How does the novel 'Dracula' represent issues of femininity?

Within ‘Dracula’ femininity appears to have clear boundaries. On the one hand women are innocent and virtuous before they have been lured towards evil by Dracula, whilst after they take on characteristics of ‘whores’ in that they are presented as manipulative Sirens; in particular Dracula’s Brides who have “voluptuous lips” which promote a “wicked, burning desire” from Harker. Though the males within the novel can have positive characteristics regardless of whether they are ‘good’ or ‘evil’- for example both Dracula and Van Helsing are intelligent- the women change completely, as though women can only follow the path of either being a ‘Madonna’ or ‘whore’.

Mina is presented as the ultimate symbol of feminine virtue in ‘Dracula’. Her devotion to her husband is at a parallel with the polygamous situation of Dracula’s Brides and Lucy’s three suitors. Her refusal to accept the ideals of the ‘New Woman’, mockingly saying how they would want to “do the proposing herself”, shows she remains conservative in terms of her distaste for the change in view of femininity and so keeps to the traditional values of a woman. Consequently, she must preserve her innocence to keep her reputation of being virtuous, so she resorts to daubing her feet with mud “so that as we went home no one, in case we should meet anyone, should notice my bare feet”. It is clear that she regards her reputation as her greatest asset since it would be the only thing of value she can own as for her the only duty she has is to serve her husband and he would also be judged partly through her reputation. Overall, Mina is shown to be the antithesis of the ‘New Woman’, and to some extent this could also be shown to be an opposition to Dracula’s Brides. They make the first move whilst seducing Harker, just as Mina is suggesting would happen with the new feminist movement, and their exclamation to the Count that “you yourself never loved; you never love!” may also share a similarity to the ‘New Woman’ movement as they do not immediately submit to Dracula’s commands. Mina’s innocence and her almost sacrificial virtue mean she can retaliate against Dracula’s control, so she is able to use their connection for her own advantage, almost showing that her purity shows she can combat evil even when it is supposed to be in control of her.

On the other hand, Dracula’s Brides appear to represent what women could become if they succumb to the lure of temptation. Once they have been brought under the control of Dracula they themselves become the tempters and use their attractions to lure men into the realm of evil. These are shown to be powerful in this respect as even the objective Van Helsing was “lapsing into sleep, the open-eyed sleep of one who yields to a sweet fascination” when opening their tombs. Their use of primeval attractions to gain the attention of men draws parallels with the Sirens, whose use of base attractions would culminate in the deaths of men. Essentially, Dracula’s Brides can be said to be a warning to women that this how they would end up if they were to take part in behaviour contradictory to what would ordinarily be expected of women. In particular, the inference of Dracula’s polygamist relations would suggest that this is more specifically a warning against sexual deviancy, as Dracula’s Brides have descended into what is presented as little more than prostitution. However, though these women have entirely fallen from virtue, they are still at the mercy of Dracula who exclaims to them “How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it?” which suggests that despite their ability to corrupt men they must still remain under some form of masculine control.     

Women in ‘Dracula’ are all presented as needing protection in one form or another- even Dracula’s Brides rely on Dracula for nourishment and a home. Mina, and to some extent Lucy, are the ‘Madonnas’ of the novel and so are presented as being naïve and innocent meaning they are particularly susceptible to Dracula’s temptations. A woman’s virtue is valued highly, to such a degree that four men are willing to risk their lives to remove her ties to Dracula, with Quincey Morris saying “it was worth this to die!” upon noticing the burn from the communion wafer on Mina’s forehead had disappeared. This displays the male desire to protect women from the dangers of the world and to prevent them falling from grace at the hands of Dracula, who can be seen almost as an antichrist figure, representing the dangers that men could bring- possibly the lure of sexual desire. The protective feelings of the four men fighting to save Mina may not have been triggered by such desires, but rather more paternalistic emotions as her innocence may be equated to that of a child; one who needs to protected from such evils as are represented by Dracula. Though on the one hand Dracula can be said to primarily represent the dangers of deviant sexual behaviour, he could also be a symbol of the fear that it was believed could itself harm women; indeed the appearance of the wolf’s head in Lucy’s bedroom had killed her mother through shock. Therefore, the novel is suggesting that women require the help of men if they are to successfully repel the dangers they face, and that without their help they could easily face corruption or even death.

Femininity within the novel is also seen as being liable to corruption. Dracula only attempts to suck the blood of women; even with Harker he says to the Brides “when I am done with him, you shall kiss him at your will”, suggesting that he is not concerned with corrupting men. This may be a belief that women are easier to manipulate and seduce for Dracula, who could use the sexual tension between them. There was a similar case with Lucy when she was feeding from children on Hampstead Heath- that the children would be more susceptible to a woman who could be comparable to a maternal figure. Although Dracula achieves his corruption through sexual means, such as Lucy’s metaphorical rape at the church in Whitby, there is also a corruption of religion involved, which would further reduce the integrity of the women, as they are now not only unsuitable in the eyes of man for marriage, but now they are “unclean” in the eyes of God. That it is women who are tempted by Dracula draws parallels with Eve being first to taste the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, which further shows that Dracula shares similarities with the Devil as he is prepared to corrupt women who were previously virtuous. Therefore, the corruption of women in the novel underlines Dracula’s position as an ‘antichrist’ to religion as well as their innocence as they are presented as easy prey for Dracula.

In conclusion, femininity within ‘Dracula’ is very clearly defined within the boundaries of religion. Those who have not been corrupted by Dracula are seen as virtually faultless in terms of the conventional view of a virtuous woman, for example Mina is entirely willing to serve her husband and takes care of Lucy whilst she is ill much as a mother would look after a child. On the other hand, Dracula’s temptation and corruption of Lucy shows how her femininity had been degraded after succumbing to his attacks, until eventually she is reducing to sucking the blood of children, whom she would ordinarily be expected to protect. This emphasises the power Dracula can hold over women, as he can override their maternal instincts. Consequently, ‘Dracula’ shows the ‘ideal’ woman who would herself be protective and virtuous, in other words one who would be the pure ‘Madonna’ type image, but also shows the antithesis of this, a woman who has been corrupted by the lure of Dracula’s physical presence which has resulted in a loss of innocence as well as a fall from God. Therefore, issues of femininity within ‘Dracula’ are largely black and white as women on the side of ‘good’ are seen to be caring, maternal figures while those who have turned over to the side of ‘evil’ have become temptresses whose have purely sexual desires and seek to seduce men through these base emotions.            

                                                                                                                          

Chapter 10/11

So I've just had to remind myself of what these chapters are about; Lucy has deteriorated in her illness (well, become more vampire-like but the characters don't know that) and Van Helsing has arrived and has quickly identified the problem. Then there's that weird bit about the wolf escaping and finally ends with Lucy's diary in which she describes a wolf's head smashing through her window and the consequent death of her mother.
I suppose the most significant part of these chapters is the arrival of Van Helsing. He comes to (try to) counteract the evil work done by Dracula, so is sort of a Christ-like figure. This interpretation is helped by his use of analogies (like Jesus' parables) and possibly his name; Abraham being the father of Christianity (as well as for Judaism and Islam). His knowledge is vastly superior to the others as he is aware of what is happening to Lucy well before the others, despite not being present at the start of the condition. That he's from Amsterdam may mean that a foreign invader has to be defeated by another foreigner, like fire fighting fire. Though there are many differences between Van Helsing and Dracula, there can also be said to be some similarities. Firstly, they are both clearly very intelligent and this means they are also evenly matched in this respect so to get around the Count's abilities Van Helsing has to keep an open mind in order to be a step ahead. Also, they are both determined; Dracula because he has to drink blood in order to survive and Van Helsing because of the danger Dracula poses to humanity.

Another thing that interested me (if that's really the right word) is the rather bizarre article about the wolf escaping. Obviously, this links in with Dracula's ability to command creatures of the night, as seen when Harker first arrives in Transylvania. Maybe this is supposed to parallel the command that Dracula has over Lucy (and later Mina) and that he can transform a reasonably tame wolf (in that it is not completely wild) into a vicious animal that can terrorise London's population.

Women in Dracula

The women in 'Dracula' (well tbh there's not that any of them) perhaps can be sorted into the whole Madonna/whore thing. There's Mina who's on the shy and retiring side and who can't wait to hear news of her dear Jonathan blah blah blah... yeah I know it kinda sickens me too. Anyway, I suppose her purity and virtue are supposed to be a contrast to Dracula's brides mentioned earlier in the novel, who it seems are trying to seduce Harker-perhaps tempting him to break his vow of chastity before marriage? It's not particularly surprising that the 'whore' label is established for these women who suck blood and are on the evil side; women in this situation are traditionally displayed as 'sirens', luring men to the dark side where they can have their way with them. As to Lucy, well, I'm not entirely sure of how we should view her. I mean, she is preyed upon by Dracula, who it seems only feasts on the pure and innocent, but then she's had three suitors at the same time, which to me is a little on the 'whore' side possibly?

I think the way women are portrayed in the novel is definitely influenced by the way Stoker viewed them. Clearly he disliked the rise of the feminist or 'New Woman' movement as the virtuous and oh so sweet Mina is very critical of them, sarcastically remarking how these women believe they should have an equal role to men in marriage and would even do the proposing themselves. The idea that women are either pure and virtuous or evil temptresses within a Gothic novel does not surprise me, as here Dracula must feed on the pure and, as seen in the case of Lucy, transforms them into this evil persona. On the other hand, men are of of little use to Dracula in this respect as they do not seduce women and bring them to the dark side but can still be used by him as menial servants, as seen with Renfield.

How is Dracula written?

The interesting aspect of 'Dracula' is that it is written as though it is a compilation of various sources; journals belonging to Jonathan, Mina and Dr Seward, correspondence between some of the characters and a newspaper cutting. The effect of this is to present the events as real, as 'evidence' from factual sources is more likely to be believed. Though we are aware that the plot of 'Dracula' is fiction (...?), the presentation of these events as facts make it easier for us to suspend our disbelief and become drawn into the plot. Stoker's little pre-amble stating that the various pieces he has collected has been chosen "so that a history almost at variance with the possibilities of latter-day belief may stand forth as simple fact" adds that little bit extra fear as we read the novel since it helps for us to believe that the accounts could have been found by the author rather than written for a fictional purpose.

Being able to see what the characters have written allows us into their secrets; the journals and letters were not supposed to be seen by other people. The result of this is that we are able to gain a greater insight into the truth as they are revealing secrets they may not otherwise reveal; therefore we see what Lucy has been up to in her letter to Mina, saying "this is a secret" which we would not otherwise know about. That we are reading these private letters and accounts can be taken as an invasion of privacy as we are getting this information when the characters who are writing them are at their most vulnerable as they are writing their private thoughts and secrets. Consequently, a parallel could be shown between the blood sucking of the vampire and the reading of such personal information- both acts require the withdrawal of something so personal from when the victim (or writer) is at their most vulnerable.

In my opinion, the verisimilitude of 'Dracula' helps in getting more from the story as it helps in making it slightly more believable so you are able to be possibly more emotional about it (feel more fear) than if it was written as a typical narrative. That said, I don't think anyone would really believe that there was a Transylvanian vampire that could crawl down walls like a lizard and turn into a bat...

Sex and dreams

OK I'm gonna try and do this without any innuendos. According to Freud sexuality is a big part of our subconsciousness and we show it in jokes, slips of the tongue- known as Freudian slips like what happened with James Naughtie and Jeremy Hunt- and of course in our dreams. His idea was that our sexual desires are repressed and these are the times when we are able to express them. To be honest, though, it appears that anything dreamt can be interpreted as sexual- long pointy things (poles, stakes etc.), things that carry water (fountains, water pipes) and any kind of receptacle (a box, chalice or a type of transport) have all been interpreted by Freud as sexual symbols. Similarly, anything that involves penetration or power also has a sexual symbol, meaning any kind of weapon or firearm.

So what does this have to do with 'Dracula'? Well for a start he sinks his teeth into people's necks to suck their blood. This close body contact is, as no doubt Freud would have interpreted it, quite sexual and intimate. The part where Dracula's brides try to seduce Harker is kind of sexual-in the film this bit was shown as quite 'intimate' to say the least and if I remember correctly Dracula (in the film) is supposed to have some sort of fixation with Mina. Perhaps the level of sex and sexual suggestion is because it is a primal urge as is fear, a lot of this in a gothic novel, as well as survival; the Count has to suck blood in order to live. These two instincts seem to be closely linked in the novel, so it isn't surprising that there is quite a lot of sex next to the idea of life, or at least trying to sustain life.  

Vlad the Impaler

Vlad the Impaler (or Vlad Dracula to give his proper name) was a military leader in Transylvania who was also a knight of the Order of the Dragon- these people fought against the threat of Muslim Turks. His actions were pretty shocking, to say the least. He impaled hundreds of thousands of people, ranging from prisoners of war to anyone who he wanted to kill; basically he did this for fun. Perhaps this thrist for blood may have come from a bit of revenge for being used as collateral when his father made peache with the Turks? Regardless he was still a complete psycho- he was supposed to have drank the blood of his enemies (remind you of anyone?) and would dine next to his impaled victims and anyone who was disgusted at this would meet a similar fate. One day he even burnt to death thousands of people he saw as being a drain on his country's resources; he also had a cruel sense of humour, when two Turkish ambassadors refused to take of their hats (which was customary) Dracula had thier hats nailed to their heads so they need never take them off again. So all in all a sadistic maniac who you would definitely not want to meet in a dark alley.

Looking at Bram Stoker's Dracula and the real-life Vlad Dracula there are some close resemblances. For a start, they are both from Transylvania and both live in a 'Castle Dracula'. The (literal) thirst for blood is another comparison, but for the Count this is for survival, whereas Vlad was just insane. If anything, the reaserch I've carried out has found that Count Dracula is a really nice guy compared to his real-life counterpart. Sure, he may kill a few people and suck their blood, but he didn't exactly torture thousands of people for the sheer hell of it. 

Not to be confused with Vlad the Impala

Vampires

I managed to find quite a lot of information on the interwebs about vampires- one website seemed overly keen, giving Latin names and talking about them as if they're real (which they're not...?). Anyway, one thing I noticed was the way vampires were percived has changed quite a bit over time. The first folk-tales talked about creatures prowling the night causing mishcief; these then evolved into the blood-sucking demon-like creature we often recognise as the archtypal vampire- basically Dracula. The modern vampires seem to have developed the sexual element and eternal youth bit- hence the over-emphasis on toplessessness and romance in teenage novels like Twilight and TV series like True Blood.

A few examples of the vampires I found:

Blood Vampire: the traditional view of a vampire, they gain energy from drinking blood (must be fresh blood to gain energy, not dead blood).

Homo Wampyrus Draco: Like Count Dracula, have retractable canines and can’t cope for long with sunlight. Most common of the vampires.

Homo Wampyrus Chrioptera: Can transform into vampire bats, very sensitive to sunlight and have pointy ears.

Homo Wampyrus Nosferatu: Are twisted and disfigured as they have fought the virus, obtain blood through stealth and may be able to shape-shift.

Classical vampires are "ageless", meaning their physical bodies do not age, but they can be killed.

Inheritor vampires: the vampire trait will lay dormant until around the age of 13 – 26 when the body releases a chemical which awakens the vampire and begins many physical changes in the body. As a result of this, most look around 19 - 20 years old their whole life. There must be one vampire parent. Inheritor vampires live to around 350-400 years old.

Is Faustus a gothic/tragic character?

So Dr. Faustus has sold his soul to the Devil and has a little demon (Mephistophilis) as a servant- sounds pretty gothic so far. In my opinion gothic is all about the dark side of things- so it might be the dark side of the day (night), the dark side of human emotion (evil) or in the case of Faustus the dark side of religion. He summons Mephistophilis in the first place by writing "Jehovah's name forward and backward anagrammatis'd", landing him on the 'evil' side of Christianity. Whilst siding with the Devil, Faustus has learnt the art of magic; associated with witches and pagans and so Faustus himself is connected with the supernatural. Though we think of the gothic as something to do with bats and vampires and haunted castles (or at least I do anyway), the story of Dr. Faustus can perhaps be seen as a gothic tale due to its elements of something other than human.

On the other hand, Dr. Faustus could also be perceived as a tragic character. To be honest, I felt pretty sympathetic towards him in his lat speech as he is desperate to have one last chance at redemption- "The Devil will come, and Faustus must be damn'd. O, I'll leap up to my God! Who pulls me down?" To  me it seems he deeply regrets his pact with Lucifer, and maybe this is because he made this deal for the wrong reasons. He didn't really want to be damned forever; it was his arrogance that caused his desire to be superior to anyone else which led him into selling his soul and this could be said to be his hubris. He used Hell as a means to an end and failed to realise what that would inevitability lead to. The result of his eternal damnation in Hell was therefore a mistake as he could not see the gravity of the situation as he was blind to everything but the promise of great power.

Overall I would say Dr. Faustus is a tragic character who has become entangled with the gothic. His hubris is the inevitable lead to his downfall as he can't see beyond his goal of massive power and has almost forced him into interfering with the evil side of Christianity. Gothic elements are definitely present, in the form of darkness and temptation, and these help portray Faustus as a character who is corrupted as a result of his own miscalculations, although he does not necessarily believe in this dark side of Christianity (unsurprising given he was a doctor of divinity). Therefore, I believe Faustus is a tragic character who is drawn into the realm of the gothic Hell and demons imagery through his hubris.

Act 4

The two scenes in this act show what Faustus can achieve with Mephistophilis, and to be honest, it isn't all that much, at least compared to his ambitions. He has summoned the spirits of Alexander the Great and his paramour at the request of the Emperor of Germany and made a knight who insulted him wear a pair of horns. So much for "The Emperor shall not live but by my leave"; he seems more of a 'court jester' type entertaining the emperor he wanted to be superior to for a "bounteous reward". The Knight is unconvinced by Faustus' magic, suggesting his power is "nothing at all", and is punished by horns being placed on his head. Even then, it is when the Emperor asks for the horns to be removed that Faustus does so, saying it is "to delight you with some mirth". The impression I got from this scene is that Faustus has not achieved anything like what he desired, and has reduced to demonstrating his power as thought he was a casual magician. Perhaps this is another example of Mephistophilis deceiving Faustus, that rather than being able to help him in becoming a kind of God on Earth he has kept the influence Faustus would make to a minimum, deception being a typical thing to expect from a devil, particularly for the Elizabethan audience.

It seems that by the second scene of this Act that Faustus is ageing, and so wants to "Make haste to Wittenberg". He is perhaps becoming more afraid of what will happen to him after his contract with the Devil ends and begins to be concerned about his "fatal end". Meanwhile, he has sold his horse to a horse-courser for forty dollars, despite wanting fifty. He warns the horse-courser not to ride the horse into water, which he does anyway and ends up "sat upon a bottle of hay". Maybe Faustus was irritated at selling his horse for a lower price so he put a spell on it, or maybe it was sent from Hell by the Devil so would be deceptive. So after the horse-courser nearly drowns he returns to Faustus demanding his money back, but is informed by Mephistophilis that Faustus is asleep. The horse-courser tries to wake him up and succeeds after he pulls his leg off. He then swears to give Faustus an extra forty dollars to "let me go", but the leg grows back anyway after he leaves. No doubt this is an ability given to him by magic, I think it was a trick to get more money from the horse-courser and shows that Faustus is having to resort to tricks like these to get money. So basically this scene represents the fact that he has still achieved none of his big ambitions, despite his contract with the Devil coming to a close. 

Whatever we did last lesson

OK I'll be honest I've basically forgotten what we were supposed to write about but anyways...

So Faustus has sealed a pact with Mephistopheles to sell his soul, yet already he seems disenchanted with this deal. Now he has been drawn over to the Devil, Mephistopheles appears less persuasive, and Faustus does not get what he wants. He requests a wife, yet Mephistopheles only offers "the fairest courtesans", so Faustus cannot experience happiness which would require the prescience of God, ie. marriage. Furthermore, the greater knowledge he seeks to possess from the realm of magic is also lacking, with Mephistopheles giving vague answers to Faustus' questions, which he claims even "Wagner can decide" and all the knowledge he would need being obtained from one book. The latter has clearly confused Faustus, who tells Mephistopheles "O, thou art deceived.". It is as though the devil has tempted Faustus with false promises of wealth and power, when really all that will happen is that he will be damned forever. The assertion that it was "God that made the world" would emphasise that hell is really under God's control and that the Devil has no power to offer to Faustus. The introduction of the Seven Deadly Sins is one last attempt to persuade Faustus that turning against God can enable him to get what he desires, and this seems to have worked as he exclaims "O, this feeds my soul!".

What the Good/Evil angels may look like

 

Another big element to this part of the play are the roles of the Good Angel and Evil Angel. The Good Angel repeatedly offers hope through repentance and forgiveness, whilst the Evil Angel insists Faustus is beyond God's help. The Evil Angel seems to be able to more easily control Faustus, for instance the words "Ay, but Faustus never shall repent" turns him away from God. A little further on he does try to repent ("Christ my Saviour/ Seek to save distressed Faustus' soul), but Lucifer and Belzebub appear, along with Mephistopheles, and insist that there is no point in repenting now, similar to what the Evil Angel says.

A possibility is that the Evil Angel is Fuastus' true conscience, while the Good Angel is a messenger from God informing him there is always forgiveness- a key element of the Christian faith. There is the question about how the roles of these characters should be played, and this would depend on whether they are viewed as solid figures or are within Faustus's mind. Personally, I would have the character of Faustus also playing the part of the Good/Evil Angel as a kind of Gollum/Smeagol thing. In my opinion these angels are different parts of Faustus' mind; the Good Angel representing his loyalty to God (being a doctor of divinity) and the Evil Angel representing his curiosity into matters beyond his reasoning (after all, curiosity killed the cat...)

One final thing we touched on was the issue of homosexuality in the play. Mephistopheles informs Faustus that Heaven is "not half so fair as thou" and dissuades him from wanting a wife, saying "if thou lovest me, think no more of it". Though this last remark may have been more of a platonic love than a sexual one, their conversations are still a bit more than 'friendship'. This would also provide more evidence for Mephistopheles wanting Faustus' soul, that is because of this sexual tension. Some have suggested that the reason for this is because Marlowe himself was a homosexual, though now this is just pure speculation.

Scene IV- comic scene

Though this scene may be described as comedic in terms of a play, it can hardly be called 'funny'. A few examples of wordplay and puns can't make a scene humourous. Most likely it is regarding as 'comedic' when compared to the serious tone of the rest of the play. Faustus is preparing to sell his soul to the Devil, whilst these two characters are being more jovial in tone- they use a ligther tone of speech, for instance when Wagner asks "hast thou any comings in?" the clown replies "Ay, and goings out too.". Visual humour is emloyed as well; the clown 'runs up and down crying' upon seeing a pair of devils, despite earlier talking about how he would show bravado when facing the devils.Though it may only be simple humour, the effect may be to loosen the audience, in other words to give them a light-hearted scene in the midst of the disturbing facts of Faustus selling his soul.
 
This scene, however, is so vastly different styilistically from the rest of the play, for example it uses prose (a 'lower-status' form of speech) rather than verse which is used in the rest of the text. Not suprisingly, there has been doubt cast over whether Marlowe actually wrote this scene at all. Perhaps it was written by a contributor some time after the main play who decided to add it to give a sense of comic relief, or maybe Marlowe did indeed write it and simply could not write comic scenes very well. Either way, it does little to add to the progression of the play, and the only real reason for it's inclusion appears to be as a break for the audience so they are not overwhelmed by too much gothic imagery.

Mephistopheles

The first impression I had of this devil was different to what I expected. I presumed Mephistopheles would be an evil tempting demon who would do everything he could to gain Fuastus' soul. However, he seems reluctant to draw Faustus away from God, and even tries to actively dissuade him form pursuing this matter further- "O Faustus! Leave these frivolous demands,/ Which strike a terror to my fainting soul.". In fact, it is as though Mephistopheles is more sympathetic than Faustus, who is too arrogant to heed the warnings of this devil. He remains convinced he will gain incredible power from the Devil, and that he''ll be a "great Emperor of the world", though he is too focused on this he fails to see the downside. Mephistopheles in this scene is, in my opinion, a more human character than Faustus, as he displays compassion and concern for Faustus' soul, though the latter remains cold-hearted against God and oblivious to what his fate could be.

Faustus is being drawn away from the study of divinity into this dangerous world of magic, and is tempted by this chance for superhuman power- I'm not talking x-ray vision or flight, just more power over people than anyone has ever had- and is prepared to go against God, something which the contemporary audience would have found appalling. His blasphemous incantation to summon Mephistopheles is completely disowning his religion,which the audience would know must only end terribly.That he orders Mephistopheles to return "an old Franciscan friar" could show evidence of Marlowe poking fun at Catholics at a time when practising other than Protestantism would have meant taking a huge risk. Faustus appears to be somewhat surprised himself at how simple it was to summon a devil ("Who would not be proficient in this art?"), and remains undeterred from attempting to bargain with Hell. In their conversations about the Devil, Mephistopheles explains how God "threw him from the face of heaven", which would suggest the Devil is still subordinate to God, and that even though Faustus switches his allegiance to Lucifer he is still under the influence of God.

The primary reason for Fautus' downfall is further apparent in this scene, and this is his arrogance. Despite Mephistopheles informing him of the eternal joys of Heaven compared to the damnation of Hell, he simply tells of his "manly fortitude" and that he "confounds hell in Elysium". To me, it appears that Faustus is so assured by his own intelligence that he feels that he does not need information from outside sources and is able to make decisions based on little but his own interpretations. He still refers to himself in the third person ("Faustus, begin thy incantations") which could suggest he is showing detachment from emotions and is trying to reach an impartial decision, although to me it sounds slightly disturbing. Fautus' reliance on himself only for advice would show he is heading inevitably towards disaster as he cannot see what danger may come from becoming involved with something that would be considered the utmost blasphemy. 

Perceptions of the Gothic

What do I think of when I say 'gothic'? Vampires, of course, and bats, churchyards at night, Frankenstein, moonless nights, blood,evil spirits, emos... When it comes to literature, 'gothic' style definitely contains elements of these. They mostly feature darkness in one form or another, perhaps literally in the case of 'Dracula', where scenes take place at night, or the 'dark' nature of tales such as 'Frankenstein', where the protagonist's creation of a monster can be seen as rather disturbing.

Really, Gothic can be pretty much anything which pertains to darkness or especially the supernatural. So Dr Faustus can be defined as Gothic for it's use of both evil and the supernatural (devil). The dark nature of the play is evident in Faustus' summoning of Mephistophilis, and it is even more worrying to see Faustus being so unconcerned about his own soul. Gothic literature appears to be as much about frightening the reader than about entertainment.


   

First impressions of Faustus

So now down to some proper blogging. Faustus- first impressions? OK, this guy is some sort of mega genius- reading Latin, questioning Aristotle, disregarding Galen and so on. Trouble is, this seems to have led to arrogance; he's so clever he feels like he can rule the world. To me he also seems to be getting a bit deranged and slmost believes he can usurp God, talking about power and omnipotence. The Chorus says he was born from pretty ordinary stock so unlikely,at first, to be anything special. Is it a surprise then, to see a man so capable of achieving vast amounts of power? He is not of noble blood, yet wants to excel the power of emperors and kings.

A typical gothic protagonist? It could be argued, particularly with his dangerous ambitions and remarkable intelligence, that he can be described as such, though his rather standard social status is not in line with the conventions of such characters e.g. Count Dracula.

Personally, my reaction to his introduction is that I find him a thoroughly disagreeable character. His disregard of major intellectuals thought of as the top of their fields is annoyingly arrogant, and I won't be surprised if Marlowe intended this reaction so the audience would feel little sympathy for him. Maybe his wish to be able to "make men live eternally", comparable to the powers of God, could have angered some of the contemporary audience, as though they felt he was almost mocking religion.

In short, Dr Faustus is clearly a very intelligent and ambitious man, though his arrogance and determination to get powers that would triumph anyone living are no doubt going to lead to his downfall. He may think he is amazingly bright, but his wish to explore the use of magic makes me think otherwise.

First post :)

Here's a pretty neat site I found about Marlowe's death