Readings
for this week:
M
9: Stoker, Dracula,
Chs.24-27 (pp.311-369)
W
11: Scenes from the Coppola film, Bram
Stoker's Dracula
F
13: Sol Elitis' essay (pp.450-465)
Answer
ONE of the following
1.
Examine the power dynamic between Mina and the Vampire Hunters
throughout the final chapters of the novel. Though Van Helsing has
reluctantly agreed to let Mina back into the fold after her attack,
he continues to keep her in the dark about several matters.
Ultimately, he has cause to regret this, as he admits on page 347,
"Our dear Madam Mina is once more our teacher. Her eyes have
seen where we were blinded." Is Stoker claiming that Mina is
the
hero of the work...or is she merely a tool that needs male guidance
to work?
2.
Throughout the final chapters of the work, Van Helsing insists that
Dracula has a "child brain," or at least not a fully "human
brain." What does he mean by this, and how does it tie into the
then-modern science of criminology? Consider page 335, when Van
Helsing says, "The criminal has not full man-brain. He is
clever and cunning and resourceful; but he be not of man-stature as
to brain."
3.
According to Sos Eltis' essay, how does Dracula (the vampire)
represent aspects of contemporary English society? Though he can
also represent the exotic, decadent 'East,' how might his true
personalities be linked to anxieties closer to home? Consider her
discussion of the New Woman and modern novelists such as Mary
Corelli.
4.
How does Eltis examine the role of masculinity in the novel, and how
the Vampire Hunters attempt to reassert the "proper order of
things"? Does she feel Stoker is reactionary in his depictions
of gender...or does he admit that being a man, itself, is open to
interpretation in late Victorian England?
Short
Paper #3: Staging Dracula
For this
assignment, I want you to choose a specific scene from Dracula:
it can be a longer one (a few pages), but no more than a chapter.
Then I want you to write a short paper on how you would adapt
this scene for a modern production of Dracula.
Consider that no film can show the book exactly as it is, since we
automatically "see" the book differently than its ideal
audience of 1897. You want to keep the spirit of the original
intact, while projecting your personal interpretation
of the passage. So your paper
should be (a) an explanation of what 'theory' or interpretation you
would want us to see in the adaptation, and (b) a close
reading of key passages that
explain how you would "read" them in your film.
As you do
this, consider the following ideas:
* What
theory would
shape your interpretation of the scene? Are you approaching this
from a Freudian/Psychoanalytic perspective (the uncanny, taboo,
etc.)? Or are you more interested in aspects of Gender? Make sure
we understand your approach and what you want people to "see"
when they watch this scene.
* What
aspects of the scene would be hard to film or show in a different
medium (outside the text)? How would you capture the narration in
this passage (a diary, letter, etc.)? What might you have alter or
tweak to get the right effect?
* How might
you instruct your actors to interpret their roles? What kind of Mina
would you want the actress to project? Or Van Helsing, Dracula,
Harker, etc.?
* Where do
you stand on Dracula as a metaphor for 19th century English society,
or Dracula as a 'modern' horror for the 21st century? Do you want to
emphasize the work as a piece of history ("this is what it felt
like to be in 1890's England") or as a piece of living
literature ("this is why Dracula is still relevant today")?
You might also consider updating the passage/story to the modern era
as is often done with Shakespeare.
REQUIREMENS
* 3-4
pages, double spaced
* No
outside sources, but you MUST quote from Dracula
and engage in a close reading
of your passage--do not summarize what happens (the plot); show us
why and
how it
unfolds
* Due next
Monday, April 16th IN CLASS. We will discuss these adaptations in
class, so if you miss your paper is LATE (unless for an excused
reason).
2. Throughout the final chapters of the work, Van Helsing insists that Dracula has a "child brain," or at least not a fully "human brain." What does he mean by this, and how does it tie into the then-modern science of criminology? Consider page 335, when Van Helsing says, "The criminal has not full man-brain. He is clever and cunning and resourceful; but he be not of man-stature as to brain."
ReplyDeleteLike a child, Dracula has a single-minded devotedness to whatever he is doing. Van Helsing and Mina tie this in with his past venture to invade Turkey on pages 335 and on 337. Van Helsing concentrates on how Dracula kept coming back and coming back and Mina speak of how Dracula sacrificed whatever he could to be safe, ‘leaving his forces to be cut to pieces’. They arrive at the conclusion that Dracula is, at his core, a selfish being. Van Helsing speaks of this on 335-336:
‘There is a peculiarity in criminals. It is so constant, in all countries and at all times, that even police, who know not much from philosophy, come to know it empirically, that it is… the true criminal who seems predestinate to crime, ad who will of none other. This criminal has not full man-brain. He is clever and cunning and resourceful; but he be not of man-stature as to brain.’
Van Helsing recognizes that Dracula is driven by, in both life and undeath, selfishness. He realizes also that, ‘in a difficulty he has to seek resource in habit.’ (336)
It is finally, and explicitly, said on 337,’Then, as he is criminal he is selfish; and as his intellect is small and his action is based on selfishness, he confines himself to one purpose. That purpose is remorseless.’
Criminology is the study of crimes and criminals. Rarely is this parted with motive and the study of why the criminal does the things he or she does. Even in the modern time, this is a basis for criminologists.
A resolution for the ‘Dracula Problem’ is finally reached, somewhat, on 337.
‘But his child-mind only saw so far; and it may be that, as ever is in God’s Providence, the very thing that the evil doer most reckoned on for his selfish good, turns out to be his chiefest harm.
2. I think what Van Helsing is ultimately trying to do, and also what the criminlogy of the time tried to do, was make criminals seem like less than "normal" people. This is a major taboo for the English. Criminals simply can't be like other people, like English people. They have to be less because the entire structure of the British empire relies on the belief that they (they English) are better than other people who are of different races, creeds, nationalities, religions, and even criminal behavior. If they aren't better than criminals then maybe they aren't better than the people in India (gasp). To acknowledge that Dracula has the same mind as the men is to acknowledge that the men could act in the same way as Dracula, as a monster or worse as a sexual being. It is safe for Van Helsing to say that Mina has "man's brain", she is married and therefore corrupted anyway. But he never would have said that about pure, sweet Lucy. In the same way he can not attribute "man brain" to Dracula.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel it was said that Dracula has a 'child brain'. This means that he's ego-driven, mainly thinks of himself, and his brain is less developed than an average person. During the period of time that this book was written criminality was associated with brain structure. Intelligence (or lack thereof) was connected to the appearance and dimensions of one's skull. For example, someone with a high brow was regarded as having above average intelligence whereas someone with a low brow was thought to be of intelligence that was lower than what an average person had. Today we know that the appearance/dimensions of the human skull, with a few exceptions, isn't correlated with one's smarts. We also know that some criminals possess higher than 'normal' intelligence. Thus it's not possible to predict whether or not someone might potentially become a criminal by analyzing that person's brain. There could be some genetic factors that predispose someone to be a criminal but for the most part a person's criminal behavior is created through negative environmental factors and learned behavior. Essentially, everyone starts off as a 'blank slate' so what that person becomes later in life is mainly determined by what that person is exposed to and how that person reacts to the stimuli.
ReplyDelete