Dracula by Carol Senf - Article Example

The Unseen Dracula In Carol Senf’s “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror,” the argues that anexamination of Bram Stoker’s narrative technique reveals a number of similarities between the ‘good’ characters of the book and the ‘evil’ of Dracula. Senf begins her argument by refuting what most people think they know about the novel based upon the movies. She points out that most of the action in the novel does not take place in the romanticized Transylvanian castles and countryside of the films, but instead takes place within the streets and sights of nineteenth century London. In addition, Senf illustrates how the narrative style, pieced together through the common literature of the everyday – newspaper clippings, journal entries and personal letters – contributes to a more factual, less mythical, interpretation of the novel. Having established that the novel does not take on the same attributes that have been highlighted in the films, Senf is then able to begin looking into her subject with more depth. She makes her argument by making a close examination of what the narrative style reveals about the primary characters, both ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and the relative believability of those characters in response to what is known of them and their actions. Senf extrapolates several textual clues dependent on the narrative format that question the relative good or evil of the various characters “Stoker provides several clues to their [the narrators’] unreliability and encourages the reader to see the frequent discrepancies between their professed beliefs and their actions” (Senf, 1979: 422). One of these clues, Senf indicates, is the reference to the printed matter in which the story is related in which Stoker emphasizes that the facts are presented “from the standpoints and within the range of knowledge of those who made them” (Stoker cited in Senf, 1979: 422). Although she indicates that this was a common Victorian literal technique, Senf also indicates that Stoker’s subjective commentary takes on new dimensions of doubt: “For example, at the conclusion, Jonathan Harker questions their interpretation of the events” (Senf, 1979: 422). By pointing out that the majority of the written record could not be considered ‘authentic,’ even the characters of the story realize that they may have been mistaken in their impressions and conclusions. This open admission of the highly subjective nature of all of the narrators involved in the story brings doubt upon the events that had occurred and the relative ‘rightness’ of their actions, heightened by the fact that Stoker framed almost all of his narrators in only two dimensions, each speaking from a similar voice of experience, culture and society. The evil of Dracula is also questioned through the narrative form. “The difficulty in interpreting Dracula’s character is compounded by the narrative technique, for the reader quickly recognizes that Dracula is never seen objectively and never permitted to speak for himself while his actions are recorded by people who have determined to destroy him and who, moreover, repeatedly question the sanity of their quest” (Senf, 1979: 424). Senf points out further clues to the unreliability of the ‘good’ characters’ assessments of Dracula’s actions as well as the inherent ‘evil’ of Dracula himself. To begin with, she points out that much of the action of the story takes place in and around Dr. Sewell’s psychiatric institution as well as the several indications that the main characters are somehow mentally unbalanced. Her objective summation of the evidence presented against Dracula forces his evil to be called into question. While the accusations against him include the murdering of the crew of the Demeter and Lucy Westenra, turning her into a vampire, and the attempted seduction of Mina, Senf points out several indications that Dracula might have been innocent of all charges. She quotes Mina’s journal regarding the inquest in the case of the Demeter crew: “There is no evidence to adduce; and whether or not the man [the ship’s captain] committed the murders there is now none to say” (cited in Senf, 1979: 424-425). Lucy’s dual nature could easily be explained by her presence in the mental institution and her death attributed to the dangerous nature of the blood transfusions she was receiving. Mina herself admits to being a willing and active party to her seduction while the men that accuse Dracula are men demonstrated to work against the law on several occasions as well, even to the admission of killing presumed vampires in the past. Indeed, Senf argues persuasively that Dracula’s real crime was not necessarily being a vampire, but was instead of representing a way of life different from that of the parochial Englishman (425-427). She points to the feudal beliefs and associations Dracula represents through his heritage, lineage and conversation as being direct threats to the Englishman who is accustomed to subjugating rather than being subjugated. Dracula’s nature, while it might still be evil, nevertheless is shown to demonstrate a much higher devotion to noble behavior. His thoughts are not known when he stands over a victim, as they are when Harker attacks Dracula, but Dracula is shown to prefer seduction, allowing an individual to make their own free choice, over force. He is truthful in his statements of his desires rather than attempting to frame his actions in terms of working for a common good and he openly flaunts customs in response to his desires rather than attempting to curb them through the outside social forces of religion and custom. Having established the differences, Senf has already begun to illustrate the similarities between good and evil as they are portrayed in the novel. Dracula is capable of incredibly violent acts that are seemingly unprovoked; yet, looking simply at the actions without the voice of journals, the actions of the other characters can be determined to be equally violent and unprovoked. Dracula’s desires are reflected in the minds of all of the other characters as is demonstrated through their actions but justified by exterior machinations: “No longer would they need to rationalize their ‘preying on the bodies and souls of their loved ones’ by concealing their lust for power under the rubric of religion, their love of violence under the names of imperialism and progress, their sexual desires within an elaborate courtship ritual” (Senf, 1979: 428). Through this careful analysis of the book, Senf is able to demonstrate that the characters typically interpreted as acting for the side of good and the character often singled out as being nothing but evil are actually so similar as to be nearly identical. By first confining the conversation to just the evidence available in the original text, and then illustrating the questionable natures of the individuals telling the story, Senf opens the discussion for a more objective image of the monster as well as the saviors. This objective view reveals the only true difference between Dracula and his accusers is the ability, or inability, to disguise actions behind socially acceptable constructs. Thus, Senf’s argument is strongly supported, leaving little room for dissent. Works Cited Senf, Carol. “Dracula: The Unseen Face in the Mirror.” The Journal of Narrative Technique. Vol. 9, (1979), pp. 160-170. Reprinted in Title of book article was copied from. Place of publication: Publisher name, date of publication, pp. 420-431. Read More