Have you ever wondered if storytelling could save the world?
Before you roll your eyes at me for the preposterous thing I say, I must tell you they can. But you’re right, stories might not change everything on their own; they’re only a good start. Where do you think money came from? Trees? Last I checked, a sheet of paper is worth less than a dollar.
That’s right, money started off as a story, not an objective reality.
Welcome to the Backbone series, where I analyze how stories affect our subconscious and how they might, or might not, challenge our very own ideas about life.
W H A T I S D R A C U L A ?
Before we begin, I have to mention the spoilers—if there is any to be mentioned because this is a classic, after all. If you don’t want your enjoyment sucked away, then read my spoiler-free review of it here.
Let’s begin!
The story starts when the lawyer Johnathan Harker is invited to Transylvania, by none other but a wealthy count named Dracula. It turns out he is to act as the Count’s real estate agent, to help him finalize his contract, so he can finally move to London after years of pursuing it. Things get complicated when Jonathan discovers he’s a prisoner at the Count’s castle and has no way of returning home alive to his fiancée, Mina Murray. Little does he know, the very Count under his roof is a vampire venturing to expand his business overseas. Johnathan has but one option left: escape alive to stop Dracula’s plans.
And escape he does.
But his breakout might come to no one’s surprise, though. He manages it barely, getting rescued and hospitalized soon after. Mina comes to take him home, leaving her aristocrat friend in her home to do so.
Unbeknownst to them, the Count’s lost interest in runaway-Johnathan seems to have focused on Mina’s friend, Lucy; she is now coveted by the vampire for her innocence and beauty. After her perfectly avoidable death, Professor Van Helsing deigns himself to inform his comrades of the nature of the Count, managing to discover his plans and coercing him back towards his natal home.
Continuing the streak of crimes that could have been eluded, Mina is forced to drink the Count’s blood at some point, thus giving her the capacity to see what Dracula sees. This being his demise, for they catch up to him in a road leading to his castle. A stake to the heart finishes the deed, as Mina’s spell breaks and she returns to being human once again.
…And so, it ends.
But what is the main theme about? What are the long-winded topics explained in this novel?
If it’s not made obvious by the end of the book, this story is about salvation or damnation, Good and Evil and, of course, their never-ending war. The vampire is the devil embodied, and there is nothing left for him than death by the hands of God—or his children.
So yes. My work has been cut out for me.
However, I refuse to leave this analysis here, so instead, let’s take a detour and examine what a society built around this mythology looks like—and why it’s merely platonic.
The first half of the book centers around a conflict involving Lucy, Mina’s high-class friend, and Dracula himself. Without any knowledge of vampires or Johnathan’s previous experience, Mina is left alone to take care of Lucy and her sleepwalking tendencies, only to be surprised by her friend’s sudden—and mysterious—illness. While the characters are getting used to the strange happenings, Lucy’s life is slowly being drained away.
Up to her death—and the ending of the first half—, we, as readers, are only introduced to the nature of the main cast and the world they inhabit. This first part is meant as an overview of the characters and the subtle development of the conflict.
The first character introduced, though not a character per se, is Romania. It is presented to us as a sort of barbaric-but-not-quite type of country; it’s Dracula’s birthplace and like his very nature, we are confronted with its ambiguity. It’s an eerie land, but the people are sort of kind, but not exactly at all—only one woman steps forth to help Johnathan, and she doesn’t commit to it, leaving him to fend for himself at the castle. The nuns that rescue him too, barely manage to help him at all because they don’t speak the same language. Not to mention Dracula himself—inspired by Vlad the Impaler— who is out to suck his blood, but not without first tricking Johnathan with his wealth, power, and fake kindness. Just like the devil himself; luring people in, only to turn them to sin. Or doom.
In contrast, we are shown England as the land of the pure. Whoever comes from this part of the world is always behaving properly, or close to it; side characters belonging to England are shown mostly to be good (Renfield as the only exception, though he changes sides at the end), and foreigners are often seen as the enemy (the gypsies all over the book, or at least most of them, seem to be siding with Dracula until their deaths—the only clear exception to the rule being Quincey and Van Helsing, only because they’ve had a clear English influence).
Though I won’t commit to saying that there is evident discrimination of foreigners across the novel, I do propose that there is a tinge of classism and colonialism through it. Stocker did believe that the religious monarchy of Britain was a force of good. Enough said.
As a result, Dracula not only poses a distinction between good and evil, but of us, and them.
Evil has to exist for Good to fight it, and the civilized should be the ones doing it. In other words, Dracula’s world is a world of duality; only one may thrive. And of course, it’s the English.
But let’s move on from here, surely the characters are different?
The first one to appear—alongside Romania—is Johnathan Harker, a hard-working man, belonging to the upper-middle class, and a gentleman at that. He is proper and righteous, even in a pinch—as shown with the nuns just after his nervous collapse; no crazy behavior takes over him, as it should with a normal person having witnessed a bloodthirsty vampire. In summary, he is the perfect protagonist for a novel centered on religious and cultural virtue; Victorian England, being tightly related to Christianity at the time, makes Johnathan the epitome of its beliefs.
When looking at other characters, though, one finds that the rest of the group—Arthur, Quincey, Dr. Steward, or Van Helsing—, are nothing more than an extension of those virtues Johnathan holds. They all resemble each other in many ways, including the fact that they belong to the high class of Europe. There was even one quote, in which Mina thanks God for their wealth because with it, they had been able to stop Dracula:
“Thank God for the wonderful power of money!”
In other words, if they had been poor, Dracula could have been the victor.
Direct or not, Dracula does not only offer a differentiation around morality or place of birth but differentiation of people who have wealth and people who don’t. Also, in whom the wealth resides, if it is a foreigner who does not believe in God or if it is in the people that do believe. Every major character had money, and every major character was the embodiment of good. Can it be a coincidence? Maybe.
But let’s continue.
As the plot slowly inches forward, the conflict starts to show. Poor Lucy is being attacked by a vampire and Mina doesn’t know what to do, nor does she know anything of what ails her.
The book, being Victorian and Christian, doesn’t surprise with what role women take within. Besides a clear distinction between man and woman, as stated by the bible itself, the role Mina and Lucy play is more of a victim type. Lucy, the only other woman in the book besides Mina, is the only fatal victim by Dracula’s hands. The curious thing is that she is beautiful, so much so, that three men fell head over heels for her at the same time; whatever similarity with the bible’s distaste for vanity and her winding up dead (and further shown as sinful), be damned… right?
Not to mention she is turned into a sassy, sexually liberated vampire who kills children.
And on another note…
Why are women the only targeted?
Because they are closer to sin, can induce men into it, and they’re weak, in perception. Even Mina, who is at the end a vital part of the ploy against Dracula, doesn’t lay a single hand on him— because the weaker sex shall not be put in danger. Be it as noble as it sounds, there is discrimination here. Not to mention that the evil characters that seduce Johnathan at the beginning are all women and vampires. But maybe this book is haunted by coincidences.
In short, Dracula’s philosophy not only involves a duality between Good and Evil (as the only fixed options to choose), but it poses duality as its core. There is a difference between people from one country or the other; there is difference between the rich and the poor— directly related to morality as a plus; and there is a distinction between man and woman, the woman being weaker and closer to sin.
Though we now know that the world is not this binary, we have struggled scientifically and culturally to get to these conclusions. If the world were such a place, I don’t doubt Dracula would be an accurate representation of it. It is, for the most part, a very honorable accounting of it. For the most part.
And how does it end up being idyllic—more than it already is?
Well, it’s exemplified by the second half of the book.
In it, the narrative now centers itself on defeating Dracula. After Lucy’s death, the characters reconvene and make plans to overthrow him once and for all. Though Lucy’s death might’ve been prevented by Van Helsing opening about vampires sooner, they are all convinced of the truth after seeing the beautiful woman vanish from the living. They soon discover the Count’s plans and make all sorts of schemes to stop him, finding themselves with the winning hand.
Dracula, despite being the most horrid creature in existence, can’t lay a single hand on his antagonists. Apparently, his power wasn’t as great we were made to believe.
The Count ended up being a prisoner of the dark, not having a chance against the free men who defeated him. He was confined, since the beginning, in coffins of earth and the reach of darkness. He was doomed from the first time he went against the ten commandments —because he broke every single one of them—, and all the winning party needed was faith, money, and men.
Seeing the hero win against the faces of evil is not the problem this story has. It’s not about humans wining over the vampires, or the good nature of the characters involved, and it’s not completely about the faith they preach, either. It’s how human behavior doesn’t like imposed guidelines.
Victorians wanted to think that their society and their values had trumped all, which was a gallant venture, but they insisted on ignoring one thing. Humans are flawed. The churches have committed their sins, the rich have starved the hungry, women are still discriminated against, and evil continues to thrive.
But still, Dracula was vanquished without a fight.
Mark my words, this is not a lie.
In the end, this story was:
Just for fun?
L a s t t h o u g h t s
Taking into account the lifestyle and beliefs of the Victorian, this book is no less than the portrayal of its times. Where people believed evil could be bested with superstitious belief and morals; where wealth was what made men honorable; and where women represented the fragile vessels of evil.
We have since departed from those beliefs, but we have still to fight their remains. Though this book does have a happy ending regarding them—somewhat—, it’s still idealistic on its musings, and fervent about those principles that still hinder equality, inclusivity and transparency.
I want to point out, though, that this book doesn’t seem to have an ill intent, whatsoever. People used to believe that humans could be good by the mere will of their hearts, and that is evident all over. But there are things humans can’t overcome with those ideals only, and that’s something to have in mind.
If you want to explore how the elements of the story (characters, plot, writing and theme) work together, click here.
If I missed something—or if I interpreted it differently to you— feel free to post it in the comments! I am biased by my own experiences and I can see a few things only, not the whole Truth, if that exists.
If you’re interested in reading the book and form your own conclusions, buy it here.
For more content like this, support me here.
With nothing else to say, thank you!
Once again, I give thanks to Carlos Andrés Acosta for the insights.
コメント