Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Stoker, Dracula
>
Week 4 - Dracula, Chapters 12-14
date
newest »
newest »
CHAPTER XIIIDR SEWARD’S DIARY-(continued)
‘She makes a very beautiful corpse, sir. Lucy's beauty in death is mentioned on several occasions.
The doctors continue to act more like conspirators than doctors regarding legal matters relating to lucy and her mother's deaths. We learn that Dr. Van Helsing is also a lawyer, sort of Holmes and Watson rolled into one. Van Helsing informs Dr. Seward he wants to cut off her head and take out her heart after Arthur has come to see it referring to Lucy's body. Van Hesling offers reassurances that rest on some vague unpleasant knowledge he is sparing everyone from and his own reputation as a trusted doctor in the past. The operation does not proceed because the crucifix Van Helsing placed over Lucy's mouth is stolen and now it is too late. I am not sure why it is too late.
MINA HARKER’S JOURNAL
Jonathan and Mina are on their way back from Mr. Hawkins's funeral doing a little Victorian era public display of affection (PDA), i.e., holding hands, and Jonathan spots the man himself! in broad daylight, in the heart of London stalking a pretty girl. Surprise! Dracula walks in the daylight. Mina has some questions, and decides it is time to read Jonathan's journal to find answers to those questions. Does anyone see any issues of xenophobia raised here? Note: Buckingham palace is an 8 min. walk across Green Park, Parliament is about a 25 min. walk away. And how do we reconcile, His face was not a good face; it was hard, and cruel; and sensual… Sensual?
DR SEWARD’S DIARYShameless plug for the American,
What a fine fellow is Quincey! I believe in my heart of hearts that he suffered as much about Lucy’s death as any of us; but he bore himself through it like a moral Viking.Arthur brings up the transfusions, which now seem like a touchy subject. Dr. Seward writes,
When it was all over, we were standing beside Arthur, who, poor fellow, was speaking of his part in the operation where his blood had been transfused to his Lucy’s veins; I could see Van Helsing’s face grow white and purple by turns. Arthur was saying that he felt since then as if they two had been really married, and that she was his wife in the sight of God. None of us said a word of the other operations, and none of us ever shall.Be sure and see the background post on The Flea by John Donne. https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Later, Van Helsing spells out the difficulty to Seward,
‘Just so. Said he not that the transfusion of his blood to her veins had made her truly his bride?’ ‘Yes, and it was a sweet and comforting idea for him.’ ‘Quite so. But there was a difficulty, friend John. If so that, then what about the others? Ho, ho! Then this so sweet maid is a polyandrist, and me, with my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone—even I, who am faithful husband to this now-no-wife, am bigamist.’What is Van Helsing's speech about King Laugh all about?
THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE, 25 SEPTEMBER
Children have gone missing in the night and found the next day with small wounds on their throats. The bloofer lady, baby talk for beautiful lady is added to a roster of other sinister headlines.
CHAPTER XIVMINA HARKER’S JOURNAL
Mina reads Jonathan's journal and rises to the challenge,
I shall be prepared. I shall get my typewriter this very hour and begin transcribing. Then we shall be ready for other eyes if required.Soon after that, Van Helsing and Mina agree to meet.
MINA HARKER’S JOURNAL
Finally there is some sharing of information and Mina is in the middle of it.
JONATHAN HARKER’S JOURNAL
Apparently some stern duty has arisen. Jonathan feels Van Helsing has cured him by confirming the reality of Jonathan's experiences in Transylvania and we see a new, man of action, Jonathan committing to helping Van Helsing.
DR SEWARD’S DIARY
Not only has Jonathan started his journal again, so has Dr. Seward. After a lengthy speech about the limits of science, Van Helsing reveals to Seward that Lucy is the Bloofer Lady.
Now we can have those conversations about vampires making other vampires!
in an earlier chapter Mr. Hawkins write a letter to a moving company instructing them to move some boxes/crates into D. new home. I figured those where the movers.I thought the bat-remark from the American was really brilliant: as all but Van Helsing seem to be in the dark about Lucy's illness, he comes really close. It does raise questions about the blood transfusions though.
I too was puzzled about the crucifix-situation: first of all, I could see why Van Helsing didn't want to disturb Arthur, but if cutting of her head was that important I'd say he should've done that immediately. Again, wouldn't it be better to still cut off her head, although it might be to no avail because the crucifix was removed? Better to have a shot than to be sure she would become a vampire, as Van Helsing seems to have been aware of that.
Then about the victims discussion in the previous thread: are the children to be counted as male or female victims? Or do they make out a whole new category?
I just noticed that Lucy´s wish to be able to marry all three of her proposers actually came true then (with Van Helsing even be an extra)
David wrote: "The operation does not proceed because the crucifix Van Helsing placed over Lucy's mouth is stolen and now it is too late. I am not sure why it is too late..."Maybe because the crucifix acts as a sort of protective barrier. It prevents the dead from becoming the "un-dead". Once that protective barrier is removed, there is nothing to prevent the transformation from taking place. It is too late because the "dead" Lucy has already crossed the barrier and transformed into a vampire.
I like Van Helsing's critique of the limitations of science, i.e. that there are things that cannot be explained scientifically but that doesn't make them any less real. Science dismisses what it can't explain: Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
I also noted him saying this:
Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot?
This ties in with an earlier observation (I think it was made by David) about certain individuals having greater sensitivity than others and seeing/experiencing things that others may be oblivious to--as in the case of Lucy. We are repeatedly told she has a very sensitive nature.
David wrote: "We learn that Dr. Van Helsing is also a lawyer, sort of Holmes and Watson rolled into one...."Stoker was a good friend of Arthur Conan Doyle. Is he trying to emulate Sherlock and Watson?
David wrote: "Van Helsing reveals to Seward that Lucy is the Bloofer Lady. ..."
Finally, Van Helsing is revealing his theory - or at least part of it. Why this secrecy? Was Van Helsing unsure of his theories and preferred to keep it quiet until he was 100% sure? Or maybe he thought that Seward won't believe him without palpable pieces of evidence?
Here's how Van Helsing is explaining his secrecy towards Seward:
"My friend John, when the corn is grown, even before it has ripened, while the milk of its mother earth is in him, and the sunshine has not yet begun to paint him with his gold, the husbandman he pull the ear and rub him between his rough hands, and blow away the green chaff, and say to you, 'Look! He's good corn, he will make a good crop when the time comes.' " . . . The good husbandman tell you so then because he knows, but not till then. But you do not find the good husbandman dig up his planted corn to see if he grow"
The last sentence is really interesting. Digging up a planted corn to see if he grows would probably kill the planted corn. I think Van Helsing considered this case an experiment, and he didn't want to spoil it by revealing the truth too soon.7
Van Helsing described the "Observer effect" in quantum mechanics:
"In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques."
Emil wrote: "I think Van Helsing considered this case an experiment, and he didn't want to spoil it, by revealing the truth too soon..."But revealing his theory to Seward would have had no impact on Lucy. It wouldn't have altered her state, so I don't see why he didn't share his theory.
Quincey shared the information about a vampire bat with Seward, so Seward has one piece of the puzzle. Why doesn't he share it with Van Helsing? Van Helsing has another piece of the puzzle, which he keeps to himself.
If the three of them had shared information, they may have been able to do something constructive to help Lucy. Maybe not. But we'll never know because each one hoards an important piece of the puzzle until it is too late.
Knowledge is power. Shared knowledge is shared power. Are they reluctant to share knowledge because they don't want to dilute their power?
And while all this hoarding of knowledge/power is going on, a young woman is dying.
Tamara wrote: "And while all this hoarding of knowledge/power is going on, a young woman is dying...."I totally agree with you and I think this proves that Van Helsing cared more about this "experiment" than about the dying woman. On the other hand, Seward would have done anything to help Lucy and this may have been a problem for Van Helsing, who wanted to see his "corn" ripe in one way or another.
I think Van Helsing noticed this conflict of interest and kept everything for himself until it was too late for Seward to do anything.
Marieke wrote: "I just noticed that Lucy´s wish to be able to marry all three of her proposers actually came true then (with Van Helsing even be an extra)"Nice observation.
And, by extension, Dracula is now "married" to the lot of them!
Emil wrote: "I totally agree with you and I think this proves that Van Helsing cared more about this "experiment" than about the dying woman..."Maybe Stoker is castigating men of science for how far they are willing to go and who/what they are willing to sacrifice in the name of scientific knowledge.
I also was very frustrated with Van Helsing for beating around the bush for so long in revealing his suspicions/knowledge and he still to this point hasn't come right out and said "vampires". You would think that Seward would have questioned more the reason behind needing to decapitate Lucy and remove her heart!!! I didn't quite get why the removal of the crucifix made a difference in stopping with going forward with that plan. I appreciate Tamara's remarks on that bit.At least in chapter 14 he lays the groundwork for believing in something that seems unbelievable and may not be proved by the science of the day.
As a new vampire is Lucy preying on children because she needs to gain strength and they can more easily be overpowered or seduced?
David queried about the following It will be much difference, mark me, whether she dies conscious or in her sleep. Why? It's a puzzle to me.
Emil wrote: "Tamara wrote: "And while all this hoarding of knowledge/power is going on, a young woman is dying...."I totally agree with you and I think this proves that Van Helsing cared more about this "exp..."
And look who leads the charge of turning the tide on all of this knowledge hording! Mina.
I shall be prepared. I shall get my typewriter this very hour and begin transcribing. Then we shall be ready for other eyes if required.Not only that, Mina reads and shares the jonathan's sealed journal with Van Helsing. The same journal that was delcared
an outward and visible sign for us all our lives that we trusted each other; that I would never open it unless it were for his own dear sake or for the sake of some stern duty.
Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "I just noticed that Lucy´s wish to be able to marry all three of her proposers actually came true then (with Van Helsing even be an extra)"Nice observation."
Yes, Lucy does get her wish. Thus the John Donne poem in the background discussion in which a man is trying to woo a lady by making the case that they are in some way already more than married because their blood has mixed in the flea that has bitten them both.
In these chapters, Stoker underscores this aspect of blood as a sexual bodily fluid.
1. Arthur feels married to Lucy because he donated blood to her.
2. Dr. Seward expresses the guilt of having to keep the secret that he, Van Helsing, and Quincy also donated blood to Lucy, and doesn't find it funny.
3. Van Helsing refers to Lucy as a polyandrist, and himself as a bigamist in the eyes of the church, even though his wife is dead, and has to laugh to protect himself from the tragedy of it all.
4. We also know now why previously Van Helsing kept Dr. Seward from giving as much blood to Lucy than her fiancé did.
It certainly paints Lucy in an unflattering light. What about the other three men? Is it fair?
David wrote: "It certainly paints Lucy in an unflattering light..."Why does it paint Lucy in an unflattering light? She has no control over who donated blood, when it was donated, or why it was donated. She may not even be aware of how many blood transfusions she's had.
It's the men who perceive the blood donation in sexual terms. First you have Seward who describes it with sexual overtones. Then you get Arthur who considers himself married to her because of the mingling of their blood. Then there's Van Helsing who declares her a polyandrist and himself a bigamist.
It seems to me it is the men who are projecting all these sexual overtones to blood transfusions and considering themselves "married" to Lucy. Poor Lucy had nothing to do with any of it. The way I see it, Lucy is being objectified to satisfy their male sexual fantasies. Add to that Dracula who is literally sucking the life blood out of her and what you are left with is a young, helpless woman who is victimized and objectified by men in her life and in her death.
Tamara wrote: "It's the men who perceive the blood donation in sexual terms."I agree. While I think it was a common prejudice of society in general at the time and the male blood donors are the only ones who know of the transfusions to comment on them, it is indeed the men's perspectives we hear from on this matter that paint Lucy as sexually unrestrained, as well as themselves. Does it possibly suggest that equating blood to sex or marriage is absurd and the men are absurd for thinking it? Is that what Van Helsing's King Laugh is all about? And yet, Lucy herself did express her polyandrous wishes in her letter to Mina.
Speaking of Mina, It may be a bit premature in these chapters, but I wonder about Mina's sad but conspicuous absence at this time, and how she fits into this by comparison.
Maybe it also ties in to the other perceptions about the blood and sexually transmitted disease? Recall it was Arthur who called for Dr. Seward to discreetly examine Lucy. Was Arthur's concern strictly for her health, or did a concern for his reputation contribute to his need for Lucy's medical examination, I would like to think the former, but the later must be considered. Arthur was marrying down and these were the days before late 1930's(?) when per-marital blood tests were available and required.
David wrote: "There are many small details in these chapters. What stuck out to you?I'm not the world's most prolific consumer of vampire media, I'm more of a dabbler. And I knew that Dracula is the origin for much subsequent bloodsucker mythology. But I'm still struck by just how much influence it has: every detail so far has come up in at least one other work that I've consumed. A previous detail that came up in a TV show I watched recently was Dracula being able to drive people to despair with his mere presence, as he did on the boat. I'd never seen that before. In this chapter it was Lucy's beauty being restored, even enhanced, though it's quite common that vampires are more attractive than when they were human.
Jen wrote: "In this chapter it was Lucy's beauty being restored, even enhanced, though it's quite common that vampires are more attractive than when they were human."Is there any similarity between Mina's description of Dracula face appearing hard, cruel, and sensual and the comments regarding Lucy's very beautiful corpse?
Tamara wrote: "It seems to me it is the men who are projecting all these sexual overtones to blood transfusions and considering themselves "married" to Lucy..."As far as we know, the blood they donated eventually reached Dracula, Lucy was just a temporary container. Nice for Dracula, he was getting free refills, but how about our four gentlemen? According to their theory, they are married to Dracula as well. *grinning from ear to ear*
Emil wrote: "Nice for Dracula, he was getting free refills, but how about our four gentlemen? According to their theory, they are married to Dracula as well."Free refills. I love it. Can we count the four men among Dracula's male victims, at least indirectly?
David wrote: "Can we count the four men among Dracula's male victims, at least indirectly?.."I'm not sure we can.
Dracula went after Lucy and might not even be aware she has had all those blood transfusions from male donors. Also, wasn't he gawking at a beautiful young woman when Mina first sees him? Maybe Dracula only goes after the blood of beautiful young women. He selects Lucy as his victim, not Mina. We are told repeatedly about Lucy's great beauty whereas Mina, presumably, is lacking in that department.
Tamara wrote: "He selects Lucy as his victim, not Mina. We are told repeatedly about Lucy's great beauty whereas Mina, presumably, is lacking in that department."I get the sense that Lucy was the more beautiful of the two but I would not conclude Mina is lacking in the beauty department. It does seem Dracula have a preferences for female victims. It is also good to keep in mind Lucy was much more accessible to Dracula than Mina because of Lucy's sensitive nature and did her sleep-walking around her favorite spot, the grave of the suicide where Dracula was probably hiding and the site of the first attack. I say probably hiding, for now, because of the dog barking at the seat on the suicide's grave that started whimpering after coming into contact with it.
Tamara wrote: "I like Van Helsing's critique of the limitations of science, i.e. that there are things that cannot be explained scientifically but that doesn't make them any less real. Science dismisses what it c..."These quotations really jumped out at me, too. Worth slowing down and really thinking about, beyond the bounds of this text. I'm thinking, for example, of western medicine's refusal to accept much of eastern medicine because it can't explain it and would therefore prefer to set aside treatments that work but don't fall within its established boundaries.
Tamara wrote: "Emil wrote: "I think Van Helsing considered this case an experiment, and he didn't want to spoil it, by revealing the truth too soon..."But revealing his theory to Seward would have had no impact..."
I think there's another possible explanation for all this knowledge-hoarding: It's a literary device intended to heighten suspense for the reader. But it doesn't work very well because it's not credible that the characters wouldn't share what they know, or at least do so sooner.
Tamara wrote: "Emil wrote: "I think Van Helsing considered this case an experiment, and he didn't want to spoil it, by revealing the truth too soon..."And
Tamara: It's a literary device intended to heighten suspense for the reader. But it doesn't work very well because it's not credible that the characters wouldn't share what they know, or at least do so sooner.
I detect in your tone that VH sees Lucy as just an experiment. But he is very sympathetic to the live Lucy. "Dear" "dear" everyone is "dear" He's a warm guy, but that does not mean sentimental.
I think VH is a two-brained guy: On one hand, he is the ultimate reasoning man, everything is an experiment until it's proven. He is a man of Reason. And thus he uses a rational argument with Seward, and with us, to suggest there are things unproven; he uses a Socratic dialectic, reasoning with him.
But VH does not thereby demean Lucy. He constantly refers to her in endearing terms. Only now he knows she is no longer "Lucy", but something else.
His other brain, which would be rare to find in the man of science, knows "supernatural" things. But in reasoning with Seward, he is also reasoning with the reader, going from hypnotism and Charcot, scientist, to the possibility of telepathy.
I agree that it also serves as a literary device. It is to make a switch. The reader has been shown all the clues to figure this out, we shall have dramatic irony because we know. But our characters do not.
The first puzzle was to figure this out or to have our suspicions established. Now the emerging puzzle, the suspense of the reader, is when will our characters figure it out. Stoker does not let them put it together yet so we have time for this suspense for the reader to build and we'll all come together, the characters and the reader.
Just guessing on that, but maybe that happens at the end of the second act, and the third act would call for some action to reconcile the Harker story. Maybe.
Then I would just add a historical note about science at that time:
I would edit this sentence:
Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
"It is the fault of our science, that it believes it has explained it all;
there is nothing left to explain."
In 1897 the weight of science was such that in academic realms everything was in our grasp. If something is left unexplained, it soon would be.
But this mainstream Scientific view was experiencing a paradigm shift that was not yet recognized. Not only was Freud and the Unconscious about to explode, but also relativity in 1905.
These events in the realms of Science were not in the public view. The substance of Science was not known by the person-on-the-street, only insofar as it was thought to contest Religion. It was visible only in the remarkable Technological progress which could be observed.
Upon closer reading the professor's speech is not on the limitations of science. It would be pretty silly for Van Helsing to criticize science for what it does not know and then then use science to prove something unknown, i.e., his vampire hypothesis. The speech starts like an argument from ignorance, a fallacy, with all of the, why questions, that cannot be answered. In theological arguments this is known as the "god of the gaps" fallacy, in which god fills in all the gaps that science has not explained, as yet. So this would be a vampire of the gaps argument, except the characters, including Van Helsing conclusively so, have been gathering the evidence needed to prove a vampire is attacking them, they just need to start sharing it.Sherlock Holmes stated Van Helsing's argument more succinctly when he said,
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must be the truth?Van Helsing is working very hard to remove prejudices against vampirism as a valid diagnosis, as well as brace people for the terror that comes along with the acknowledgement of it; he wisely seems to accept that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If he had come out and stated his hypothesis without some scientific demonstrations first, he would have ruined his reputation and lost an ally.
Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Complete Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of the Four. Simon & Schuster UK. Kindle Edition.
Yes more and more, VH is the Holmesian (Not the Arthur Homewood).
David wrote: "Van Helsing is working very hard to remove prejudices against vampirism as a valid diagnosis, as well as brace people for the terror that comes along with the acknowledgement of it; he wisely seems to accept that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. .."I’m sorry, but I see Van Helsing in a far less positive light.
He already has a very strong suspicion about what is happening or he would not have scattered garlic all over Lucy’s room and around her neck to protect her. He also places the crucifix on her lips to prevent her from becoming a vampire. It seems to me he already knows quite a bit but decides to keep it to himself until it is too late.
David wrote: "If he had come out and stated his hypothesis without some scientific demonstrations first, he would have ruined his reputation and lost an ally.
Doesn’t that prove my point? Isn’t he more concerned with proving his hypothesis, demonstrating evidence, and protecting his reputation than with saving the girl? Her condition is deteriorating even after three blood transfusions. The situation is desperate. Time is of the essence. Why not share his very strong suspicion with Seward and others on what must be done and, importantly, why it must be done to save the girl, including the role of garlic and the crucifix, before it is too late? Or does his concern for reputation and scientific evidence take priority over the girl’s life?
He may not have all the evidence he needs to prove his hypothesis. But he certainly has a very strong suspicion. Surely the situation calls for some drastic measures. Surely this is hardly the time to be worrying about reputation and gathering evidence.
Now that the girl is dead and has turned into a vampire, I guess he has all the evidence he needs.
So VH is a kind of elderly and a bit senile version of Holmes? Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
He's not ranting against science in general, but against "our science", against his fellow scientists who are discrediting new ideas too easily.
The scientific method does not reject the supernatural but tries to explain it. Once the supernatural is being explained, it automatically ceases to be supernatural. I think that's what VH is trying to do.
Tamara wrote: "I’m sorry, but I see Van Helsing in a far less positive light. . .It seems to me he already knows quite a bit but decides to keep it to himself until it is too late."Stated in a most passive voice. . .mistakes are made. Some of the characters themselves comment on this subject in future chapters.
By the way, I get the sense most of the criticism of the choices and actions and behavior of the characters is not due to mistakes made by the Stoker, but perceived as mistakes by the characteristics and motivations of the characters themselves. If that is the case I have to say I am loving this discussion. :)
David wrote: "By the way, I get the sense most of the criticism of the choices and actions and behavior of the characters is not due to mistakes made by the Stoker, but perceived as mistakes by the characteristi..."I agree.
David wrote: "If that is the case I have to say I am loving this discussion. :).."
Me, too! I would never have suspected Dracula could offer such a veritable feast for an interesting discussion.
Re-emphasizing my explanation that Stoker wants us to be as frustrated as we are turning out to be. It is for the readers' "benefit" that VH is withholding. The suspense and the anxiety. WE know what VH knows. So that makes our suspense about, when will he spill the beans. It adds a layer for us.Do you see how we are holding emotions for the characters? And our emotions are real, in the present immediacy of our reading lamps. Hey, these are just written characters in a book! Aint Reading grand!
Also, I think if he had told even Seward about what he knows, it would be very realistic for them to dismiss the old goat as a crackpot and discredit him.
Another also: VH using all the anti-vampire tricks which keep getting defused are more signs that D is really THe Dark Prince whom if he can manipulate the storms can easily outwit even the wiliest of the human fools. And these undoings of the snares push us to increasingly wish VH to tell them already.
I agree with Tamara that the unsuspecting little tale gives us a surprisingly good workout.
1897. There would be good scientists like VH who have a wide-open view of the possibilities in the universe, and bad, overconfident scientists who own the establishment and protect their professions (and their jobs).
Sam wrote: "Also, I think if he had told even Seward about what he knows, it would be very realistic for them to dismiss the old goat as a crackpot and discredit him..."OK, fair enough. The farther I read, the more I agree that the suspense is working, at least to some extent. I think the other problem I'm having is putting myself in the shoes of an earlier reader who hasn't been overexposed to this story. For example, the last line of chapter 14 wasn't news to me, but I did recognize it as a brilliant reveal for a reader who was still putting pieces together!
Emile wrote: So VH is a kind of elderly and a bit senile version of Holmes? Why would you interpret VH's thinking or actions as senile? Although I got frustrated with him in not revealing his thinking earlier, I see what others are saying about this being a literary device to heighten the suspense for the reader; I think his actions have been methodical and measured-not senile in the least!
Kathy wrote: "...the last line of chapter 14 wasn't news to me, but I did recognize it as a brilliant reveal for a reader who was still putting pieces together! "I wonder if we have any members out there without a lot of experience with the story who can speak to these surprise reveals? If so, I'd love to hear from them. I almost wish I had not read Dracula until now, but I know I would be kicking myself for not reading it sooner.
This is actually my first reading of it. But the story is so universally "known" that my discovery isn't the same as that of a reader who had never heard of the story before and/or didn't know much about vampire lore. I wonder if such a reader even exists today!
Tamara wrote: "David wrote: "By the way, I get the sense most of the criticism of the choices and actions and behavior of the characters is not due to mistakes made by the Stoker, but perceived as mistakes by the...Me, too! I would never have suspected Dracula could offer such a veritable feast for an interesting discussion.
"
Following with interest, much more so than if I'd read alone, I think I just would have been frustrated with all that withholding and as Kathy & Susanna have suggested, the literary device to build tension.
As Kathy wrote: the story is so universally "known" that my discovery isn't the same as that of a reader who had never heard of the story before and/or didn't know much about vampire lore "
I think that through our prior knowledge we are likely more frustrated than the reader at the time, who may still think, regarding the Van Helsing holding back his knowledge, as present day Tamara wrote: "I’m sorry, but I see Van Helsing in a far less positive light. . .It seems to me he already knows quite a bit but decides to keep it to himself until it is too late."
But then "David wrote: vampire of the gaps argument." and the ensuing enjoyable discussions do a lot to put the withholding of information into perspective regarding the characters and their scientific non- superstitious bent.
DR SEWARD’S DIARY
I wonder how much longer it will take the medical establishment to realize transfusions are better done without the consumption of alcohol? Lucy receives her fourth transfusion, this time from Quncey. The American not only correctly guesses most of the secret events that have been occurring but compares Lucy's condition to a horse he had to put down from loss of blood to a vampire bat and asks the practical question, what is taking the blood out of Lucy. Later in in her sleep, Lucy hypnotically attempts to tear up her memorandum detailing the previous evening's attack. Dr. Seward also notices changes in Lucy's breathing and appearance, including her teeth appearing sharper which is probably due to her receding gums; our first clue Lucy is becoming a vampire. Sadly Dr. Seward realizes she will not last another day.
TWO LETTERS, MINA HARKER TO LUCY WESTENRA - (Unopened by her.)
Unopened letters are never a good sign. Mina and Jonathan return to Exeter under the care of Jonathan's employer, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins dies suddenly leaving everything to the young couple. Did Mr. Hawkins die of natural causes, or is Dracula covering his tracks, still unaware Jonathan has escaped and returned to London?
REPORT FROM PATRICK HENNESSEY…
Renfield gets into an altercation with some movers taking boxes from Carfax. The movers are persuaded to keep quiet about the incident with alcohol, but the moving company they work for is noted. I wonder where those boxes are going?
DR SEWARD’S DIARY
Even in the 1890's people seemed to die in threes. Arthur's Father, Lucy's Mother, and now, Lucy. A bat is seen outside the window. Lucy clutches the garlic when she is conscious, and pushes them away when she becomes lethargic and labors to breathe. The marks on her throat have disappeared. What do you think Van Helsing means when he says, Van Helsing forcefully prevents Arthur from kissing Lucy. When Lucy calms down she asks Van HelsingSeward notes that in death her beauty has somehow returned and Van Helsing mysteriously says that now things are only beginning.
There are many small details in these chapters. What stuck out to you?