Dracula+DL+AngieJ

In this section, Bram Stoker makes great use of word choice to emphasize the intentions of an ambiguous character such as Renfield. Through carefully choosing the manner and vocabulary with which Renfield speaks, it is clear to the reader what kind of mood he is in, and what he wants. For example, on page 216 in the second full paragraph, Renfield eloquently beseeches Dr. Seward:
 * __Writing Trait:__ Word Choice**

"But I fear, Dr Seward, that you hardly apprehend my wish. I desire to go at once - here - now - this very hour - this very moment, if I may. Time presses, and in our implied agreement with the old scytheman it is of the essence of the contract. I am sure it is only necessary to put before so admirable a practitioner as Dr Seward so simple, yet so momentous a wish, to ensure its fulfilment.... Is it possible I have erred in my supposition?"

By using sophisticated and well-mannered words like "apprehend" instead of "understand", "desire" instead of "wish" or "want", the genteel phrase "implied agreement" to describe his imprisonment in the mental institution, and "so admirable a practitioner" for flattery, it is clear that Renfield intends to both impress Dr. Seward with his seeming sanity and courtesy, and persuade him with flattery to release him. In addition, he tries to be polite about it by gently saying "if I may," even though it is clear that he is desperate to get out. This desperation is also painted rather well with word choice; he repeatedly emphasizes the necessity of immediately releasing him through the phrase, "at once - here - now - this very hour - this very moment". Thus, within a simple paragraph spoken by one character, the reader can tell by the word choice that the character is cunning, capable of flattery, sophistication, courtesy, and is desperate to get what he wants.

__**Critical Passage:**__ "I used to fancy that life was a positive and perpetual entity, and that by consuming a multitude of live things, no matter how low in the scale of creation, one might indefinitely prolong life. At times I held the belief so strongly that I actually tried to take human life. The doctor here will bear me out that on one occasion I tried to kill him for the purpose of strengthening my vital powers by the assimilation with my own body of his life through the medium of his blood - relying, of course upon the Scriptural phrase, "For the blood is the life." (page 206)

I chose this passage because it includes a highly interesting biblical reference that explains Renfield's (and indirectly, Dracula's) philosophy and relationship with God. In this scene, Renfield uses the scriptural quote "for the blood is the life" to explain that he had tried to extend his life by drinking the blood of others, //relying// on what the Bible says about blood. This implies that Renfield is actually a follower of what the Bible says. However, what the full scriptural quote states is this: (Genesis 9:3) "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 //But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.//" In addition, in Deuteronomy 23, God commands, "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: //for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh//." Therefore, in the Bible, God is actually forbidding his people to drink blood, because blood is life, and man may not take life. God's punishment for disobedience of this command is as follows: (Leviticus 17:10) "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; //I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people//." Interestingly, Dracula and Renfield are both men who drink blood against God's will, and thus they both seem to be cursed, God's face set against them, and isolated from other people. For example, Dracula is considered a devil and damned (God's face is "set against his soul", thus he is not welcome in Heaven but sentenced to an undead, immortal existence) and he is clearly secluded in a remote Transylvanian castle far away from other people. Renfield is blighted with mental instability that causes him to try to murder Dr. Seward which, had he succeeded, would also have lost him his entrance into Heaven. He is also separated from other people within the confines of his cell. All this is significant because it illuminates Dracula and Renfield's relationship with God; because vampires directly violate God's law regarding blood consumption, the Bible explains that they are cursed and cut off from normal life and civilization, and in additon, cannot stand the presence of holy objects like crucifixes and holy Communion wafers.

Irony** Irony is shown in chapter nineteen, for Van Helsing and the men originally order Mina to stay at home while they accomplish their dangerous mission, in order to keep her safe from Dracula. On page 223, Van Helsing even states, "So far, our night has been eminently successful.. More than all do I rejoice that his, our first - and perhaps our most difficult and dangerous - step has been accomplished without the bringing thereinto our most sweet Madam Mina or troubling her waking or sleeping thoughts with sights and sounds and smells of horror which she might never forget." Ironically, Madam Mina turns out to be very much troubled with sights and sounds of horror from Dracula back at home, precisely because the men left her there alone for her own supposed safety. While the men have gone out hunting for Dracula, acting all brave and manly by keeping their one precious female friend safe at home, Dracula actually has gone to attack Mina while she slept, unguarded. It is doubly ironic because Van Helsing is happy with their work, feeling safe because "So be it that he has gone elsewhere." That "elsewhere" happened to be Mina's bedside.
 * __Literary Devices:__

The method in which Dracula enters Mina's sleeping quarters alludes to both biblical and mythical legends. Dracula takes the form of a thick fog or mist to creep in the room and overwhelm Mina, a fog which Mina describes: "The mist grew thicker and thicker, and I could see now how it came in, for I could see it like smoke - or with the white energy of boiling water - pouring in, not through the window, but through the joinings of the door. It got thicker and thicker, till it seemed as if it became concentrated into a sort of pillar of cloud in the room, through the top of which I could see the light of the gas shining like a red eye." She also mentions that she immediately thought of the spiritual phrase, "a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night." This portrays Dracula's entrance in a biblical light, because in the Bible it states that, "And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light," (Exodus 13.21-22) The idea of a supernatural being reaching a solitary, confined woman by means of a weightless or non-corporeal form also alludes to the Greek myth of Zeus and Danaë. In the myth, Danaë is locked up in a tower by her father, who intended to keep her childless. However, Zeus, the chief of gods, became so infatuated with her that he came to her, through the confines of the tower, in the form of a shower of gold dust. He thus impregnated her with their son, Perseus.
 * Allusion**

__**Reflection:**__ Mmmm.. the pros of our session were the activities, which I think people really got into and enjoyed. The quizzing game was, judging by the others' reactions, quite entertaining and yet it forced people to think about the details and smaller tidbits of the novel in a way that engaged them and jogged their memory about the session they had read over the break. A lot of people were saying they didn't remember a lot of the terms, or where they came out, and that they realized they should read the book more carefully. On the other hand, some people surprised themselves by being able to remember little details like "Piccadilly" or "phonograph" and communicate it to their teammates. The second activity, in contrast, focused not on the details but on main ideas. Again, it was quite informal and relaxed, and people seemed to enjoy themselves. I would have preferred it, however, if people had actually read the scene they were supposed to act out, as some seemed quite lost and couldn't remember what happened. However, the purpose was to capture the essence of what happened in the three important scenes, and that was accomplished. I think this would be a really impressive activity if everybody really knew their scene well and got innovative about how to communicate ideas, instead of saying, "And then this happened..". The one aspect that might have been improved was the discussion part. I think that after all the informal activities everybody loosened up too much to really want to discuss in detail the questions we put forth. A lot of the responses we got cut the conversation short, and many people did not speak up. Perhaps the fault lies with the questions we came up with, and with the time because we had enough for only two questions. Another improvement for our group may be with organization and communication, because although I think our ideas were good, prizes were not brought to class as promised, and we were not on the same page on how to run the activities. However, overall, I think our session went smoothly and in a fun, engaging way.