word Ethyopium: ‘Ethiopians, that is, sinners. Indeed, sinners can rightly be compared to Ethiopians, who are black men presenting a terrifying appearance to those beholding them.’” (Cohen 10) Prejudice based on race (as well as other social categorizations like religion and sexuality) creates monsters out of entire groups of people and this is seen in the legend of the Goatman on the Old Alton Bridge. The legend quite literally demonizes a black man, turning him from a respectable member of his community into an animal hybrid with evil intentions. This legend could represent a white person’s feelings towards black men at the time the story was created, possibly a fear that black members of their community might turn on them. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever know the reasoning behind the Goatman legend because no one knows how it got started. This leads me to the question of how fears and anxieties turn into monsters? Are the writers who create monsters aware of what their creatures symbolize or can that only be realized upon reflection?
