Dracula: A Modern Conundrum

...

its consequences.

Dracula represents the other end of the spectrum. He whole-heartedly embodies an ancient past that threatens contemporary society. He is elusive and traverses modern London with ease, preying upon the city and those that dwell within it. Dracula is threatening to modern society as he desires a state of fathomless evil. He represents a time and place unknown to contemporary society, and far off. Maurice Hindle in the introduction to the novel notes the motive behind Van Helsing’s actions: he is “concerned for the fate of humanity in the face of threats from an alien race of creatures” (xviii). Van Helsing notes that Count Dracula will reign as “the father or furtherer of a new order of beings, whose road must lead through Death, not Life” (Stoker 322). In this, Van Helsing’s fear comes from knowledge of an evil ancient identity that threatens the current world. It is this contrast of new and old that fuels the tension in the novel, ultimately contributing to the theme of doom that resonates throughout the text.

In his essay, Stephen Arata elaborates on a kind of phenomena he coins as “reverse colonisation” (120). At many points in the text, “Harker envisions semi-demons spreading though the realm, colonising bodies and land indiscriminately” (125). Count Dracula’s conquest is rooted in the harbouring of modern London and the blood of its inhabitants. This threat to the modern world directly coincides with an ancient form of desire. Stoker adds to this tension in the text in this way, by threatening the modern world because of a misunderstood entity whose desires are unlike that of London inhabitants in late 19th century. Economic growth would be stunted by Dracula’s desires. This idea is fuelled by Carol Senf in her work on Stoker: “Additionally, as Western Europeans became more secular and committed to science and technology, they sometimes imagined potential dangers associated with these discoveries and the fear that science might supplant ethical and religious values” (57). Senf in this chapter elaborates on this idea of the past contesting the present. She notes “Harker, a modern resident of urban England proud of scientific and technological developments, is horrified by Dracula’s pride in his military prowess” (73) and lust for blood. However I think one of the most pertinent points she notes is that “Stoker raises philosophical issues about the relationship between past and present... and because Stoker provides no certainties, readers question everything they come to believe” (Senf 73, 76). Stoker provides the background on the philosophical issues pertaining to the time in which he is writing, however never really makes his own voice explicit. This fuels my argument, in that Stoker may be writing this text merely as a warning.

Technology was rapidly enhancing at the time Dracula was written. These technological advancements are used at the vampire hunter’s exposal in multiple instances in the text. This is significant for multiple reasons. First, it is a way of fighting an old power using new technology. Stoker makes this abundantly clear. However, they rely on religious relics like the crucifix and practices involving garlic and old forms of ritualized defence mechanisms to keep Dracula away. The technology is not enough: “You are a clever man, friend John; you reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced... 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. But yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which think themselves new; and which are yet but the old, which pretend to be young” (Stoker 204). Here, in Chapter XIV, Van Helsing criticizes his friend Seward for being too limited in his attempts to diagnose Lucy. Van Helsing suggests that Seward is blinded by his own reason: if reason cannot explain a phenomenon, the doctor tends to dismiss the phenomenon rather than question the limits of his own knowledge. Van Helsing encourages Seward to open his mind to experiences that may initially seem to counter modern methodologies. This again addresses modernity as a primary concern in the text. Stoker suggests that the English find themselves preyed upon because their modern knowledge. Instead of enlightening them it actually prevents them from identifying the true nature of their predator. Modernity – particularly the advancements of science – has perhaps blinded the people, like Seward, to the dangers from which their abandoned traditions and superstitions once guarded them. History was becoming lost. Van Helsing utilizes both forms of knowledge at his exposal.

In chapter X, Van Helsing performs a blood transfusion on Lucy. This was a relatively new procedure in 1897, but one Van Helsing was familiar with and experienced in. Van Helsing continuously exemplifies a type of character in between new and old methods and is key in order to keep Lucy alive: “Although allegedly a scientist himself, Van Helsing proposes that superstition is a force more powerful than scientific rationality, a proposition he finds validated by the appearance of Count Dracula in the midst of the ‘scientific, sceptical, matter-of-fact nineteenth century’ (Blinderman 414). Despite later failing, this type of technology combined with such practices as garlic in her room, wards off Dracula and keeps her alive for longer. “‘Good God, Professor!’ I said, starting up. ‘Do you mean to tell me that Lucy was bitten by such a bat; and that such a thing is here in London in the nineteenth century?’” (Stoker 205). Seward exemplifies ignorance towards an ancient force that so easily traverses the streets of London preying on innocent lives. He is utterly dumbfounded that something like this could happen in his own modern city. Again the past superseding the new is a threat Stoker elegantly thematises in this work, and creates a tension in the text for both the reader and characters.

Is this a way of Stoker saying advancement is not everything? Popular human belief is the belief in growth: learning and evolving as a race overall. It seems here that Stoker begs a question that challenges the notion of growth and what that really that constitutes. Does it mean abandoning the past in favour of the new? I think not. Stoker’s intent in his use of this technology combined with ancient practices suggests a danger in losing sight of the old. Through the contrast of characters and technologies at their exposal, Stoker creates a tension in the text that contributes to the idea of the ‘right’ way of operation and thought in society. It is clear to say that to lose sight of tradition would mean to lose sight of our history and where we come from. Growth and development is a fundamental part of what it means to be human, but at what cost?