John+Seward+2

- I am a scientific man, but I now see that some things cannot be explained by science. There is no scientific reason allowing the changes in Lucy as have been presented by Van Helsing:
 * **After looking at all the events that happened, which one do you think is more powerful: science or superstition?**

"'See,' he went on, 'see, they are even sharper than before. With this and this' -and he touched one of the canine teeth and that below it- 'the little children can be bitten. Are you of belief now, friend John?' Once more, argumentative hostility woke within me. I could not accept such an overwhelming idea as he suggested." (pg. 179)

However, not matter how I try to explain it reasonably, logistically: - "'She may have been placed here since last night... I do not know. Some one has done it.'" (pg. 179)

there is no reason that works. I know, by my medical training that a corpse does not retain its beauty and pristine sense of life for one week, it will start to disintegrate and rot. However, for Lucy: -"And yet she had been dead one week. Most people in that time would not look so." (pg. 179) --> "There lay Lucy, seemingly just as we had seen her the night before her funeral. She was, if possible, more radiantly beautiful than ever; and I could not believe that she was dead. The lips were red, nay redder than before; and on the cheeks was a delicate bloom." (pg. 178)

-> Thus, although humans try to organize and clean up the world with science, I am beginning to think that superstition can overpower science, simply because there is no explanation for the things that are happening, save for the superstitious "rules" of Dracula's "game". Science cannot beat superstition in this case, but superstition can beat superstition. Therefore, since superstition is prevails when science fails, I would say superstition is more powerful.

- "Great Scott! Is this a game?' 'It is.'" (page 186) - footnote on (page 187): If this is a game, Van Helsing has adopted Dracula's rules.


 * **Why do you think Dracula is indomitable so far?**

Dracula is indomitable so far, simply because we men who live in the Victorian age are so fond of science, reason, and practicality that we cannot open our minds enough to even consider the idea that a monster like Dracula exists. Since we are scorned or laughed at if we spread these ideas, and we even scorn and laugh at ourselves for thinking them, Dracula is free to do what he likes. Thus, Victorian values of science, reason, logistics, practicality, etc. actually hinder people from dealing with Dracula, simply because they can't accept the fact that he exists.

- "'You are clever man, friend John; you reason wel, and your wit is bold, but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? .... (pg. 170) - "Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain." (pg. 171)

People attribute the truthful account of children "bloofer lady" to their youth ("In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves.." (pg. 159)), and laugh at them because they are children ("A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the 'bloofer lady' is supremely funny." (pg. 160)).

The superstitious and non-scientific nature of Dracula paralyzes people with their own doubt: "By your letter to Mina last night. I was in doubt, and then everything took a hue of unreality, and I did not know what to trust, even the evidence of my own senses. Not knowing what to trust, I did not know what to do..." (pg. 168)

The innate fear of death and the bringers of death paralyzes humans. Even Van Helsing, who seems impenetrable, is powerless with fear at the sight of a vampire, simply because it is frightening and not normal. - "We shuddered with horror. I could see by the tremulous light that even Van Helsing's iron nerve had failed. Arthur was next to me, and if I had not seized his arm and held him up, he would have fallen." (pg. 187)