Dr. Seward's blind rationalism in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897)

Résumé du document

Seward, young British physician and unreliable narrator, embodies late-Victorian scientism and rationalism in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Irony in Seward's portrayal reveals much of the author's criticism of the late-Victorian scientific establishment. Although Seward sees himself as radically modern, Stoker highlights his conventional conception of science which prevents him to understand Dracula as a vampire. Through the British physician's relationship with both his former professor Van Helsing and his lunatic patient Renfield, Stoker derides his character's arrogance and inability to understand the supernatural. The novel denounces Seward's blind rationalism but celebrates Van Helsing's good use of both modern and old knowledge. Dracula is therefore a severe criticism of late-Victorian scientists' reductionist materialism and disdain for religion and occultism but the novel does not reject modern science and technology per se.

Extraits

[...] Seward's blind rationalism is central to the novel because Bram Stocker interestingly unfolds a large part of the plot through Seward's records of his thoughts while Dr. Van Helsing produces only few notes, memoranda and phonograph records. Seward's exclusive faith in modern science is the cause of his failure to understand Lucy's strange disease and his former professor's atypical methods. Seward is the last of the characters who accepts and understands Dracula as a vampire. This essay will demonstrate that Bram Stoker emphasizes Seward's scientist prejudices to denounce late-Victorian youth's blind rationalism and disdain for superstitions, religion, and old knowledge. [...]

[...] - Seward rejects the professor's theory and questions Van Helsing's sanity - Dramatic irony = the reader knows that Van Helsing is right Consequences of Seward's blind rationalism - Very end of chapter XVIII. Renfield has asked for the young doctor. - Renfield warns Seward of the terrible consequences of his refusal of letting him go. - Unlike Seward, Renfield understands Dracula's threat. Seward has not learned from experience. Terrible consequences = Dracula is able to prey on Mina. Arrogance of Seward toward his patient. [...]

[...] Refutation In “Vampurella: Darwin and Count Dracula” (1980), Charles S. Blinderman dismisses Van Helsing's speech in chapter XIV as “superficial and ridiculous” and claims that the Dutch doctor rejects science and glorifies superstition. The critic sees the book as a whole as a reaction to scientific progress—in particular Darwinian materialism. On the contrary, this paper demonstrates that Stoker denounces only a conventionally conceived materialism which Seward embodies but celebrates modern technology and both modern and old knowledge through Van Helsing. [...]

[...] Stoker's apparent defiance of rationalism cannot escape from collaboration with it. Dracula is not a mere rejection of materialism; what Stoker denounces through his ironic portrayal of Seward is a reductionist, conventionally conceived materialism that ruled out any element of spirituality. The opposition between Seward and Van Helsing symbolizes this distinction. As Boone observes, Van Helsing supports science that validates reason but does not deprivilege the supernatural” while Seward thinks every mystery must have “some rational explanation.” Van Helsing is of the most advanced scientists of his and also a Roman Catholic armed with crucifix and “sacred wafer” (Stoker 106). [...]

[...] “Seward's folly: Dracula as a Critique of ‘Normal Science.'” Stanford Literature Review 3 (1986): 213-30. (An extensive analysis of Stoker's references to scientific theories in Dracula. The reader had better read French and German because the article analyses quotations of French and German scientists to support the thesis but does not translate them) Jann, Rosemary. “Saved by Science? The Mixed Messages of Stoker's Dracula.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 31.2 (1989): 272-285. (The most authoritative analysis of science in Dracula) MacGillivray, Royce. “Bram Stoker's Spoiled Masterpiece.” (1972) The Critical Response to Bram Stoker. [...]