I think this is my last post on old Dracky which makes me sad since I had so many things I wanted to still wanted to ask and discuss. Like why do we think Stoker included Quincey Morris with the crew? (I don’t think I would have missed him if he weren’t there). And does anyone else think Joseph Valente is sort of pushing the Irish thing too hard? “The goulash clearly represents cabbage, a staple in the Irish diet”.
But really, what I want to know now is how Van Helsing can believe so many things at once. I just finished Chapter 25, where Van Helsing delivers yet another one of his long, LONG monologues, this time about Dracula’s “child-brain” (something I have a hard time not reading strangely since the last thing I think of when I think Count Dracula is a child [unless it's a dead one]). We seem to be back at criminology, or the psychology of the criminal mind, which Stoker first visited when Jonathan was in Transylvania. This is how Van Helsing decides to deal with Dracula for the moment, which is fine. I just wonder how Van Helsing, especially as a doctor, can rationalize relying on psychology, medicine and religion all at once in dealing with Dracula. Obviously we’re suspending our disbelief (in just a few ways) for the duration of the book but I was already raising my proverbial eyebrow when Van Helsing began invoking Christianity in earnest. Van Helsing and Stoker sort of reinvent religion to give it specific guidelines for dealing with things like vampires, when, as far as I know, vampires were never mentioned per se in the Bible (although that would have made Sunday school more fun).
It’s just interesting to wonder where Stoker (and Van Helsing) decided to draw the lines between Van Helsing’s various ways of dealing with Dracula. When does your faith in Jesus stop aiding you and at what point do you need to start relying on science, either medical or psychological? Moreover I’m getting sick of Van Helsing’s neverending monologues which he seems to deliver based on whatever’s motivating him at the moment. SHUT UP ALREADY AND GET TO VAMPIRE FIGHTING. So as long as he’s blabbing I’m just curious what at the moment he’s deciding to use in his war on the undead, and why.
Speaking of vampires, I am going to re-watch Bram Stoker’s Dracula and sink my fangs into some candy come this Halloween, just to compare the book and the movie like I said I wanted to (I still think Keanu Reeves as Jonathan is going to be greater than I remembered). But last week I watched the film Let the Right One In which is undoubtedly a better movie and probably vampire flick (although the vampirism in the movie isn’t as scary as some other parts of it). It’s no vampire rock opera from Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but still, I approve.
You notice how Van Helsing’s big skull is supposed to describe his exemplary character? I’ve been listening to a bunch of Sherlock Holmes on mp3, and in so many stories, the heroes have these fine large noble heads; criminology was confusing in Victorian Timez.
Phrenology and craniometry, both recognized now as pseudo-sciences, were given some credence in 19th century, most notably in anthropology, psychology, and psychiatry. A large skull was indicative of a large brain, which meant more room for exemplary character traits in the frontal lobes and along the length of the skull from forehead to the back of the head.
Thank you for mentioning the child-brain thing – I felt like I’d been bludgeoned back to a child-brain myself after that chapter!! And thank God that the boy’s club all have fine manly-man brains. Right.
I think Morris is there primarily to represent the New World, especially in contrast with Van Helsing. He’s all get-up-and-go, and he’s not bound by all the class issues that the Europeans are. Back in the Lucy days, she mentioned how he would or wouldn’t talk ’slang’ based on the circumstance, so I see him as a sort of nouveau riche chameleon. There are worse types to have around, I suppose.
Having said all that, there’s also the end.
There is general agreement among lit-crit types that Morris is Stoker’s tribute to America and the frontier spirit. (Stoker visited America several times in the 1880s and 1890s as manager of the Lyceum Theatre.) A possible influence on the creation of the character is Buffalo Bill. Cody and his Wild West show were in London around the time Stoker was working on early notes for the novel; indeed Stoker met Cody, who was a good friend of Henry Irving’s.
As for Valente “pushing the Irish thing too hard,” I completely agree. It is a common fault among scholars – begin with a pet theory and force lines of the text into it, often with ludicrous results. I’m giving a lecture in Chicago on Saturday (at the Irish American Heritage Center) entitled “Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Irish Connections” and must be careful not to do the same thing.
Elizabeth I think it’s a matter of picking out which elements are distinctively Irish and which are more of a stretch. For instance, I can buy that the Irish are a superstitious people but who many other nationalities are also superstitious? Probably a lot.
Incidentally, re: “Bloofer Lady,” maybe you can enlighten me. What is “Bloofer” supposed to mean originally? “Beautiful” maybe?
Stoker uses “bloofer” as child-talk for “beautiful.” Apparently, his source (the only one I’ve been able to find) is Charles Dickens who uses “boofer” in the same way in “Our Mutual Friend.” Whether Stoker carelessly rendered “boofer” as “bloofer” – or whether he was playing with the “bl” as in “blood” – we do not know.
Happy Halloween to one and all, long canines or not!