|
The Word's impact on the words of English Literature
The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of the Fulcrum leadership team. Messages are subject to approval before they appear online.
You are not logged on and so have only read access to the forum.
Please Login, or Sign up for a free account so you can post replies and start new threads.
|
Messages (newest first):
|
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
|
|
Posted by: User 1237 |
Friday 16 February 2007 - 02:06am |
| Re: Dracula
The Crew of Light is a deceiving misquote. This quote appears nowhere in the book and your use of it only serves to misguide. It is not on Minaﾴs initiative that they persue Dracula. You are obviously missing the whole point or have not read the book adequately. Mina has NO initiative; she is completely subdued at this stage and relates events only under hypnosis which is quite different!
The word hysteria and derivations of (used a total of eight times in the book), are used only to describe situations of dire consequence and are by no means meant to be funny . Do not take things out of context or quote incorrectly, it only serves to render a gutter form of criticism. Your subsequent definition is therefore worthless, whatever pains you made to give it relevance.
Harker is hardly effeminate. You apparently miss the point of the novel if you misunderstand the turmoil endured: For now, feeling as though my own brain were unhinged or as if the shock had come which must end in its undoing, I turn to my diary for repose and hospitalized for nearly six weeks, suffering from a violent brain fever
Minaﾴs entries count for only a part of the novel, hardly a third. She is writing a DIARY and no conscious effort is made to motivate other to action. For the most part she is an unreliable narrator as she is under the influence of Dracula or she does not realise what is happening - indeed she wonders if Dracula is spiritual guidance that was coming to me in my sleep? . Henceforth is her account untrustworthy. Only through the intuition of others are her entries made noteworthy.
Mina is Mary. There is no doubt that this was Stokerﾴs intention. Lucy was Mary Magdalen and Mina her nemesis. As a Victorian novel fin de siecle, a moral was insinuated and if you find comments made offensive , you should really take a look at the literary movement during the turn of the century. Thankfully it gave rise to Virginia Woolf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 05:42pm |
| Hey Jody,
Hmm, I think me posting on this website definitely counts as an addiction... I think I'm going to go cold turkey after this post!
Ho hum, time for my last response before I close the doors of Loz and end my babbling... Thanks for clarifying what you meant Jody. I'm not sure I agree entirely with everything you say but that probably isn't news! I'm not sure about the Abraham thing but I think your argument might be from silence, on the other hand what we can be sure of is the way in which it is referred to in Hebrews (which I can't remember from the top of my head...).
Anyway, it's been very nice chatting away to you, Karen and others, but I suspect that I would do much better applying my "critical faculties" to the things of paper rather than the things of electricity. It's been interesting, and I've certainly gained a clearer perception of how some view Conservative Evangelicals and their understanding of scripture. So thank you for your patient responses and I wish you all, all the best.
Grace and Peace be with you all from Jesus Christ, Our Lord.
Take care,
Loz
Ephesians 3:20-21 (English Standard Version)
Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Jody |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 08:51am |
 Hi Loz
God is good. In reply to whether I believe that whatever God says 'goes', I believe that goodness is not some arbitrary moveable notion that is one thing today and another tomorrow - because God is good and God is consistent and so therefore goodness is consistent.
To put it another way - I believe that God does what is good, because 'goodness' is an inherent and consistent characteristic of God, it is not a capricious notion, it is consistent. To say that 'whatever God does is good' because God defines what is good by some other means than his own consistent nature means that today we might say that murder is bad, but tomorrow God might say it is good, because God defines goodness in an arbitrary fashion, with the notion of 'goodness' being simply a nominal term for whatever God does, whether it is to commit genocide, child sacrifice, or raise to life.
In the case of Abraham and Isaac, if I believe that whatever God does is good (and therefore 'goodness' is an arbitrary notion) then I have no problem that today child sacrifice is okay - 'cos God's just testing Abraham and well, whatever God does is good, regardless of whether I find it repugnant.
However, if I believe that God does whatever is good and yesterday child sacrifice was a bad thing and God is consistent, then I might want to look more closely at the text. Maybe I discover that child sacrifice was inherent in the culture surrounding Abraham and maybe I think God, in complete reversal of the previous interpretation, is showing Abraham that child sacrifice is not the way of the people of God - ever - regardless of the acceptibility of the custom in his culture.
x Jody |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Loz |
Monday 12 February 2007 - 02:21am |
| Hey Jody,
I agree that it is a gross caricature to use Dracula, but I think we are going to start competing at how many times we can repeat ourselves! I do find your comment about Abraham and Isaac curious and whilst I don't see it as a justification for child sacrifice I do see God as defining morality rather than affirming my perception of what the abstract meaning of "good" is. Thus what God says goes, so to speak. I'm not entirely sure you are rejecting that, but when you reject those who justify their views saying "God says it is" I'm not entirely sure you are not. Are you rejecting their views because it isn't what God is saying or are you rejecting their views because they are just saying "God says it is"? I don't know if what I just said made any sense but my addiction has led me to another late night...
Take care Jody, and apologies about misunderstanding what you think about sacrificial love.
Loz |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Jody |
Sunday 11 February 2007 - 02:57pm |
Hi Loz
sure, like I said, I don't disagree that this might be what Stoker intended, nor that their are obvious biblical references. You are right, I simply disagree with this interpretation of the atonement. I actually think that the inverted Dracula is not a true representation of penal subsitution anyway. There are many evangelicals who question penal substitution as a whole and many who wouldn't, but most would question this kind of gross caricature anyway.
By the way, you say:
'You may reject the idea of sacrificial love having a Biblical foundation'
Just to be clear, I think that sacrificial love beats in the heart of God and is witnessed to in the Scriptures. I don't think that I gave the impression anywhere else that sacrificial love should be amputated from the atonement, did I? But there are many understandings of the notion of sacrifice, not all of them good or biblical - one only has to look at the (bad?) interpretation of the Abraham and Isaac story, in which child sacrifice is deemed okay, as long as 'God says it is' and it shows Abraham's devotion to God. If you want to know the other interpretation, equally textual but infinitely more biblical (imho) then let me know.
x Jody |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 08:40pm |
| Jody, I'm afraid that I disagree in the sense that I suspect that Bram (which was short for Abraham) Stoker deliberately used this structure and thus it can be turned around, even if you find it morally repugnant. I could be wrong but was not this their understanding of scripture then? (As indeed it is for me now...) It just seems to me that the opposite parallels of Dracula compared to Our Lord seem so direct, and so numerous, that the act of sacrificial love demonstrated in Christ seems the exact opposite of the selfish unrestrained indulgence of Count Dracula who effectively sacrifices the lives of others to sustain his own. Dracula lacks the restraint which Stoker seems to be contrasting with Christianity. Even the "Crew of Light" at various times reveal themselves to be of imperfect characters, apparently endorsing the idea that there is a bit of Dracula in all of us. We see this also in the numerous references to the basic animal hunger and thirst of the human characters which is mentioned from the outset of the novel and sustained throughout. Also the fact that Dracula creates more vampires is a twisted sort of resurrection with living dead. The comparisons as I said are vast, and I think the sacrificial idea can be reversed here to emphasise the contrast between Dracula's unrestrained selfish feeding on the "life blood" of others, which stands in contrast to what I read in the Bible as Christ's unrestrained self-sacrificial love. You may reject the idea of sacrificial love having a Biblical foundation but nevertheless I do not get the impression that Stoker's text would agree with you for the purposes of this thread. Thus I think though you may disagree with the implications of my conclusion, I don't think they are forced upon the text by my "tinted" glasses, as much as they are self evident within Stoker's novel and consistent with the way in which he writes the novel overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Deleted user 974 |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 02:19pm |
I love the porosity, plasticity and crativity of the human mind & spirit ! Amazing to find Dracula growing like topsy here and in divers threads ! (but only if I forgot what I just recollected!).
Perhaps the group-unconscious here, is gifting us with an image of those who, in-picture-language spend the hours of dayLight asleep in in coffins in dusty atreums, only to emerge under cover of darkness to suck the life blood of others --especially the vulnerable --like young women.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Jody |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 01:24pm |
Hi Loz
the stuff on Mina is very interesting - thank you for that.
with regards the biblical information contained in Dracula, I wasn't really doubting that as a fact, nor that Bram Stoker drew on this in order to have an interesting twist to his book. I am simply saying that I don't really think that the notion of sacrifice that is found in Dracula can be simply turned around, as you suggested in your first post on this, to find the sacrifice of Jesus. I just don't think that this is a very good idea. The necessity for violence being point number one on my list (you know, Dracula violently and bloodily sacrificed others for himself, swapped for the notion that the Father and the Son agreed on the violent and bloody death of the Son on behalf of others, in order to deal with the problem of anger in some kind of weird schizophrenic Godhead - sorry I realise I've gone off on one here, this is more about atonement theory that Dracula, but you brought it up :-)
x Jody |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Loz |
Saturday 10 February 2007 - 02:29am |
| Just to respond to an irreverent earlier mention on the thread "The Ordination of Women", let me briefly speak in defence of the Good Count's name.
Karen and Jody, "Dracula - potboiler, sexist, prurient, orgiastic, middle class fear and loathing of the other - nuff said" Ouch! Far too simplistic! Stoker is much more complicated than that.
"1. Dracula, really really bad idea to invert this understanding of sacrifice to find Jesus.
2. Dracula, women are helpless objects to be devoured or protected, depending on which 'side' the man is on."
1. Oh, no it's not! It works on lots of levels. I can go into great depth if you like. Trust me, it is uncanny or perhaps I should say, unheimlich, to see the way in which Stoker has drawn upon Biblical imagery and themes. The bizarre parallel Stoker seeks to draw between Dracula and Jesus is self-evident. I'm not "finding Jesus" so much as I am pointing out the obvious. Stoker literally quotes from the Bible in more than one place. I could really take the novel apart but for the fact that this post is already way too self-indulgent... Needless to say may I also highlight that Count Dracula has his very own "voice of one calling in the Desert" in the form of Renfield. Note that Van Helsing's first name is Abraham... Note the way that the Novel was written post-enlightenment, and the characters who stick rigidly to science refusing to think outside of their understanding thus become frustrating to the readers in their refusal to accept the obvious existence of the abnormal. (You might thus conclude that if we are going to believe in God we should also believe in Dracula... but don't...)
2. This response relates to both you, Jody and Karen, there are indeed elements of what you are saying but note several things. Firstly, it is on Mina's initiative that the "Crew of Light" are able to take up the dead trail of Dracula. Secondly, occasionally we read of the men finding things "hysterically" funny. Hysteria comes from the Greek word "hysterikos" meaning "of the womb, suffering in the womb," as originally it was defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Elsewhere we read of Jonathan Harker being described in an effeminate manner. Thirdly, Mina is a teacher, and as readers we are encouraged to believe that Mina collates the various narratives which compose the book and it is through her efficiency that the "Crew of Light" are able to predict Dracula's flight. Fourthly, whilst Van Helsing in some places seems offensive towards women he speaks of Mina in a praiseworthy manner. Fifthly and finally, the last paragraph of the novel starts with this... "We want no proofs. We ask none to believe us! This boy will some day know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is."
Karen and Jody I hope you will thus agree that Stoker's treatment of women is not quite as simple as you both appear to indicate... (I had an excellent English teacher with a passion for Gothic literature...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
The Church of England inquiry into alleged child sex abuse by former Dean of Manchester Cathedral Robert Waddington is expected to crossover with the police inquiry into historical sexual abuse at Chetham's School of Music after it has emerged that Waddington was a governor at the school between 1984 and 1993. Independent 14 May 2013
18 May 2013
WORSHIP
1. The bells of the Church of St.Peter and St.Paul, Tonbridge in Kent- BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01shqss
2. Whit Sunday Worship from Emmanuel Church Didsbury - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes...
Bowman
Thanks for the kind comments. It wasn't my specific intention to cast new light on "kephale", especially as I really am no expert at all on Greek (or on any of this, to be honest). Before getting carried away, it's probably best for me to say I think the e...
It has always struck me as worse than perverse that I attended church for decades but only encountered basic useful tested instruction about how to live with these curious minds we have in a course I took at Harvard. After all, you can't easily open a Bible at a random page that does not, as ...
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
