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.