Gina's College Collection

Quotation: ” Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man’s brain, a brain that a man should have were he much gifted, and a woman’s heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good combination…after tonight she must not have to do with this so terrible affair. It is not good that she run a risk so great. We men are determined, nay, are we not pledged, to destroy this monster? But it is no part for a woman. Even if she be not harmed, her heart may fail her in so much and so many horrors and hereafter she may suffer, both in waking, from her nerves, and in sleep, from her dreams. And, besides, she is young woman and not so long married, there may be other things to think of some time, if not now.” -Van Helsing, p. 235

Comments: This quote reflects the Victorian-era norm that women were delicate and should not have to worry about important matters.  It provides evidence for the idea mentioned in a quote I used for my Commonplace Book that the author was against the concept of the “New Woman,” who is far more independent.  This is in addition to him showing such a “new woman” becoming corrupted by that concept in this novel through strong-minded Lucy becoming a vampire.  Here the book further acts as a guide on how women should be handled, being so naturally prone to hysterics and easily getting in the way, as is his apparent view.  And later he encourages female readers to accept this idea when Mina agrees to being left out, being so reserved and faithful to her husband’s wishes.  This situation appears similar to that in Jane Eyre when St. John tries to get Jane to go with him as a missionary, though we get to see that incident through a woman’s eyes and Jane ultimately refuses.  St. John actually had similar remarks about her as Van Helsing had about Mina, saying “though you have a man’s vigorous brain, you have a woman’s heart” (p. 622).  Yet interestingly, as we see at the end of chapter 19, despite Mina’s good nature, Dracula still visits her.

Question: Why does Stoker have Mina get visited by Dracula if he’s trying to make the point that quiet women do not fall prey to sin? This makes it sound like no matter how a woman acts, evil cannot be escaped.

Quotation: Champnell on Lessingham: “He might have been almost shaken to pieces, – but the very severity of the shaking served to divert his thoughts from the one dread topic which threatened to absorb them to the exclusion of all else beside. Then there was the tonic influence of the element of risk…it seemed to me that he was getting a firmer hold of the strength which had all but escaped him, and that with every jog and jolt he was becoming more and more of a man.” (p. 342)

Comment:

This quote showcases a very common theme throughout this book that I have noticed, which is the contrast between femininity and masculinity.  Multiple times, women have been depicted as hysterical and associated with a lack of control, such as with Dora’s apparently unnecessary rage at Atherton near the beginning, while masculinity has been characterized by bravery, sensibility, and calm.  This is remarked upon in one essay as being present in the novel and embodying “the Victorian ideal of masculinity as a combination of abundant energy and masterly self-control” (Jones 2011).  The abundant energy portion is defined in The Beetle as the willingness to undertake missions that contain risk and even on occasion to physically fight, while the self-control, as I have defined, is the capability to remain cool in these situations and not take on feminine characteristics.

This consideration of checking oneself brings us to another lesson given by The Beetle: one on transformations.  Lessingham’s fear of The Beetle has been approximated as even reaching the point of “feminine hysterics.”  Much as The Beetle regularly changes forms between young and old, man and woman, and of course insect and human, Paul Lessingham frequently undergoes a transformation between two forms, feminine and masculine, in his form of reaction to the situation unfolding.  Another essay remarks that Gothic literature often refers to liminality between human and animal in the form of a monster that is not quite either, as The Beetle functions in this case.  This essay, however, seems to have not noticed that some form of transformation or, to relate the human more to the animal as that essay does, “evolution” takes place in Lessingham as well.  As said article states, “the processes by which the monster becomes a monster have now to be understood in the context of Darwinian evolution” (Ortiz-Robles 2015). The monster goes from human to animal, reflecting Victorian fears that humans would evolve, or rather devolve, to a more despicable state; The Beetle was not initially the horror it is depicted as, though it did start as an unrespectable person.  In the same way, the experience that Lessingham underwent in Cairo caused him to evolve into a fearful being, though he was mostly able to keep this secret, and he is often able to return from that state.  This state, in its fight-or-flight mentality, can be thought of as just as primal and animalistic as the antagonist.

Question: What sort of events might the author have experienced or witnessed that made him realize the importance of self-control? Was he inspired to write Paul Lessingham the way he did upon noticing masculine heroes in other Gothic literature that also had to maintain self-control but did not do so as obviously and so could not offer as much of a lesson in that area; for instance, Mr. Utterson in his first encounter with Hyde?

Works Cited

Mario Ortiz-Robles (2015) Liminanimal, European Journal of English Studies, 19:1, 10-23, DOI: 10.1080/13825577.2015.1004922

Anna Maria Jones. (2011) CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, INDIVIDUAL AGENCY, AND GOTHIC TERROR IN RICHARD MARSH’S THE BEETLE, OR, WHAT’S SCARIER THAN AN ANCIENT, EVIL, SHAPE-SHIFTING BUG? Victorian Literature and Culture, Cambridge University Press. 39, 65–85. doi:10.1017/S1060150310000276

Quotation: Sydney on Lessingham: “The words pointed to what it would be courteous to call an Eastern Romance, though it was hard to conceive of the Apostle figuring as the hero of such a theme. It was the old tale retold, that to the life of every man there is a background,-that it is precisely in the unlikeliest cases that the background’s darkest.” (p.132)

Comment: There are multiple connections to be made with past readings in this pair of sentences.  The first sentence reflects Cohen’s thesis of monsters that “the monster dwells at the gates of difference.”  The “people of the Orient” have been looked upon as odd, greedy, cunning, and mannerless throughout the book, making a monster out of them.  Thus, the idea of a respectable white man falling in love with one would have been unfathomable to Victorian England, as Sydney remarks.  The second sentence affirms this belief by having the event considered to make a man’s history dark.  Additionally, it reflects a common theme throughout the novels we’ve read of duality, with some of the most well-loved people having dark sides.  First there was the well-educated Frankenstein with his monster, often interpreted as being two sides of the same coin, with aspects of good and bad shown in both.  These include a sense of humanity and a passion for destruction of the other, respectively.  Then there is the wealthy Rutherford with the madwoman hidden in his attic and the duality of thoughtful Jane Eyre and Bertha’s rage.  Finally, more obvious in showcasing this idea, are Jekyll and Hyde, followed by Dorian Gray. So this motif repeats itself over and over in Gothic literature.

Question: Could Lessingham be based around a particular politician or just the author’s general hatred for politics? And what is Marsh’s experience with Eastern culture; did he ever travel to the Middle East or beyond?

Quotation, Lord Henry to Dorian: “My dear boy, the people who love only once in their lives are really the shallow people. What they call their loyalty and their fidelity, I call either the lethargy of custom or their lack of imagination. Faithfulness is to the emotional life what consistency is to the life of the intellect-simply a confession of failures. Faithfulness! I must analyze it someday. The passion for property is in it. There are many things that we would throw away if we were not afraid that others might pick them up” (p. 58).

Comments:

Lord Henry is a very unique character in that he takes the common literary role of mentor, not because he really cares for his pupil as many teachers do, but because he finds the idea of being a mentor entertaining, and views his student Dorian as the subject of an experiment.  Lord Henry does appear to have some care for Dorian in that he wants Dorian to be happy, but usually the goal of the mentor is to put a life on track, not cause it to veer off into dangerous territory, as he has done with encouraging sin in Dorian so he can live his life to the fullest.  This quote is one example of this. 

The quote also gives an insight into Lord Henry’s own experience.  He may be so cynical because he’s been cheated on in the past.  Or he may believe that faithfulness shows a weakness in character with its restriction of independence, which was illustrated in his story of being disgusted at an old flame who wouldn’t let him go and who said she’d “sacrifice the world” for him.  I’m actually inclined to think the former because Basil repeatedly tells Lord Henry that he’s not as bad as he pretends to be and asserts that Henry doesn’t believe anything he himself says.  This brings up the question of whether the author follows Henry’s philosophies; based on the amount of detail that Wilde puts into Henry’s statements, Henry is certainly the form in which the author has decided to put himself into his work as a character.  The author certainly values independence and loathes the stern Victorian lifestyle, looking at Henry’s “sage” words, but based on the decay of Dorian’s soul with every sin that becomes apparent in his portrait, it appears that Wilde is urging his readers to have fun, but be cautious.  Or he may simply have written the portrait in as something to make his book acceptable and more likely to be published while truly intending the book to encourage people to recognize having a bit of fun is a good thing.

Questions: What experiences did the author have that prompted him to come up with these ideas? Did his writing encourage any of his readers to act more freely in their lives or scare them away from such thoughts even more? And which one of these was his intent?

Quotation: “‘Down superstition!’ I commented, as that spectre rose up black by the black yew at the gate. ‘This is not thy deception, nor thy witchcraft: it is the work of nature…’ I…fell on my knees; and prayed in my way-a different way to St. John’s, but effective in its own fashion. I seemed to penetrate very near a Mighty Spirit; and my soul rushed out in gratitude at His feet.” (p. 640-1)

Comments: The Jane we see in these later chapters is shown to have far been changed from the Jane we encountered in the beginning.  She has gone from God-questioning, as when she spoke with Helen Burns as a child, to God-fearing, despite her many misfortunes.  This is very interesting, as the author seemed nearly anti-Christian in the beginning, though we know from the introduction she eventually marries a clergyman.  As seemingly logical and irreligious as she was, as she does not mention going to church or prayer while at Thornfield and still bears resentment towards Rev. Brocklehurst, one would not have expected her to have such a change of heart, despite the fact something unexplained happened.  Most people today, as Jane appears to be more like than those of her time, if they had heard voices on the wind as she had, would have attributed it to stress, though perhaps would have been more believing later when Mr. Rochester told his half of that night’s events.

Questions: Why did Bronte incorporate such a change of heart? Why did she seemingly encourage questioning of religion early on only to go back on it with a supernatural occurrence? Though containing Gothic aspects, the story was realistic fiction up to this point, so why turn to the supernatural? Did the author have a change of heart towards Christianity in reality in the midst of writing the novel, or did she always plan it this way?

Quote: “‘I [Mr. Rochester] was walking late one evening…when something came up the path. I looked at it. It was a little thing with a veil of gossamer on its head…It was a fairy, come from Elf-land…”Put [this ring],” she said, “on the fourth finger of my left hand, and I am yours, and you are mine; and we shall leave earth, and make our own heaven yonder…” ‘[Jane] is a fairy.'” (p. 407-408)

Comment/Connection: This anecdote by Mr. Rochester illustrates his apparent obsession with marrying Jane. He has consistently viewed her as something otherworldly, from when he referred to her as some strange fairy the night Jane witnessed his horse fall. The gossamer veil may symbolize this mysterious air he believes she has, as well as a bridal veil, and the ring clearly signifies marriage. He views being with her as an escape from his current unsatisfactory life, which though he has spent in material comfort, has been lonely and tainted with the pain of betrayal by his former love Celine Varens.

Notably, Rochester is describing this so-called fairy in such a way that is different from how we think of fairies now with their minuscule bodies and delicate wings. The figure he speaks of is short but not the size of an insect and looks more human, and belongs to its own world rather than being a unique part of ours. This closer resembles the figure of fairies described by Tolkien in his essay “On Fairy Stories,” in which he defines not only what fairy-tales are, but what fairies are: beings that come from the land of Faerie, which arises from our imaginations. I have also read about such creatures in the fantasy novel “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell,” which is about the return of sorcerers in England in the early 19th century and their struggle with faeries. In that story, faeries were often tricksters and enjoyed making deals with humans at a price, such as when the faerie king heals a sick girl but as payment took her to be his bride for “half her life” and bringing her to his palace to dance with him all night, every night, ultimately making her tired and bitter during the day. Rochester seems to feel he is under a spell of sorts too, and often refers to “being conquered by” Jane later.

Question: Why does Rochester view women so differently than the other men in the story, and possibly real men of this era, seem to? Is it due to his romantic experiences solely or did his parents have something to do with his view of Jane as someone of interest, despite lacking beauty and charisma?

Quote: ” [Helen’s] grave is in Brocklebridge churchyard: for fifteen years after her death it was only covered by a grassy mound; but now a gray marble tablet marks the spot, inscribed with her name, and the word ‘Resurgam'” (p. 81).

Comments: I searched for the meaning of “Resurgam,” and found it is Latin for “I will rise again.” Mentioning this detail on Helen’s grave demonstrates Jane and potentially the author’s disdain for blind belief in religion. Jane often questioned the doctrines of Christianity, even directly to Helen, who was pious. And here this faithful girl lies, dead young, with a message on her grave saying she’ll be back that was even only added long after death. This description makes religion sound vain and pathetic in its apparent hopefulness, interesting in literature for this time period.

Questions: Why did the author choose to have the message added long after Helen’s death? Is this based off real experiences of hers, with a grave of someone she knew perhaps having the same epitaph?

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. NY: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1847.

Quote: Frankenstein referring to the manner in which he told the magistrate about the creature: “…there was a frenzy in my manner, and something, I doubt not, of that haughty fierceness of which the martyrs of old are said to have possessed” (p. 171).

Comments: This quote illustrates an example of Frankenstein’s internal monstrosity in the form of his hatred for his creation shining through. It therefore emphasizes the idea of the duality of man that Shelley may have been trying to communicate through this novel by contrasting Frankenstein with his project. The creature was terrible on the outside yet innately good, and while Frankenstein was not evil, his focus on appearances was a major character flaw and ultimately his doom when it caused him to continually condemn his experiment.

Question: Why does Shelley refer to saints that were typically revered at this time as “haughty?” Is this a hint at rebellion against the church in her writing?

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein (Third Edition). Editor: Smith, Johanna M. Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2016.

One of the final monster films of the 20^th century, “The Mummy” of 1999, resurrected one of humanity’s oldest myths after the titular creature had already made its mark in culture in previous horror movies.  The story begins when a high priest of ancient Egypt named Imhotep sleeps with the pharaoh’s mistress and then kills the pharaoh himself.  The mistress commits suicide while the priest escapes, knowing he will try to bring her back.  But during that ritual the pharaoh’s guards capture him, bandage him, and trap him in a sarcophagus with flesh-eating beetles, instilling a curse upon him.  He is hidden away along with the book that can reawaken him, for if he is freed, he will rise as a mummy, devouring the bodies of those who freed him to regenerate his decomposing body before setting out to spread his curse.  And 3000 years later, that feared awakening occurs, though the mummy ultimately fails in his goal.  Yet, it may be more than the fear generated at the thought of an enraged piece of decay shambling towards you inspired this monster.  According to one Jeffrey Cohen, there are seven principle concepts that can generate a monster, and Imhotep particularly embodies the fourth: a monster is created when real differences among people are witnessed.

It is well known that throughout history, conflict arose among ethnic groups as each thought the other to be wrong in their strange practices, with Europeans especially known for referring to natives discovered in their colonization efforts as “savages”.  And there was clear disrespect for Egypt, as people who attended Victorian mummy unwrapping parties can attest.  Undertones of such a cultural clash certainly occur in the film, as the British and American archaeologists who accidentally bring back Imhotep learn that taking an interest in Egyptian religious practices only results in trouble.  The dangers of strange peoples are accentuated by conflicts between the Westerners and the normal Egyptian locals along with the depiction of the locals, who for the most part are shown as disgusting, greedy tricksters.  And as awe-inspiring as ancient Egypt is depicted, Imhotep committing his own crimes hints at that perceived savagery in the supposed “Golden Age” of this civilization.  Furthermore, as a mummy and something different he is shown to be not quite human, often speaking in roars and growls, not reacting to pain, and summoning mummified minions that in one scene crawl along walls like spiders.  One American provides his view on the people and events and sums up Cohen’s statement that difference causes fear by remarking “This is a messed-up country.” 

Notably, disparities were feared because they had potential to spread, as Cohen notes with his example of Queen Elizabeth I of England fearing that African peoples were “a threat to ‘the increase of people of our own nation’” (p.10).  This is depicted in the movie with the mention that Imhotep’s curse will spread until it covers the world, and the knowledge that “he will never eat, he will never sleep, he will never stop.”  The beginnings of this are shown when he acquires the help of one greedy Egyptian with promises of riches, like the empty promises believed to come with interest in foreign cultures, and later with his literal enslavement of a number of locals.  This truly matches the description of him as “a plague,” similar to how cultures tend to view new ideas, according to Cohen.

Difference is so clearly established as part of the mummy’s character.  And what is the significance of this? Our society is becoming progressively more sensitive to differences and seeing other groups as exotic creatures is now frowned upon.  Could monsters formed by earlier ideas of the foreign like the mummy disappear completely then as their stereotypical aspects become more hated?  Will this cause conflict between the horror industry and minorities in the US? Or will Imhotep be allowed to continue to stalk the big screen and other media? Only time and the people’s whim will tell.

Cohen, Jeffrey James. Monster Theory. Reading Culture. University of Minnesota Press. 1996.

The following images show some of my notes on the above text, which was written by Abigail Lee Six and Hannah Thompson and incorporated into The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous. This selection concerns how the representation of monsters in fiction changed during the Gothic era. In summary, such beings went from being solely outwardly deformed but originally good and rejected by society, like in Frankenstein, to appearing normal but being morally wrong due to internal and/or external factors, as with Jekyll and Hyde and Dorian Gray, respectively. Such figures and the changes this type of literature experienced during that period may have been a result of a fear of loss of civilization as political, social, and sexual norms were challenged at the time, as suggested by the text.

From Hideous to Hedonist: The Changing Face of the Nineteenth-century Monster. Six, Abigail Lee & Thompson, Hannah. The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, Mittman, Asa Simon & Dendle, Peter J. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 2013.