“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” (Dracula 228). Throughout Dracula there seems to be a constant battle between modernization,
particularly advances in science, and superstition. The main characters actually
find themselves being preyed upon precisely because their modern knowledge.
Their modern thought prevents them from identifying the true nature of their
predator. However the triumph of old superstitious thought over new scientific
reasoning is seen in the end when Van Helsing, the only character who possesses
the knowledge of both the new and the old world, defeats the monstrous Dracula.
Bram Stoker first wrote Dracula between 1847 and 1912. During
this time people were also going through an enlightenment stage. As modern
women were beginning to find their identity and the new advances in modern
medicine, science, and technology began to hit the streets, the world was
becoming a bigger and more confusing place. Questions before explained by
religion and other superstitions were now being answered by modern scientific
means. Stoker lived in an age in which people were now being equipped to
question, if not dismiss, the religious doctrines that had formed the basis of
moral and social order for centuries. In Dracula,
Dracula seems to take advantage of a society on the edge of modernization and moral
collapse, suggesting that safety lies in the very religious traditions that
modernity tempts society to abandon. This is perhaps the same reasoning Stoker
had deduced during these changing times.
Throughout the book, the
triumph of superstition over science can be seen through both Dracula and Van
Helsing victories. “She wants blood, and blood she must have or die.” (Dracula 157). When science fails John
and Van Helsing when giving poor Lucy a blood transfusion, Dracula gains victory
by still turning Lucy into a vampire. Blood Transfusions were also a new
phenomenon during Stoker’s time and perhaps they had not quite caught the grasp
on blood typing just yet. Another example of this battle between modernization
and superstition is when Lucy actually comes back as a vampire. “Has there been
any mistake; has she been buried alive?” (Dracula
244). But Van Helsing finally lays the beast that Lucy has become to rest
through abnormal superstitious means.
In conclusion, by using the
triumph of old ways and religion over modernity and science, Stoker seems to invoice a message that new
mind thinkers need to open their minds to experiences that may initially seem
to counter the new Western approach.
-Aryn Banovic
Aryn,
ReplyDeleteGreat topic. Knowing you and how you're pretty knowledgeable about science, I consider this a topic to easily suit yourself. However, I cannot find a clear thesis in the first paragraph. It is kind of hidden within all the sentences of your first paragraph where you state:
"Throughout Dracula there seems to be a constant battle between modernization, particularly advances in science, and superstition. The main characters actually find themselves being preyed upon precisely because their modern knowledge. Their modern thought prevents them from identifying the true nature of their predator. However the triumph of old superstitious thought over new scientific reasoning is seen in the end when Van Helsing, the only character who possesses the knowledge of both the new and the old world, defeats the monstrous Dracula."
I don't know which one is truly your thesis. There are plot points and your literary device must be characterization, and your theme is pretty evident. The part that should be easy to identify is the thesis in general. If you can make it in one to two sentences, it would be fantastic, and a great road map for your paper.
So far, you have great uses of textual evidence, but there needs to be a little bit of outside research involved. You can explain from a historian's source about what transfusions were really like in that time period.
I like your rough rough draft, Aryn. Keep up the hard work and if you want, take my advice. My questions to you are: where are your thesis and what can you really do to show the history behind how modernity beats science and how its related to the novel?
-David E.
I can hear your biology major spilling out. I like it. Lol. What I think is really interesting is the time period and how it really plays into the theme of Stoker's "Dracula". Who do you believe, God or science? Is it safe to intermix the two magesteria? I think you have a handle on a really awesome argument here.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with what David has said. I almost feel like your conclusion comes really close to your thesis. However, this is probably your version of your 'so what?'. So I'm not going to go into all of that again since David just did. I suspect you pretty much get the point.
What I think would be really awesome is if you compared what was going on in the real world at the time (might require a little research) to the aspects of the story. You point out briefly that the world was facing the big question of science and religion, but maybe if you were a little more specific it would advance your argument better.
Keep it up!
I really like your thoughts, Aryn, and I think you're onto something great. I agree with the others though, that you might want to focus on either Stoker's balance of superstition and science and why, or "how is Bram Stoker's Dracula" a metaphor for the enlightenment.
ReplyDeleteThey're very closely related, but for the word count I think you could do plenty in either one or the other, while refining a thesis to something manageable. You have lots of detail that would support either idea, I think you just need to decide where you want to go with it.
Awesome post. Good luck!
I think it would be best for you, Aryn, to look at both sides, science and God, in your paper, which is regarding to what Jordan posted. It is best for you to respect both sides, and if you want, you can look at God in modern ways against science's superstitious ways. It would be interesting to see what you can say, and you can refer to the Bible as research and textual evidence where Van Helsing and the other vampire hunters use crucifixes.
ReplyDeleteGreat paper, so far. Keep up the awesome work.
-David E.
Aryn this is a great start! I agree with the others, so I'm not going to repeat what they said lol. But I like your argument where you said "the triumph of old superstitious thought over new scientific reasoning", I think you can argue that this is the opposite of the Vicitorian Age, a time where science overruled and religous beliefs were forgotten as superstitions. Hope this helps. Good Luck!!
ReplyDeleteI love the topic you've chosen. I think you're getting at the underlying beliefs that drive the story, perhaps beyond superstition straight into legend or myth. Modernity might not be specific enough to counter myth though. Dracula represents this symbol of old, dark magic that modern medicine like the transfusion could not remedy (yet the hypnosis did allow them this sort of crystal-ball like access to Dracula in the end). I hope I haven't created any confusion here! Great topics compel this I guess.
ReplyDeleteI find your topic very interesting, Aryn! I love how you started with a quote! It allows you to catch the audience's attention, and that is very important.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but I found your Thesis Statement to be "Throughout Dracula there seems to be a constant battle between modernization, particularly advances in science, and superstition."
So, topic sentences would be about modernization and superstition, and maybe even some mini sub topics. I think it is a good idea to stick with these two main topics and not add more, because there is an immense amount of information on both topics, so you don't want to barely cover 6 topics, when you can concentrate on 2, and soar with them! Like David said, characterization seems to be your literary device... But you might want to explicitly state the thesis so you'll have great organization right off the bat!
Your conclusion is a great start! It is definitely giving the "What If?" vibe. I know with your knowledge in science, there will be a BIG BOOM. You can really make strong and collective statements in your conclusion.
Lastly,
I love the blood transfusion idea! Run with it! I am sure you can find credible sources on British Science and see what was really occurring during that time period.
The biggest thing I would say is organization. I know this is a rough- rough draft! So you are doing great and on the right track, I would maybe make a strong outline you can follow. Science and Superstition can be tricky and in depth topics. You want to keep the reader on track! Great Ideas, Aryn! I am impressed!
Thanks for the constructive criticism and sorry for the confusion. But as you guys said it is a “rough rough” draft. But Veronica I’m glad you were able to find what I meant to be my thesis of "Throughout Dracula there seems to be a constant battle between modernization, particularly advances in science, and superstition" and I do expect to do a little more historical research on the topic during the time that it was written that perhaps influenced this “battle” I saw. However my question to you guys is that do you think I am reaching too much? Would that be a little too much to talk about? Please let me know thanks!
ReplyDelete-Aryn
I don't think that you're reaching too much. I think that you should just narrow it to a certain aspect of ALL the many things you could choose to focus on. Let's say one of the things you focus on is the blood transfusions. You could probably find a journal article that talks about that around that time and connect it to your topic. You have a really cool thing going on, don't let it overwhelm you. You're on the right track!
ReplyDeletenice post great topic one thing i would add is you briefly talk about religion vs. science. You could expand on that and possibly do research on at that time which had more influence on culture. Also was Bram Stoker was for or not for either one of these.
ReplyDelete