That's supernatural and religion combined.
I can't believe I've resorted to English to avoid Chemistry. Epic fail.
Ummmmmm
well
We had how the novel portrays reiligion and superstition as separate things, whilst today we might view them as one in the same. Because of how we see it, it was hard to judge what was what in the story.
There's the obvious things like using garlic to ward off Dracula, and the blue flames supposing to signify the site of hidden gold. They're supernatural/stitious things.
And the obvious religious stuff like gender roles in men protecting the defenceless women, and holy commissions, also Quincey Morris sacrificing himself to save the world from evil, like our man Jesus.
But then, other stuff , apparently, was a bit more blurred. Like the use of the crucifix. Jonathan Harker originally dismisses the crucifix (or more specifically the rosary) as superstition. But then later on it becomes his only weapon and protection against the Count. Then, that also might be a distinction being made between the Anglican and Catholic Churches. The typically Anglican resort to Catholicism to save themselves.
Ok that's all. Back to...logical straightforward science.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Monday, 7 December 2009
Draco vs. Van the man
Van Helsing would totally kick Drac's ass.
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Ummmmmm well we looked at how they contrast each other, and also how they are reflected in each other. Because, really, they aren't total opposites. They're all one big happy family really.
Firstly, their contrasts. Dracula is seen to be evil: 'the evil smile as quickly passed into a cold stare'. And Van Helsing opposes this in his goodness: 'Van Hesling would, I know, do anything for me'. Also the Count puts on a facade of friendliness: 'Nay, Sir, you are my guest.' Whereas, Van Helsing's good will is real: 'all embracing sympathy', 'with such an infinate geniality'. In actual character they are each other's antithesis.
However, in their portrayal they are actually quite similar. They are both defined by their actions more than their words, as gothic heroes often are. For example Dracula never actually tells us he's a vampo, but Jonathan Harker sees him climb down the wall of the castle, and Mina sees a man we assume to Dracula bend over Lucy, presumably drinking her blood. Van Helsing is often shown to us through his actions for other characters. He performs all the operations for Lucy, even giving her his own blood, and the other characters come to see him, as we do, as a selfless man. They are both also foreign to the other characters as well as the contempory reader, though that comes to mean different things for the two characters. Their use of archaic language highlights their difference to the other characters. They are both intellectual and quick minded, and certainly both determined.
So we see that it is not just that their contrasts define Dracula and Van Helsing as antagonists, but their similar portrayals are what lead us to make comparisons between the two.
You're welcome x
Lucy is sooo gonna die now
So...a few lessons ago we looked at chapter 11 and thought about the ways in which the beginning foreshadows Lucy's death.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Lucy herself writes things in her diary which relate to death for example she wishes it upon herself when she cannot sleep, comparing herself to Ophelia who, obviously kills herself: 'hoping for sleep, and lying like Ophelia in the play'. That's a bit stupid to be honest...to wish for death when you're already ill, like tempting fate right?
Also, Lucy's mother's action of removing the garlic from Lucy makes it clear to us she will have become worse overnight. The mother thinks she has helped Lucy which is sad because the dramatic irony for us is knowing it probably killed her.
Another presage of Lucy's death is the breakdown of Van Helsing: 'Then, for the first time in my life, I saw Van Helsing break down.' His composure throughout the book showed him to be a strong character, so to see him lose it now implies there is no hope for Lucy.
The repetition used in the writing seems to suggest hopelessness too: 'Again the operation; again the narcotic; again some return of colour to the ashy cheeks, and the regular breathing of healthy sleep.' This seems to be repeating something that they know hasn't worked in the past, and it is really just prolonging the inevitable.
Gutted for Lucy.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Verisimiliwhat?
This was very confusing.
Verisimilitude seemed to be the varying degrees of truth in a novel or play etc.
As a concept I can understand this, but when we applied it to Dracula I found it quite hard to judge what the author used to portray fact and why he was doing it.
Looking at the extracts showed me that it was used to sort of lull the reader into a false sense of security of reality. Then Stoker gradually alters his style so fantasy takes over.
This is very interesting as I hadn't really thought about that as a writing technique but now that I think about it, quite a lot of writers do it. I hate to mention Twilight and seem obssessed (cos I am) but it happens in that, and Harry Potter etc.
The other thing about this was the seeming conflict in the novel Dracula, between the progression of technology in society, and the regression of turning to the supernatural.
I found this interesting because the Victorian times were a period of great change and triumph in things like science and technology. But Bram Stoker chooses to portray the use of supernatural as power. Van Helsing reverts to superstitions like garlic to ward off vampires, which works better than other methods.
Ta.
Verisimilitude seemed to be the varying degrees of truth in a novel or play etc.
As a concept I can understand this, but when we applied it to Dracula I found it quite hard to judge what the author used to portray fact and why he was doing it.
Looking at the extracts showed me that it was used to sort of lull the reader into a false sense of security of reality. Then Stoker gradually alters his style so fantasy takes over.
This is very interesting as I hadn't really thought about that as a writing technique but now that I think about it, quite a lot of writers do it. I hate to mention Twilight and seem obssessed (cos I am) but it happens in that, and Harry Potter etc.
The other thing about this was the seeming conflict in the novel Dracula, between the progression of technology in society, and the regression of turning to the supernatural.
I found this interesting because the Victorian times were a period of great change and triumph in things like science and technology. But Bram Stoker chooses to portray the use of supernatural as power. Van Helsing reverts to superstitions like garlic to ward off vampires, which works better than other methods.
Ta.
Two lessons ago we did an essay in groups.
I found this an interesting excercise and it really broadened my way of approaching essays I think.
I found that the getting of ideas for the essay was much improved, obviously, due to the excess thinking power at the table.
But writing them down was hard because we all had different writing styles and often argued over words. This slowed us down and I think our essay would have been better if this problem hadn't arisen.
The result of the group task was something like a hybrid of all our styles. When I read it through after I could see evidence of my own input but other parts seemed completely unfamiliar. This essay was better than my own effort though, because some people had points that I didn't remember, and other people were also able to communicate the points more fluently.
Oh well...
I found this an interesting excercise and it really broadened my way of approaching essays I think.
I found that the getting of ideas for the essay was much improved, obviously, due to the excess thinking power at the table.
But writing them down was hard because we all had different writing styles and often argued over words. This slowed us down and I think our essay would have been better if this problem hadn't arisen.
The result of the group task was something like a hybrid of all our styles. When I read it through after I could see evidence of my own input but other parts seemed completely unfamiliar. This essay was better than my own effort though, because some people had points that I didn't remember, and other people were also able to communicate the points more fluently.
Oh well...
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Dracularity
I finished the book in the holidays and actually really enjoyed it. I think the beginning dragged for me a bit but I really started to like when Stoker started to use many different perspectives to write from.
This lesson we talked about vampires. I think the traditional side of this topic is very interesting. We looked at early beliefs on vampires and their development to modern times. What really interested me was how the early image of the vampire is completely different from the modern one. It was traditionally bloated looking and dark, but now we think of them as pale, thin and ghostly looking. It made me wonder what caused that change.
I just looked at the traditional stuff and it looks like vampire myths date back as far as humans have recorded, and are present all across the world. Although different, all the myths stem from the idea of someone dead coming back to life and living off blood.
Our notion of the vampire is influenced strongly by Stoker's Dracula and we looked at what society was like at the time he wrote that, and what may have inspired his tale. The gender role aspects were interesting here, especially the growing freedom for women in Victorian times. I think here, the sexual freedom is most important to see what may have influenced Stoker. Also the nationalist identity links as there is much evidence of xenophobia in Dracula, with the villain himself being Transylvanian.
This lesson we talked about vampires. I think the traditional side of this topic is very interesting. We looked at early beliefs on vampires and their development to modern times. What really interested me was how the early image of the vampire is completely different from the modern one. It was traditionally bloated looking and dark, but now we think of them as pale, thin and ghostly looking. It made me wonder what caused that change.
I just looked at the traditional stuff and it looks like vampire myths date back as far as humans have recorded, and are present all across the world. Although different, all the myths stem from the idea of someone dead coming back to life and living off blood.
Our notion of the vampire is influenced strongly by Stoker's Dracula and we looked at what society was like at the time he wrote that, and what may have inspired his tale. The gender role aspects were interesting here, especially the growing freedom for women in Victorian times. I think here, the sexual freedom is most important to see what may have influenced Stoker. Also the nationalist identity links as there is much evidence of xenophobia in Dracula, with the villain himself being Transylvanian.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
lalalesson
I can't remember last lesson though I'm sure it was great.
SO I'm skipping it out and doing today instead.
That tangent thing happened again today; it's interesting I suppose but it means I forget what the lesson was about.
Today we looked at how Faustus is presented to the audience in the first scene. Many of the quotes I picked out were his own words being an example of one of his traits. For example "Coulds't thou make men to live eternally...Then this profession were to be esteemed", shows his ambition. Here he is disregarding medicine as a career because it doesn't give him enough potential for greatness ie. you can't raise the dead.
We also thought about the two characters introduced at the end of the first scene: Valdes and Cornelius. It seems that they regard themselves as inferior to Faustus in skill and knowledge. They say nothing about their own potential in magic, only his. They do not reappear after this introduction so it seems they are just devices created to teach Faustus magic. I don't know what I think about this. Marlowe could have done this in a different way, but perhaps he did it to show how Faustus betrayed people.
Very good.
SO I'm skipping it out and doing today instead.
That tangent thing happened again today; it's interesting I suppose but it means I forget what the lesson was about.
Today we looked at how Faustus is presented to the audience in the first scene. Many of the quotes I picked out were his own words being an example of one of his traits. For example "Coulds't thou make men to live eternally...Then this profession were to be esteemed", shows his ambition. Here he is disregarding medicine as a career because it doesn't give him enough potential for greatness ie. you can't raise the dead.
We also thought about the two characters introduced at the end of the first scene: Valdes and Cornelius. It seems that they regard themselves as inferior to Faustus in skill and knowledge. They say nothing about their own potential in magic, only his. They do not reappear after this introduction so it seems they are just devices created to teach Faustus magic. I don't know what I think about this. Marlowe could have done this in a different way, but perhaps he did it to show how Faustus betrayed people.
Very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)