Shoot for 300-450 words. Engage with others. Don't be afraid to loosen your boundaries and think outside the box here, so long as you support what you are saying with the texts we are reading.
Due: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 by class time.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Vampires' Ontology?
Shoot for 300-450 words. Engage with others. Don't be afraid to loosen your boundaries and think outside the box here, so long as you support what you are saying with the texts we are reading.
Due: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 by class time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ontology is referred to as an evolutionary process or the essence of something. Rai discusses the possibilities of vampires stemming from ontology or from a “punctum” – a specific time and place where they were called into being. However, it is not simply the vampire that stems from an ontological process, but the monstrosity that they are part of is also ontological. A vampire is, in its simplest form and being, a monster. It cannot choose to stop being a vampire. There is no special cure or medicine to rid it of its monstrosity. Even a “good” vampire like Edward Cullen is still a vampire. He can choose to kill animals instead of humans, but he still must drink blood to thrive.
ReplyDeleteDracula is caught up in the ontology on monstrosity in the sense that he must live in a way defined by what he is. His monstrosity cannot simply disappear and he cannot hide it. He is a vampire therefore he must live like a vampire. If Dracula were not a vampire, he still may have been evil or wicked, but he would not be defined by his wickedness. Because he is a vampire, he is viewed as only that - a monster. The reader does not try to sympathize or relate to Dracula because he is inhuman. We characterize him as devoid of all human emotions and feelings. He feels no regrets about killing his victims and he is incapable of love.
I think the ontology of monstrosity is what makes humans so scared of monsters. We fear other humans who do evil, but we see them as a “bad seed” or as something inherently good turned wrong. However monsters are inherently evil; they have no ounce of goodness in them and therefore have no human essence to relate to. The fact that monsters are lacking the most basic human characteristics makes them seem foreign and terrifying.
Dracula is continually described to be abnormal based on the exaggeration of his physical features, almost turning him into a twisted caricature of a human being. Dracula is abnormal, but it could also be said that in this novel, the abnormal is Dracula. He is characterized by the strange and unusual, from the formal tone of his speech to his hairy hands to his beak-like nose to even his piercing red eyes, and he appears to represent all the undesirable physical qualities of the time period. The ontology of the vampire usually pertains to the sexuality and raw power of the vampire; it is this abnormality that makes this particular monster so alluring to us.
ReplyDeleteAs Katherine described, Dracula is a vampire and he is bound to the duties and behavior of a vampire. He is defined by his vampirism and that definition makes him a monster. We define a dog as a dog because it acts like a dog. If a dog were to act like a cat, we would not be able to classify it based on its behavior anymore.
An easy way to help illustrate this definition by classification would be through a well-known horror movie monster: Freddy Krueger. Freddy is a child-killer and molester. He was burned alive and now kills people in their dreams. A pretty frightening concept if you think about it; in your dreams, you usually don’t have control over what happens. His twisted, dark sense of humor and his increasingly creative (the only word to describe it) kills are incredibly terrifying, yet people everywhere are entranced by him. Why? It’s not good looks (he’s absolutely disgusting) or his backstory (one of the most unsympathetic killer backstories out there), it’s his raw, untamed monstrosity. Freddy is defined by his evilness – he is a monster. Without each aspect of his specific personality, he would simply be an evil human being. Freddy as a whole is more than the sum of his parts. He is, in every sense of the word, a monster and will always be defined as such. Despite, or perhaps even because of this, Freddy is one of the most popular horror movie killers in history. People are drawn to what they fear most.
The reasons for why Freddy is so enthralling can also apply to Dracula and the vampire in general. They represent pure evil, the blood-thirsty side of humanity that most of us would prefer to bury deep within our primal instincts. By studying what makes the vampire so frightening, yet so attractive at the same time, we can begin to understand the true meaning of monstrosity.
It is hardwired in our DNA to stop and stare at abnormalities. We are genetically attracted to symmetrical faces and abnormal features. A “normal” face free of disfiguring diseases or genetic mutations means we infer symmetry as a marker of genetic equality. Since instinctively are always looking for a viable, healthy mate - we tend to want to stare at disfigurements. When the readers first meets Dracula he is described by Stoker as having a “peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere…. with peculiarly sharp white teeth…his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed.”
ReplyDeleteThe abnormalities of Dracula, and using word choices such as “pointed teeth” and “pallor” invoke a negative connotation. Zach mentioned this by saying, “Dracula is continually described to be abnormal based on the exaggeration of his physical features, almost turning him into a twisted caricature of a human being.” By making Dracula not “like us”, it makes it ok for the audience to despise and fear him. Raj continually makes the point that vampire exists in a punctum and is at the mercy of its time period. By not confirming to societal norms and values, the gothic vampire is so different that the reader feels justified in despising and fearing the villain. Just like the time period society felt justified in its repression of women and minorities. It makes me wonder where Dracula would stand in today’s society. Today, instead of hating or fearing abnormalities, would we pity Dracula?
If one was to just list Dracula’s attributes, it might no longer invoke so much horror because science can identify and fix most human abnormalities. Since Dracula is described as hair coming out of his palm, would we diagnosis him with hypertrichosis? Since he’s so pale and can’t go out during the day, would we label him with xeroderma pigmentosum? We are drawn toward the bizarre and the tragic. Just like Dracula is drawn toward fresh blood, the individual is always drawn toward the abnormal. Yet, times have changed and instead of ostracizing, repressing, or fearing the unknown we have turned our feelings into those of sympathy and empathy.
The ontology of the vampires is defined because they are breathed into existence from our own fears and desires but they are also constrained by their creators. And there time period.
In the section Parasites and Perverts: An Introduction To Gothic Monstrosity, Halberstam states, “Within Gothic novels, I argue, multiple interpretations are imbedded in the text and part of the experience of horror comes from the realization that meaning itself runs riot...The monster always becomes a primary focus of interpretation, and its monstrosity seems available for any number of reasons” (Halberstam pg. 2). Halberstam is essentially states that the gothic novels, which he defines as a genre “which produces fear and desire within the reader”, creates horror through ambiguity. This ambiguity is usually referring the the potential interpretations that can surround the main “monster”, or the antagonist. You are scared partially because the creature has death-like white skin, terrible breath, and piercing red eyes, partially because he sucks your blood like a ravenous animal then forces you to transform into a similar creature, but mainly because you really don't know what the hell is going on. The whole time you are questioning who the monster really is, or what dirty trick he has up his sleeve; you're sitting on the edge of your seat and biting your finger nails not because the monster is hideous, or feasts on your insides, but because the only thing you know is that you don't know the monster as well as you think you do. The ontology of the vampire originates from his ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteZach argues that the ontology of the vampire pertains to an abnormality that separates him from all other monsters. Like other monsters, the vampire is evil, frightening, and likes death, but there is something different about the vampire; he wants sex...badly. The sexual nature of vampires is closely related to this idea of ambiguity. First of all, the sexuality of Dracula is ambiguous. We don't know if Dracula is homosexual, or if he just likes to keep male hostages in his house and under his surveillance. Furthermore, Dracula expresses the desire to drain Johnathan Harker's blood. We can't know for sure if this is because of “normal” cravings, homosexual desires, or a combination of the two. Dracula, of course, displays heterosexual tendencies as well when he preys upon the women in England. As far as we can tell, Dracula is bisexual, which is about as ambiguous as sexuality can get. While, we may not draw fear directly from the ambiguity relating to Dracula's sexuality, we do draw fear from the almost limitless supply of unknowns that define Dracula. Because of his mystery, Dracula is thought to be capable of anything. He is not limited to what characterizes his personality and physical desires, because we simply aren't quite sure what that is. One moment he is a polite host who may have a few unimportant flaws, and the next he is a blood sucking kidnapper.
The ontology of the vampire is his abnormality, his sex drive, and his evil nature, but above all I think that it is his ambiguity. We naturally fear what we don't know because there are no limitations set on the unknown. Dracula is a creature that will forever be open to interpretation.
I never thought this possible, but the monstrosity I fear the most is now the written word. After reading the selections by Halberstam, Jenkins, Rai and McLuhan and et al, the only monstrosity I am familiar with is their work. That is not to say that their work holds no value, actually to the contrary. Clearly these individuals are preeminent experts in their field but I am going to go ahead and label myself blasphemer and state for the record: Their readings have not helped me become more intimate with Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Bram Stoker died one hundred years ago this year. I would be willing to bet a pint of mead that he never read anything that used words like “punctum”, “ecology” or “discourse analysis”. At times, I feel like the readings so far have over analyzed the vampire and distracted from the subject matter of the course. My math may be a bit off but it seems that 90% of the reading has been material other than Bram Stoker’s text, moreover, texts that have distracted from the beauty of “Dracula”. If the title of this course had been listed as “Introduction to Media Ecology…and you get to read some cool vampire books”, I would have been more mentally prepared for this type reading material.
ReplyDeleteSince the advent of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”, there have been several vampire books that have captivated the world. However, those of late could be pigeonholed into being targeted for a certain demographic. Bram Stoker’s seems to be the most timeless, the one vampire book that reached across cultural, political, racial and sexual lines to captivate an audience. This is not to insinuate that Stephenie Meyer is not a great writer, she is, but it is clear that guys like me are not her intended audience. If we can recognize this, then we must recognize also that I am not the target of writers like Halberstam, Jenkins, Rai or McLuhan...
Since monstrosity is the condition of being “abnormal,” it is very easy to see how Dracula, a vampire, is a means to bring about the message of monstrosity. In the first few chapters, with Jonathan’s diary, we are constantly reading about the abnormal.
ReplyDeleteIn “Parasites and Perverts,” Halberstam says that “monsters are meaning machines . . . Monsters and the Gothic fiction that creates them are therefore technologies, narrative technologies that produce the perfect figure for negative identity. Monsters have to be everything the human is not and, in producing the negative of human, these novels make way for the invention of human as white, male, middle class, and heterosexual” (22).
I really like the way that Halberstam said this. For example, the vampire Dracula is abnormal in every sense of the word. He scales down walls, he has ridiculous amounts of strength, he can be hit with a shovel but it bounces off with ease. This novel is amazing in the sense that it has the profound ability to contrast normal with abnormal. In the first few chapters, when we read Jonathan’s diary, we are consumed with the terror that arises from his everyday life at Dracula’s estate. However, we shift immediately to the letters between Mina and Lucy, where “normal” is leaking out of every page. It almost made it difficult for me to read – the marriage proposals, the woes of a schoolmistress… we LOVE to read/see/hear about the abnormal. Like Chelsea said, “it is hardwired in our DNA to stop and stare at abnormalities.” That’s why when abnormality starts to enter into their lives, we become interested again.
There is the abnormal world with Dracula, and the normal world with Mina, Lucy, the suitors, etc. However, the normal world begins to become tainted with the abnormal as the novel continues – something I am really looking forward to.
Ontology is the study of the nature of being, existing. The ontology of monstrosity obviously depends on the monster being studied. In this case, with Dracula, I agree with Katherine when she says that Dracula is defined by what he is; he cannot change his characteristics or who he truly is. Dracula is stuck being the monster that he is – he can’t help being who he is, and he will stop at nothing to fulfill his abnormal desires.
The media is the message and the vampire is the medium. But just how does the vampire convey its message? Just as Zach mentioned, the physical description of Dracula is very important in the text and shows an over exaggeration of near every feature, to make the count something terrible and foreign. All of the exaggerated features Dracula possesses are dark characteristics that invoke mistrust in the reader. What sort whimsical, nice deeds can be done using fangs? Does anybody describe Santa Clause as having arched nostrils? (The answer is no by the way).
ReplyDeleteAdditionally Draculas actions also feed to this otherness. At first all the reader knows is that he keeps strange hours and seems to be a recluse, but combined with the physical description this feeds the readers desire to mistrust him. Then he is seen scaling walls and goes from a mistrusted man to an unknowable creature. This action makes Dracula infinitely more terrifying because he cannot be understood and simultaneously possesses more power than any individual man. This reminds me somewhat of the Times article we read a while ago about the psychology of the vampire. Dracula’s actions turn vampires in my mind into representations of the loner, intellectuals of society. Thus the vampire is feared by the mainstream populations for the power he holds and how he may change or harm society with it.
Eric argued that the reader is left questioning who the monster really is, which can be supported by the idea that all of the features on Dracula are meant to make him seem other, and foreign from oneself. In a sense, the vampire becomes detached from the reader by his appearance and actions. In this way the monster reflects its origin because the monster is born from fear, and fear is born from that which a person cannot control or understand. The ontology of the monster is in this sense the foreignness that the reader fears, the otherness that the reader cannot know. Just as Eric said, above all the ambiguity of the monster is what the monster is most comprised of.
I like Eric’s analysis of the ambiguity of the Vampire and how the horror of vampiric monstrosity is rooted in that ambiguity. I agree with Eric that the ontology of monstrosity, in the context of the vampire, is wrapped up in its ambiguity. In Stoker’s Dracula, what seems to scare Jonathan Harker most is his inability to understand what’s happening around him. Dracula is human enough to make Jonathan feel initially comfortable but also abnormal enough to make it an uneasy comfort.
ReplyDeleteAll of Dracula’s odd physical characteristics – slightly pointed ears, long finger nails, and dome-like forehead – are all just exaggerations of normal human characteristics. Subsequently, at first glance there isn’t any real reason to freak out when you see him because we would all accept that he might just be a weird looking guy. It isn’t until Dracula starts doing strange things – like climbing walls and giving a baby away to three weird women – that his physical abnormalities seem especially strange, the reason being is that the audience (at least me) is inclined to draw connections between his physical and behavioral abnormalities, regardless of whether or not one informs the other. Consequently, I feel like the being of the vampire is wrapped up in the actions of the vampire, because at first glance his physical abnormalities are pretty much value neutral. It isn’t until after Dracula has done something abnormal that the audience attaches a positive or negative connotation to his physical abnormalities. For example, most if not all vampires have pointy teeth but the audience only associates those teeth with fear if they know that the vampire is inclined to attack people. The teeth, in a vacuum aren’t scary – it’s what someone could do with the teeth that make them scary.
Halberstam talks about how the monster is a medium by which the author communicates a given message. The way that Stoker attaches a negative connotation to Dracula’s physical abnormalities seems to suggest that Stoker’s message is that different is bad. I think that Stoker is really careful to make sure that the audience doesn’t feel sympathy for Dracula, at least in the first ten chapters, by making all of his decisions seem calm and calculated. This way the audience can’t write Dracula’s abnormalities off as an unfortunate side effect of an uncontrollable condition, but instead they are a physical reflection of a rotten and evil core. Again, this works to suggest that physical abnormalities are indicative of behavioral abnormalities – all of which are negative. So to be a monster is to be different and to be different is to be bad.
When looking at Dracula specifically, I think it is necessary to see Dracula himself as the monster (or “punctum”) that has been placed within the context of vampires’ ontology of monstrosity. The ontology surrounding Dracula consists of the fears, curiosities, fascinations, obsessions, and expectations of Stoker’s time. With that being said, I agree with Jason in part with the fact that oftentimes using theory to dissect the monster leads to over-analyzation on our part as modern readers. Sometimes readers lose sight of the fact that literature such as Dracula was probably not written with Media Ecology Theory (or any other theory) in mind, but rather as a form of entertainment that would hopefully gain cultural success. In that light, Dracula becomes less defined by the “ontology of monstrosity,” but by the cultural, social, political, etc. environment that consciously and unconsciously influenced Stoker’s writing. But, as modern readers, this becomes both the ontology surrounding Dracula and the basis of our analysis.
ReplyDeleteWithin the story itself, as many have already stated in some way, the ontology that surrounds Dracula is the fact that he is a vampire. This, in and of itself, defines his very existence. Dracula’s lifestyle, actions, etc. are all a direct result of his nature as a vampire. Everything in his life must satisfy his abnormal needs brought about by his abnormal state. I know for me personally, as I’m reading, I never give much thought to where Dracula came from, how he became a vampire, or if he was ever human to begin with. Did he have a childhood with loving parents? Was be born a vampire? Is that even possible? Could Dracula be an eternal being in the sense that he has always been and will always be (unless someone, somehow, learned to kill the undead)?
In “Parasites and Perverts: An Introduction to Gothic Monstrosity,” the author states that “Where the monsters of the nineteenth century metaphorized modern subjectivity as a balancing act between inside/outside, female/male, body/mind, native/foreign, proletarian/aristocrat, monstrosity in postmodern horrow films finds its place in what Bausrillard has called the obscenity of “immediate visibility…” While we as modern readers see Dracula as a monster largely based on outward appearances, it seems the intention of Dracula’s creation was to put forth the idea of an undead monster without a soul. The monstrosity of Dracula should take main stage, while the outward appearance should be regarded as an effect caused by the nature of the beast.
Humans very naturally group things into categories. We do this for many reasons, but the main reason is because it allows us to easily identify what something is just by looking at it (we humans are naturally rather lazy creatures). For instance, when I see a bike, I know that it is a bike because it has two wheels, gears, and a handle bar. While there are thousands of different types of bikes I know this is a bike because of its general qualities. The bike is bound to its description and the word “bike” has no meaning without this attached gestalt we conjure up after hearing the word. If I add a third wheel to the bike it is no longer the same thing; it has instead been changed into a tricycle. The monster itself is the same way.
ReplyDeleteSo how exactly do we categorize the ontology of the monster? It is much easier to explain why we feel the need to categorize the being of a monster. We do so to make it into something completely different from ourselves. By doing this we make the monster into an “other” and alienate it. When we classify Dracula as a monster we are saying that the things he does, and in turn what he is, are something totally separate from ourselves. When Dracula does evil things, as is the case with his persistent feeding on the young, beautiful (and white! This makes things extra heinous) Lucy (also, look how caught up on the reading I am), we are able to separate his acts from ourselves because they are the acts of a monster. I believe that this is precisely how we categorize the ontology of the monster. The monster is classified as exactly what we are not. The monster is everything we fear in the world. It is everything we see as evil. Thus, the monster is not a “punctum” as Rai originally postulated, but is rather something completely infinite. Because evil is something that will never end and has been on earth since Adam and Eve, humans will constantly be redefining what we view as monstrous and will likely continue to create new monsters that go with the times. And as Jason so eloquently put, “the monstrosity I fear the most is now the written word.” The ontology of monstrosity truly does change with the times…
Monstrosity is declared as the condition and state of abnormalities. The crux of monstrosity is radiated in the character of Dracula. The book by Bram Stoker jolts into the abnormal facets that encompass Jonathan’s encounters with the irregularity-comprised Dracula. What is the essence of abnormality that defines Dracula? It boils down to the epitome of his persona and placement in society. From his physical features to his ominous presence in a room, the aura he exudes generates the competing feelings of pure terror and gravitational pull. Jonathan, the main character of Dracula, states, “ I am all in a sea of wonders. I doubt. I fear. I think strange things, which I dare not confess to my own soul.” This one line exemplifies the perception of mankind on the core of abnormalities. I agree wholeheartedly with Jason when he says “Bram Stoker’s seems to be the most timeless, the one vampire book that reached across cultural, political, racial and sexual lines to captivate an audience.” This is due to Dracula’s character instilling a captivation unlike any other beguiling imagery.
ReplyDeleteIn another realm, Fuller and McLuhan purposefully emanate their theories of media ecology by exuding them in their writings describing media ecology. Fuller showcases media ecology as a collage of images and ideas that by themselves possess a meaning, but when constructed together they hold an alternate implication. By scattering farcical examples of London Pirate Radio and a man running on vegetable oil, he demonstrates his theory by living it. Similarly, McLuhan presents media ecology as the interlacing factors of media, message sending, and society. The communication means humankind receives and elicits through media are intertwined and formulate a symbiotic relationship. He demonstrates this system of thinking by emphasizing abstract examples like a light bulb in a dark room. McLuhan dwells on his philosophy of media ecology by demonstrating the entanglements of its complexities.
On a different point on the spectrum, but with parallel product, is Bram Stoker’s depiction of Dracula. In the book, Dracula possesses an all-embracing power of hypnosis. And in real life he contains an analogous mesmerizing power. Although Bram Stoker is the creator of Dracula, this character serves the dual capacity of spellbinding society both in and out of Bram Stoker’s psyche. As Chelsea affirmed, “It is hardwired in our DNA to stop and stare at abnormalities.” However, I believe the overpowering aptitude of atypical aspects to capture our attention and clench it unyieldingly poses more of a force, stemmed from pure and paramount supremacy, than society’s mere curiosity.
Would Dracula be revered in today’s society? Or would he be feared, as he was in the early twentieth century? People often mistake the monster as a “punctum” of society, a product of a specific time and place. Rai argues that it is the ontology of the monster, the essence of existence over an extended period of time, that gives the vampire its monstrosity. However, monstrosity must also be placed in context. As Katherine states, monstrosity is ontological in nature. What may be considered hideous in the early twentieth century may be attractive in the eyes of today’s society. The definition of “abnormal” does not exist in isolation; instead, abnormality is a dynamic concept that puts constraints on how we perceive the monster.
ReplyDeleteThe vampire, in essence, is restricted by this concept of abnormality. We can use Dracula as an application of the ontology that places boundaries on our interpretation of the vampire. Bram Stoker describes the vampire as having “peculiarly sharp white teeth…his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed.” Dracula, in his purest form, is a monster. His physical abnormalities are limited to what are considered to be characteristics of the vampire. However, this description of Dracula does not serve as the message. As McLuhan states, it is the media that is message. The image of the vampire, or in other words, the “monstrosity” that limits our perception of the vampire, communicates the most about Dracula’s role in society. These preconceptions foster not only the manifestation of monstrosity but the fear of it as well.
What I hope to research is the interpretation of these ontological “box” that defines our interpretation of the vampire. I want to explore why society fears the vampire, when in essence, the abnormality of the vampire paradoxically creates an attractive and idealistic creature. Halberstein describes “monsters [as] meaning machines”. The monstrosity of figures such as Dracula stems from our understanding of the repulsive behavior of vampires. However, I believe that the image of the vampire can be looked at through a different lens. Perhaps the ontological nature of the vampires lends an appealing creature. Maybe it is just the limitations we place on the existence of “monstrosity” that create fear for the vampire. After all, isn’t the media the message?
Although the monster succumbs to the preset notions that we place on the creature as a society, it is truly our perception of these accepted characteristics that make us scream at the sight of a vampire or zombie. I have to partially disagree with Eric; I believe it is not the ambiguity that creates the monster’s ontology, rather its established preconceptions. It is how we set these preconceptions that determine whether we fall in love or run away from the vampire.
I wrote an earlier blog that centered on the natural fascination with the abomination. As Chelsea stated it is the abnormal that interests us, and because it is the abnormal that is rooted in the ontology of the monster it is easy to understand why we are so fascinated in creatures that portray all the darkest traits of the human condition. Dracula is very much an expression of the monster rooted in the abnormal. Stoker works very hard to create this ideal through both his characterization and Dracula's juxtaposition with the very normal world around him.
ReplyDeleteStoker employs many tools to define Dracula as an abnormality and thus, a monster. As Steph evinces, this book includes excerpts from diaries that are almost unbearably normal. The passages only begin to stray from the mundane when Dracula's presence is felt. Before his appearance Mina and Lucy gossip about men and daily interests. Dracula's presence transforms their lives into the impossibly fantastical stories that Johnathan could not trust even his own memory to believe in. The abnormality in their world is directly related to Dracula's influence as a monstrosity.
I was also interested in Katherine's idea that if Dracula were not a vampire he he would not be defined by his wickedness. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the contrast Stoker provides in Doctor Seward's patient of interest, Renfield. Dracula is a monster who needs the blood of humans to survive. He is defined by his wickedness-- both its expression through physical and spiritual traits. Stoker juxtaposes Dracula with the insane Renfield who displays almost identical traits. He slowly collects animals attempting to engorge himself with the maximum amount of life. He goes so far as to lap up Dr. Sewards blood after he has been cut with the knife. This man however is not a monstrosity. Because he is not a vampire he is not defined by his wickedness, but more so by his insanity. He is the absolute contrast to Dracula. Although they partake in the same behavior and both produce disgust in the observer he is in essence nothing more than an insane patient.
Dracula is defined as a monstrosity. His abnormality rises from his nature as a monstrosity. He embodies the most despicable of traits in a way that no human can. Renfield does horrible things, but he is still defined by his humanity. Dracula's ontolgy is rooted completely in his nature as a monster.
Mark Collins Jenkins shows that vampires have evolved in Vampire Forensics. He covers many theories of origins for the vampire, some scientific and some spiritual. With so much time and effort devoted by people like Jenkins, we are left to wonder how we benefit from discovering the origin of the vampire. It is generally accepted that the vampire is a fictional character, so why fight to give legitimate foundations to something illegitimate? I believe that this has to do with the ontology of monstrosity that the vampire is a part of. Even Rai discusses origins of a monster, considering if there was a “punctum in space and time” or if the monster was more of “the virtual.”
ReplyDeleteIf monstrosity means being “abnormal,” then Dracula is certainly monstrous. Stoker’s description of him intentionally points to abnormal features of the being, not humanistic ones. Dracula is specifically labeled a Monster by the woman wanting her child. Then later, Stoker calls Dracula a “dreadful thing of night, gloom, and fear.” Ach summarizes all of the descriptions and actions of Dracula well when he says that not only is Dracula abnormal, but “abnormal is Dracula.” Thus, through descriptions such as these we are assured that the vampire is a member to monstrosity.
Now, what does the origin and evolution of the vampire have to do with the ontology of monstrosity that we just found the vampire to be a part of? If society is craving an origin to the vampire, it is to make vampires more concrete. Everything has to have a beginning, so a vampire should as well if it is to be a tangible character. The very desire of people to bring this monster to life speaks to its ontology—it is not solely fictitious. Therefore, the vampire must be caught up in ontology of monstrosity which seeks to bring monsters into our world. In a culture that is coddled and tightly controlled, we crave the danger of a supernatural monster. Yet, due to our current mental inability to actually fathom something inherently evil in our life, we gave the vampire a soul so that we could maintain the terrifying beast and mentally be reassured that if it was reality (as people are seeking to make it) that there would be the limitation of a guilty conscience.