The novel Dracula,
by Bram Stoker uses the character of Dracula to show something very important
about his views on life, science, and religion. Stoker uses certain elements of
Dracula’s character to show that mixing religion and science can have devastating
effects if the two are not mixed in a healthy manner. Abraham Van Helsing
(simply referred to as Van Helsing in the novel) is in direct contrast of
Dracula on the issue and is used to show how the two can be mixed healthily.
It is
implied that Dracula became a vampire after tinkering with the “dark arts” and
mixing science and religion. Dracula is said to have been a great scientist in
his days of youth and to have been a leader in scientific innovation and discovery.
It seems Dracula’s motivations were to mix science and religion in a way that
would make the two one. However, it would seem his quest to understand God and
the spiritual realm under scientific terms is exactly what separated the two of
them. It is through his quest to combine the two that he delves into the “dark
arts”, the sinister mixture of superstition and science. It would seem that
Stoker is telling us something about the mixture of faith and science through
Dracula, but it is impossible to truly tell what is being said through Dracula without
looking at him in the light of Van Helsing, our novel’s hero.
Van
Helsing is used to show the proper mixture of religion and science. Van Helsing
is made out to be a fairly wise, respectable, well mannered scientist of
religious background who everyone in the novel can look up to. The largest portion
of his character we can see of him from the novel is his wisdom. Anyone and
everyone who has a problem they themselves either do not understand or do not
know how to handle can come to him for sound advice. Van Helsing’s wisdom
bridges the gap between superstition and science in the proper way. Van Helsing
understands that each can be used individually and together, to an extent, and
be used safely. Van Helsing seems to seek council from both schools of thought
and uses each in its own realm, but never mixes them to make them one. This
seems to be the deciding factor that helps to bridge the gap between
superstition and science. It is important, Stoker seems to be saying, to use
both in cooperation without combining the two. This is something Van Helsing
does well that Dracula fails to do.
Dracula
pushes the two schools of thought together into one single ideal while Van
Helsing takes both and applies them in their own given areas of “expertise”.
Each school of thought is important in its own time and place, but do poorly
when combined. Van Helsing encounters great success in battling Dracula once he
realizes this. He uses his logical mind to put in motion to use superstitious
elements (cross, communion crackers, garlic, etc.) to defeat Dracula. Stoker
deliberately lays this out so that we can understand the healthy balance of
Religion and science.
Bram
Stoker uses the novel Dracula to
teach us something about the way we should undertand the interactions between
faith and science. It is clear he uses the contrasting characters of Dracula dn
Van Helsing to depict the negatives of over combining and the positives of
maintaining a healthy relationship. Dracula is displayed as a beast created by
the over combination of science and faith while Van Helsing is characterized as
the wise warrior who defeats Dracula through the proper mix of faith and
science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very insightful post, David. I like how you related the workings of both Dracula and Van Helsing while explaining that their level of success in the common endeavour is what set them apart. Do you think Dracula failed to find a balance between religion and science because his version of religion was perverted and backwards? Or is it his use of "dark arts" in the sense that his science was evil and perverted? I think you are really on to something here. When you stated that Dracula tries to "understand God and the spiritual realm under scientific terms," do you think Van Helsing views science under religious terms (the opposite of Dracula)? Or do you think he simply applies the two realms where he feels is necessary?
ReplyDeleteI think Dracula fails because he tries to combine science and religion into a single element. This causes both to become twisted around the other and neither can be effective. I think this may be one of Stoker's points in the novel. Van Helsing, on the other hand, understands the importance of both and even can use one to explain the other, but he does not marry the two in a way that either would oppress the other. So i think he applies both when they are necessary and sees each in the light of the other, but he does not force them to be one. This is evident in the separation of superstitious and scientific healing methods when dealing with Lucy. He uses both to cover all the bases, so to speak, but he doesn't intertwine the two. He recognizes that they are both very real, but doesn't try to force the two to work together or see anything as a cure-all.
DeleteGreat post David! You really have chosen a great topic. Your final paragraph is probably my favorite because I really like how you explain the differences between Van Helsing and Dracula. Your examples that you use are really helpful in understanding the claims that you are making. Science and religion can be compared in so many different ways but I really think that you have set up a good argument!
ReplyDeleteOur posts are really similar maybe we can get together and get some ideas from each other. I used an article by Stephen J. Gould called "non-overlapping magisteria", its very useful. I think you some find some textual evidence to support what you are saying. Rusty asks some good questions. But is Van Helsing really COMBINING the two or just supporting the two but keeping them separate in a way? There are more religious textual evidence but not a lot of science. Can anyone let me know if you any annotations regarding science?
ReplyDeleteI think the key is that he doesn't combine them, but allows each to run parallel. As i explained in my response to Rusty, I think there is a lot of helpful information in the treatment of Lucy. It is not a whole lot to go on, but the separation is clear. He deals with Lucy's illness first from the scientific realm (blood transfusions, proper diet etc.) but moves on when these are not effective. He then superstitious means to diagnose her illness (garlic etc.). Once he understands what is really ailing her from testing each individually he can use treatments from both realms in harmony, but not "combined" (using blood transfusions while also applying garlic as need be). This is really the only place I can see an interaction of both. I also think a case can be made that his interest in Renfield shows some of the same elements, but i'm not quite sure yet.
DeleteI had a thought while reading your post. Since the book does imply that Dracula became a vampire by tampering with the mixture of science and religion, does that mean that Dracula was once a religious man? If this is true, how does Dracula see himself after the transformation. If he once was a follower of God, and now he can't even approach a crucifix? I wonder if he ever tried to undo what he did to himself. Or if he could even realize what he had done. Maybe he's oblivious to his old feelings, like Lucy was oblivious to her true love of Arthur. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point! I never really thought about it. I think he must still be somewhat religious. He uses far too many biblical references to not maintain any religious affiliations. It is evident in the text that he does remember his past to some extent and i think that his religion would be a very strong element that he would almost have to remember and this combined with his deep knowledge of the bible can't be simply coincidental. As for the questions of remorse for his transformation, i don't think the text provides any insight so i can't say with any confidence either way. There are a lot of variables to be explored here and i definitely think i'll look into it. Thank you so much for the insight!
DeleteI'm kinda jealous of how focused and "ready to go" your topic is! lol You have something really interesting here. There are so many ways to compare Van Helsing and Dracula--- you chose a good one. I think it's interesting to point out that, like you said, David, in a previous comment, that VH did try the scientific method first. Why though? Is there a reason for his order of doing things? Also, since we really have no specifics as to what exactly Dracula tried to do in regards with mixing science and religion, how are you going to contrast VH and Dracula?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts/questions. They're pretty thought provoking. I'm not quite sure why VH uses physical methods first. I don't believe the text really says anything about it. My guess would be that looks into the one he can touch and see first. By that i mean that the scientific realm is one he himself has some "control" over. It is his own domain. So it is more comfortable and, truthfully, more common an ailment of the physical rather than the spiritual. That would be my guess, but, like i said, i don't see any textual evidence so it's strictly opinion. The contrasting of VH and Dracula is a much tougher question for me on the issue of scientific vs. spiritual. I'm not quite sure where to go. The use of Dracula's origin in a thin argument so i'll have to find something deeper and more apparent in the text, but i don't know what that is. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
DeleteDavid, really like how you compared Van Helsing's train of thought to Draculas. I can agree that V.H. uses both schools of science and religion to answer his life questions. He is practical, where as Dracula is not. Dracula fails to look distinguish the two from each other, which inevitably results in his downfall. Could Dracula's inability to reason as well as V.H. symbolize his young, child-like mind?
ReplyDeleteThe child-mind could definitly be a cause of the lack of reason, but i would think not as he is normally quite clever throughout the text. I think VH's practicality comes into play because he has a better understanding of the way science and superstition interact.
DeleteThis is a great and interesting post David. I really like the connection between Dracula and Van Helsing. I like the use of religion and science together in a similar paragraph and I would have never thought of using them together in this way. I would look through the book and other sources to see if there is any material that talks about Dracula the person in real life and what his background story was. I think you have a great thesis and if you narrow it down a little you should have no problem writing a 5 page paper.
ReplyDelete