Dracula Q5: Role of women
Mina is a fairly active character in the book. She does her wifely duty to support Jonathan, but also does a lot to organise the information available to the characters, and does her best to stand up to Dracula's corruption. At the same time, she is kept away from the action. What do you think of this treatment of women?
Comments
And, as was pointed out to me, the role of women as temptresses. The "brides of Dracula" in the castle give us a picture of what Lucy and Mina would become without intervention.
Dracula may corrupt women, but how much of that is down to Dracula's foibles, and how much is part of the "essential nature" of women as tempresses (in Christian thought).
I'd be inclined to look at things in the opposite direction (and not just because of perversity ). The crux of the Eden story in Genesis is that the woman had been told exactly what the consequences were of doing something, and did it anyway. But here we have the opposite. For most of the story the men explicitly do not keep the women informed, and therefore leave them vulnerable.
The most obvious example is that collectively the men decide not to tell any of the women what the garlic is for, but just (one supposes) presume that the women will defer to their clever men-folk and leave things set up as they were. But no - in entire ignorance and from a desire to make things neat and orderly, the garlic gets cleared away and Dracula is able to gain access. It's only at the point in the story where the men decide (after lengthy debate) to let Mina know what is happening to her, and what her part has to be in order to prevent it, that the resolution starts to move along.
So... whilst I agree that male and female roles are pretty stereotyped in the book in ways that modern readers probably find frustrating and improbable, there is a reading of Dracula which asserts that things get worse when men try to shield women and generally treat them as incapable of real participation, and better when the men relent and bring women in on the action alongside them.
Yes, as per Richard's reading, I though the book reflected society's stereotyping pretty well, but the actual protagonist, Mina, bucked this trend rather effectively.
Stoker's later book, The Lair of the White Worm, is much more sexist and racist than Dracula is, by comparison.
My edition has an introduction by Fay Weldon which has a LOT to say about Dracula and women, but I'll need more time to put a proper share together, probably after a re-read of the intro.
if I were writing the story, Jonathan would have died by Dracula's Women, and Mina and Lucy would have beaten him alone, with the coaching of Van Helsing. The other men were merely sources of information. After defeating Dracula, they would have realized they cared more for each other, and lived together as spinsters. That, of course, would never have flown in the 19th century, but it would be fine today. As it is, the two romances seem tacked on to the tale. Mina is the true protagonist.
This is a pretty complicated question. I understood that Mina was our narrator, she compiles and arranges the text of the tale for us, like a mother does when telling children about some horrific event whose reasons and motives cannot be faced. Of course Stoker is the actual compiler and editor (he claimed it was a true story), and he does a crafty job of it. Are any of the other voices we hear reliable?
Going back to the question of "who's the protagonist?", which characters really changed in the course of the book? I think Jonathan had the greatest transformation, from eager young lawyer to victim to mature veteran. Mina also changes a lot, but not as much I think.
As for who pushes events forward, that's a combination of Mina and Seward, I think. Seward also has his own character journey, going from cynical to believing in the supernatural.
In passing, it's an interesting choice to have a solicitor (and one barely qualified) as the main focus of action against Dracula. Sure they needed van Helsing's experience and practical know-how, but it was Jonathan who really began the program of opposition. I'm not sure many modern vampire films or stories would make such a choice of profession!
The Hound of the Baskervilles, It… all named after antagonists that are meant to be destroyed (or their power destroyed). Probably quite common in the horror spheres, and maybe in thrillers like the James Bonds mentioned above. Assuming I’m understanding the brief…
> Moby Dick, The Isle of Doctor Moreau, The Call of Cthulhu, Doctor No & Goldfinger, The Thing, Alien,
> The Hound of the Baskervilles, It… all named after antagonists that are meant to be destroyed (or their power destroyed). Probably quite common in the horror spheres, and maybe in thrillers like the James Bonds mentioned above. Assuming I’m understanding the brief…
Thank you. I suppose there is She as well. And God Emperor of Dune.
Moby Dick is right on. Make an interesting contrast with Dracula. Ahab is actually mad in comparison with the society around him, whereas our protagonists here are concerned with appearing mad, but actually wiser that the society they inhabit.
I wouldn't count the Hound, because it's not the actual evil. Not sure about Dr Moreau, but it's a long time since I read it. He passes on long before the end of the story doesn't he? And the function of the island is not to be destroyed to produce good.
The other examples you give are right on, but to me they speak to a change in our literary culture as the 20th century progresses, where committing one's self to violence, death, and destruction is seen as heroic, and a curative for life. This aspect of Dracula was fascinating to me. Murder hobos in rpg terms.
The other interpretation of having Dracula as the title is that he's the element that brings the heroes together and gives them direction. Dracula is the unifier of the book; without him, none of these people would have met.
As for @BarnerCobblewood 's description of the change of literary style in the 20th century, I don't think I agree. Dracula was written at the end of the 19th century, so doesn't fit that progression. There were plenty of other 19th century books that lauded the glories of Empire (e.g. most of Kipling, King Solomon's Mines) as well as earlier heroic tales.
I also wouldn't characterise the characters in Dracula as murderhoboes. They were fighting to defend their homes. Colonialist, yes, maybe even xenophobic. But not hoboes and they didn't do a great deal of murdering.