So, I’ve just recently read Dracula and am a bit confused on what Stoker was trying to say. The main reason being I feel like whenever I came up with an interpretation, there’s something in the text that would contradict it (like saying Dracula was a representation of new ideas that the British detested at the time… except for the fact that Van Helsing and Co. also displayed traits of those those ideas as well). So, naturally, I just had to go on Reddit to post my interpretation and to obtain some other opinions:
I knew a big idea of the novel was good vs evil (even more specifically, purity vs. sin). However, I couldn’t exactly tell what he was saying was evil and what was good. At one point, like I said earlier, I felt Stoker was saying Dracula was a representation of the ideas that the British were rejecting at the time (sexuality, immigration, change in general), whilst also being a representation of the conservative British. I felt like he was basically saying the act of vampirism was a metaphor to what the conservative thought they’d “turn into” if they accepted these ideas (Lucy, containing a view of traditional marriage and home life, turns into a vampire (or gives into these new ideas) and dies. Then there’s Mina, who’s described as a “new woman”, also gets bitten, but survives). I thought the good guys going after Dracula was perhaps representation of trying to get rid of the stigma that these ideas were bad. However, when Mina got bit, she kept saying she was “unclean”. And when J. Harker and Van Helsing were being tempted by Dracula’s brides, they felt guilt / were disgusted when they snapped out of it (and the fact choice words by Stoker also constantly portrayed a repulsed feeling of the whole situation in general). That’s when I got confused. And if Dracula was supposed to represent those ideas, what were the good guys supposed to represent since, again, they already exhibited traits of rejecting the status quo (independence when it comes to Mina, and vulnerability with our male cast, not to mention the usage of modern tech)? The only difference is that these traits weren’t portrayed in a shameful or in a reprehensible light. So maybe they were also supposed to represent these new ideas, but in the view of the liberal British?
I really don’t know. At some point, I also thought it could be a satire of British society and how ridiculous it was (in Stoker’s view). Again, in this view, Dracula would be the representation of these new ideas, minus also being the representation of the conservative British. This could explain the repulsion when it came to being bitten, or of Dracula himself (or vampirism in general). Although, I don’t know how the good guys being “enlightened” would fit into this view. Perhaps irony?
Anyways, that’s kind of what I got from reading Dracula, though I’m not entirely sure how accurate it would be. That’s where the discussion part of this post would come in. What are y’all’s opinion on the novel and it’s theme(s)?
If someone ever asks me for an argument against teaching English literature in high schools, I’m just going to show them this post.
It’s a horror story about a monster who eats people. What it is trying to say is: ‘I’m exciting, buy me!’
Okay, so it’s not entirely devoid of subtext. Stoker wrote at a time when Britain was receiving what was, for the time, a large number of immigrants from Eastern Europe. You can, if you want to be simplistic, reduce the core of the novel down to: Eastern Europe immigrant comes to London, sexually assaults pure English girl.
But there isn’t a political message; Stoker wasn’t trying to make a comment on the political problems of the day, he was just trying to riff on themes that would resonate with his audience.
And if your interpretation is an illustration of the dangers of exposing the unprepared brain to too many English literature classes, it’s also an example of why we need more, and better, history teaching. Because you don’t seem to understand the Victorian mindset at all.
Britain at the end of the 19th century was the richest, most technologically advanced nation on the planet, and perhaps with the exception of the United States it was one of the most socially progressive, too. For a 19th century understanding of the term ‘social progress’, that is. You’re trying to project a modern understanding of the word ‘conservative’ back onto a time when it doesn’t really fit.
Dracula represents the old world. The superstitious, feudal, Medieval societies still widespread across Europe in Stoker’s day. Jonathan Harker and his friends are very deliberately presented as middle class: a growing part of English society but still very much not the norm elsewhere. A lot of Europe was still divided between peasants and landed gentry, especially the further east you went. It was one of the big complaints by the British against immigrants that they were ignorant and superstitious.
Dracula is served by gypsies who were bound to him by custom and religious fear. But Harker is neither a grovelling serf nor a (literally) bloodsucking aristocrat. The upper classes had always looked down on anyone who actually worked for a living, but Harker has a respectable career (as does Mina); he doesn’t draw his income from the toil of others, but nor is he anyone’s servant. The theme is modern, progressive Victorian Britain vs. dark, regressive feudalism.
Trying to project our modern dichotomy between ‘liberal = pro sexual freedom’ and ‘conservative = anti sex’ doesn’t really work for this time period. Sexual continence was a middle class virtue; having babies out of wedlock was what poor people did, and being sexually promiscuous was what decadent aristocrats did (see: Lord Byron). Lucy becomes sexually promiscuous when she becomes a vampire because she has lost her moral sense.
But again, I cannot emphasize enough how Stoker was not trying to make any kind of political commentary. These are all things that would have been implicitly understood by his audience and were used by Stoker to add depth to what is at heart a traditional monster tale, rather than the story serving merely as framework for a metaphor (like Frankenstein, for example).
To be honest with you, when I was using the terms conservative and liberal, I wasn’t exactly using them in a political way, at least that’s not what I had in mind. I was using them to portray a group that was more open minded / progressive vs a group that wasn’t as open minded / wanted to stick to traditional ideas in terms of the Victorian view. Though, I suppose that’s my own fault for not elaborating more? And yes, I’m aware that Stoker may have only written it for his own and others entertainment. But like you said, the environment / surroundings of his time could still influence the themes he wrote about (which I mentioned in a comment to another).
I know Victorian society at the time had progressive groups / circles, though, I believe, traditional ideas when it came to gender roles still existed / were the norm (men being part of the working class / inherently masculine, and women sticking to the domestic life / motherhood). Although, I am aware some women at this time (especially of those progressive (mid class) circles) were able to obtain education, and men were obviously able to grieve (though, because of gender roles, kind of looked down upon to do so in public / when not appropriate).
And what I mean with modern tech is stuff like the blood transfusions or the phonograph. Blood transfusions weren’t exactly new, but they weren’t that researched into, and the first transfusion on a human wasn’t somewhere until around the early 1800s. And the phonograph wasn’t exactly used until the late 1800s. But you are right, Britain was quite technologically advanced by the time the early 1900s hit. The mid-late 1800s kind of made a little pathway with these inventions for Britain to be that way. I just felt, at the time Stoker had written Dracula, these inventions were somewhat new for Victorian society at the time.
And in terms of sexuality, I feel like the ideals of Victorian society at the time was all about morals. So, I thought (putting on these ideas together), perhaps Stoker was trying to say something about the group of Victorians who adhered to these ideals / morals that were promoted at the time and maybe what they viewed about those more progressive ideas (Dracula) vs the group of Victorians who weren’t so caught up / engaged with these ideals and favored change a lot more (Van Helsing and Co.). Or maybe even Victorian ideals / expectations vs. the reality of the time.
In terms of the regression you mentioned, yeah, Eastern Europe wasn’t as developed compared to the west, but I also feel that idea could maybe apply to my interpretation since, wasn’t there a fear of regression within certain parts of Victorian society?
But yeah, progressive Victorian society vs regressive feudalism does make sense, and does make the contradictions I was having problems with easier to understand.