MM Oct 8

Dracula, Friday October 8, 2010- Chapters 18-21:

In class we started with a quiz covering the assigned readings, chapters 18-21. After the quiz, the class was broken up into five groups for discussion with classmates on a controversial topic regarding Dracula.

The first group discussed the symbolism of blood in Dracula. Group one discussed the question of “if Dracula was an inversion of Christ.” They came to the conclusion that Dracula is not an inversion of Christ but believed he has “devilish” characteristics in contrasting to Van Helsing, who in the story is viewed as the “care-taker” figure. The first group made it very clear that they did not believe Dracula was a savior in anyway. Connecting all of this together, they believed the blood was used symbolically as an inversion of motherhood for when Dracula holds Mina to his chest. In exchange for drinking Mina’s blood, Dracula also makes Mina drink his blood from his breast. Group one stated that this was connected with religious symbolism from the act that Mina and Dracula exchange blood to one another, symbolizing as “body and blood of Christ.”

The second group dealt with the argument of Renfield’s role on what happened to Mina. They second group made it very clear that they believed it was Renfield’s fault that Mina was attacked by Dracula due to the fact he was the one who invited Dracula into the home, stating, “Renfield ‘holds the key’ to stopping Dracula.” In their discussion, the group made a great point that it was stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance on Van Helsing and Dr. Seward for failing to listen to the warnings.

The third group discussed if it was right of the men to exclude Mina from the investigation. The group broke down the question in weighing the advantages/disadvantages for the men to include Mina. The thought process for the advantages were that men thought they were keeping Mina safe from this investigation. The group believed the disadvantage of the men excluding Mina was that by the men excluding her, they were leaving her more vulnerable, and if she would of gone with them, Dracula would of came to them, rather having to search for Dracula. The group also discussed how Mina took her role as a Victorian woman, while not agreeing with the decision in being excluded, however she did not speak up for herself.

Group four discussed Lucy’s sexual nature versus Mina’s maternal nature asking the question of why Dracula chooses to go after Mina. In contract to Lucy and the other victims, Mina is a very different in nature, processing much more of a challenge to Dracula. Unlike the other victims, Dracula goes after Mina, who is very intelligent, and has “the mind of a man, but heart of a woman.” In some arguments Mina can be described as the “Anti-Lucy.” The group discussed how Dracula’s action in going after Mina was to prove to the men that he is able to overtake anyone, therefore trying to defend his role as the most powerful and dominant character. Dracula uses Mina to hurt and discourage the men from stopping his quest.

The final group discussed the differences in attacks on Mina and Lucy. Group five believed that Lucy was attacked by Dracula due to her seductive nature like the other victims, while Mina’s attack was for a purpose of discouraging the men. In Dracula’s attack on Lucy, Lucy was used for only one purpose: to get the blood for life in Dracula. In contrast, Mina’s attack was in a very violating nature almost in a “rape” aspect. By Dracula forcing Mina to take his blood, Mina and Dracula are “connected” differently than any other attackes Dracula has made on his victims.

Extra Notes for October 8, 2010 by Michelle Howell

Group two talked of the important relationship that Renfield shares with Dracula and each of the male characters. Firstly, Renfield begs Dr. Seward to be released in order for him to escape the prison. He wanted to get as far away from the city as possible in order to avoid danger from Dracula. Our group discussed whether or not that his pleads showed a complete permanent change in Renfield’s or if it was just temporary. Dr. Seward knew that Renfield was acting quite differently. Overall we concluded that his request to be released from the asylum were due to brief sanity and that he might return back to his state of consuming animals for their life. However, in the text, Dr. Seward contemplates as to whether or not to release Renfield and decides that he will speak to him the following day about his release. According to our group, this was a mistake because we concluded earlier that all of his pleads were due to brief sanity and that Renfield had not changed at all. The male characters underestimate Renfield as a person and what role he has to their capture of Dracula. It is obvious that he is communicating with him because Dr. Seward had, on numerous amounts of times, heard Renfield talk of his “master”. Seward was even attacked by Renfield, who licked up his blood, which shows a direct connection between the two blood-sucking beasts. Each of the four male characters that we previously discussed: Dr. Seward, Quincey, Dr. Van Helsing, and Arthur all belong to a higharchy based on their profession and status. Arthur is the first and most important of the four having title as Lord Goldaming and being very rich and powerful. Dr. Seward is second because he is a doctor and owns an asylum where he conducts research. Van Helsing is the third despite all of his degrees because he is a foreigner to the country. Quincey is fourth because he is a foreigner from Texas America. Renfield does fit in the men’s higharchy. However, Renfield would be last because he is daubed insane and an insane person does not have a profession and therefore must rely on others for his needs. Renfield is at the bottom of the list not just due to his sanity, but his dependence he has on each of these men who are higher than him.