Chapters 10 & 11

      Chapter 10 & 11 are really focused on the decline of Lucy untill her eventual death at the end of Chapter 11. We see Van Helsing taking command of the situation in chapter 10, he talks in parabels to Dr. Seward and his vague riddles, "...knowledge is stronger than memory" leave us with a christ like impression of the good Dr Van Helsing. This is perhaps a device used by Stoker to highlight the Godly capacities of his hero. He deliberately describes Dracula as the anti-Christ and equally he needs a 'Christ like' good character to be able to defeat the evil one. Furthermore, one could suggest that the name of Dr Van Helsing- Abraham- is linked to the character having a patriarchal religious role. Van Helsing is the character that all others turn to in their time of need, specifically Lucy in chapters 10 and 11, showing that he is a father like figure in the novel. Abraham was the founding father of all 3 major monotheistic relgions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and as such it is a fitting name for Van Helsing as it may symbolise Stoker's intentions for the character. On the other hand, Stoker could just be being very vain by giving the novel's hero his own name.

Blood, again is the focus in these chapters. There is the blood transfusions that Dr Seward and Van Helsing give to Lucy. Given the religious focus in 'Dracula' one could compare the giving of blood in the trasfusions to the Eucharist, drinking the blood of Christ through the medium of wine. I believe the point of the Eucharist is to remind us that Christ died for us and our salvation and to save us from our sins, the transfusion given to Lucy is indeed saving her (albeit temporarily) from her fate as a bride of Dracula. Furthermore, just as Christ gave his blood Dracula takes blood and this can be seen as another method of highlighting that the character of Dracula is the evil anti-Christ. There is also the scene in which Renfield starts licking Seward's blood off of the floor in his cell after he has attacked the Dr. He proclaims, "The blood is the life! The blood is the life!" Renfield is almost Vampiric in this chapter and this adds a new, more evil dimension to his madness.

Finally we have the newspaper interview with a zoo keeper following the escape of a wolf, "Bersicker". This is rather strange as Mr. Bilder describes seeing a figure who is obviously Drac, "a tall, thin chap, with a 'ook nose and a pointed beard" talking to Bersicker  and presumably lets him out. YET, Drac can change shape himself so why he would need to release Bersicker is confusing. It could be that in order to change shape he has to do something to the animal/human/thing to become it. Weird anyhow- perhaps Mr F can explain this to me. :)

Chapter 8 Women & Marriage

Sooo, I realise I should have done this like last week but luckily Mr Francis didn't decide to pick on my blog then so it's all good.

It seems ages since we read chapter 8 and just flicking back over my notes and the other blog posts there's quite a lot to talk about.

Firstly there is the whole Mina is a 'Madonna' thing. She is portrayed as being a virtuous lady by acknowledging her obligations (even to her diary), ".... I have made my diary a duty" and aslo through the mothering care that she gives to Lucy after she has gone sleepwalking up to the abbey. This can be seen through the way she dresses her in a motherly fashion, " I fastened her shall at her throat" as well as through the description that she gives to Lucy's passiveness once Mina wakes her, "I told her to come at once with me home she rose without a word, with the obediance of a child". Furthermore, Mina looks after her friend by trying to protect her reputation from the scandal that would emerge if it were to be discovered that she had gone outside in her nightdress. Mina's concern about her own feet being on show, "I daubed my feet with mud" also show her strict ideas about Victorian virtue. So Mina's motherlike qualities and virtues make her the archetypal Madonna of the story. Sterotypical or what? I personally think that Stoker has made Mina's character too one dimensional so that I think any real woman either Victorian or modern would have difficulty relating to her character. What really infuriates me about Stoker's portrayal of Mina is the way he uses her to bad mouth feminist 'new women' in Dracula. Mina is in essensce a piece of propaganda used by Stoker to show to the world his own views about women and how they should act and be seen to act. I honestly don't think he writes her very well because she is merely a tool and not a developed character in her own right.

The second BIG thing in chapter 8 is the whole Drac and Lucy 'rape' marriage going on. It has been suggested by members of the class that wedding imagery is used to describe the scene at the Abbey, where Mina disturbs Dracula drinking the blood of Lucy. Evidence includes, "something dark stood behind the seat where the white figure shone" and "something, long and black, bending over the half-reclining white figure". It is as if by taking her blood Dracula is marrying Lucy by taking something precious from her, perhaps the blood drinking is a symbol for the taking of virginity/ rape? This can be backed up by the imagery used by Stoker on page 102, "on the band of her nightdress was a drop of blood" to evoke an image of unclean bed sheets after the wedding night. All of this personally reminds me of the times that men who raped women were forced to marry them as punishment. Furthermore, I hate to go back to Freud but his symbolism could be used in regard to the 'penetration' of the fangs on the throat for... well it's pretty self explanatory really. What irritates me about the rape marriage is that Lucy is portrayed badly, almost 'whore' like. Mina frets about Lucy's reputation, like it was actually her fault for sleepwalking out of the house in her nightdress. Silly judgmental Victorians.

End Note: Finished the book now, overall I thought it was pretty good but the ending was just so quick!

Why is the whole of 'Dracula' written in journals and letters?

Right, I'm basically just going to copy out what I wrote down in class on Tuesday...

One of the reasons why the text is written in journals and leters is to try and put across the idea of versimilitude, that the text itself is real. We know that Bram Stoker wanted Dracula to seem like a true story as he writes a foreword saying, "All needless matters have been eliminated, so that a history almost at variance with the possibilities of latter-day belief may stand as simple fact." Making the story seem real, is key to the novel as the reader must be forced to suspend their disbelief, through an appearance of non-fiction, "12 May- Let mebegin with the fact", so as to enjoy the text and the supernatural content that it covers, "...thus using every projection and inequality move downwards with considerable speed". Dracula is a book about Vampires so Bram Stoker had to persuade his aidience to distrust their Victorian sensibilities in order for them to fully engage with the text. The letters and diary entries that Soker uses are the mechanisms that they could have related to and trusted.

I would write a little more about how the form of the text uses diary entries and letters to give a sense of privacy (and also invasion of privacy by the audience being party to these personal documents) HOWEVER Ronnie currently has my copy of Dracula. I leant it to her out of the kindness of my heart when she no-showed on Tuesday and it's yet to be returned. Disgraceful behaviour I know. But the sum of her actions basically are I can't reference the text as I haven't got a clue how to get the kindle version back to chapter 5 without losing my current place soo... that will have to wait for another time.
Toodles.

Dracula, Dreams and Sex-Freud what have you done? 17/11/2011

So basically, we've been asked to blog on Freudian symbolism in dreams in Chapter 3 in Dracula. Can I just start by saying, I completely don't buy any of Freud's analysis myself. He strikes me as a man who was completely and utterly obsessed with sex but he takes his obsession to the point where literally everything in the ENTIRE WORLD is reducable to sexual objects and actions. This is just absurd/ridiculous/nonsensical/stupid etc. etc.

I guess the key point is, however, that Bram Stoker would undoubtedly have heard about the raving lunatic that was Freud so he may have allowed the theory to influence the way he presented the dream sequences throughout the book and the descriptions that he gives.
Here's a  revision orientated list of things in CHAPTER 3 that may be linked to Freudian symbolism:

• "The castle","the valleys and gorges" (p.37)- female genitalia
• "I behaved much like a rat does in a trap" (p.30)- mechanism of the trap male genitalia
• Compares the Count to a lizard, "just as a lizard moves along a wall", "the Count go out in his lizard fashion"(p.38)- reptiles are, again, male genitalia
• Describes the count climbing down the castle, "thus using every projection and inequality move downwards with considerable speed" (p.38)- climbing (and I would assume descending)  are Freudian symbols of the act itself.
• Jonathan being trapped in his room, with all the doors (female genitalia) locked, "They were all locked as I had expected" (p.38)- the lack of "key" is made an issue and I reckon a key fits a description of what normal object has to look like to be reduced to male genitalia.
• "passages"- (p.38) female genitalia (again)
• Mountains described as "jagged" (p.39)- fits with the whole 'sharp' thing.
• The journal itself, 'paper'- female genitalia
• The encounter with the two female vampires-"the hard dents of two sharp teeth" (p.42)- penetration, "went down on her knees", "deliberate voluptuousness", "licked her lips"
• Voices of the women described as "musical" (p.41)- musical instruments obviously equal masturbation

'Transylvania is by far the most romantic and inspiring of Romania's provinces'- WHAT? 15/11/2011

So we were asked to find out a fact about Transylvania and according to Romania's tourism board Transylvania is:

"by far the most romantic and inspiring of Romania's provinces" - not exactly what initially sprung to my mind either. My more serious interesting fact is that Bran Castle in Transylvania (the region to the West of the Carpathians) is also known as Dracula's castle. Here are some pretty pictures :)  Transylvania  Bran Castle

Ooh and on one final note, they absolutely loved killing each other in Transylvania in the 14th century, Vlad Draul III's (Vlad the Impaler) older brother was buried alive. It sounds like they were all (well maybe not quite) as bad as each other. :S

Vampires :D

Vampires :D

1. The little vampire (2000)

A human kid called Tony, moves to Scotland from California, and gets bullied by his new class mates. After dreaming of Vampires, he meets a little vampire called Rudolph (who becomes his best friend) and his vampire sister Anna. Some evil guy wants to send Rudolph, Anna and his family to the underworld by getting hold of a mystical stone. This stone can also turn Rudolph, Anna and their family into humans. Because of Tony and his Dad's bravery, they kill the evil guy and the vampires are turned into humands. It was an epic film when I was 7 :)


2. The Vampyre (1819)

A guy called Aubrey has a mate called Lord Ruthven (characterised after Lord Byron). Wherever Aubrey goes with Lord Ruthven, bad things happen i.e. people die. The pair end up being attacked by bandits and Ruthven is mortally wounded, he makes Aubrey promsie not to tell anyone of his death for a year and a day. However.... when Aubrey returns to London he discovers Ruthven is there- He's still alive!!! Aubrey puts two and two together and realises Ruthven is a vampire! Duh, duh, duh!! Unfortunately, Ruthven starts to woo Aubrey's sister and he is powerless to do anything about it. A year and a day later when Aubrey is free to speak he rushes to tell his sister that her fiancee is a vampire but discovers her dead in a pool of blod, he was too late! 
Significance? The original vampire tale, sorts out the original characteristics of a vampire e.g. high status and intelligence. Interesting fact: Polidori wrote The Vampyre because of a challenge set by Lord Byron which Mary Shelley also accpeted resulting in her writing Frankenstein.

3. Varney the Vampire

Varney isn't quite as nice a vampire as his name may make his seem. What is particularly interesting about Varney is that he hates his condition, very similar to 'modern day' Vampire. He was cursed with vapirism after turning over a Royalist to Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s. It seems like the author wanted his audience to feel sympathetic towards Varney as they gradually learn more of his origins as a 'priest' and the unfortuante death of his son whom he kills during a fit of anger (after being changed into a vampire). I quite like Varney :D  

Faustus: funny or scary? (3/11/2011)

So, I've been pondering the question that Mr. Francis asked us to look into last week and I think the answer lies completly in the context of the production.

Historically, when Faustus was put on in Elizabethan times and the years following Faustus would undoubtedly scare the audience. I can only really think of one scene which might now be described as truly frightening (the last one) but the very concepts involved in Faustus, Lucifer and Hell would be all so real to an Elizabethan audience. No longer do the majority of the population believe that Faustus' fate is one that they too could endure, but back then most people believed that going to hell a place, "where we are tortured and remain forever" a possibility.  This prevelant Christian belief would have brought a terrorfiying realism to Faustus and I think that this would have caused people to have shivers down their spine. Because of the levels of belief held in the 1600s I would imagine that the play would be performed in a much darker manner. In the sceptical 21st century the concepts that forge the making of this play are not regarded with such seriousness, yet I am positive that an Elizabethan production of the play would have to present the seriousness of Faustus' actions completely- after all Faustus is as much of a warning as it is any other type of play. The humour that is written into the play acts as a light relief to the otherwise scary nature of the play, but it must be noted that Marlowe never makes light of what Faustus has done.

Nowadays, however, I think Faustus is more of a comic play. No longer does a 'life and death' realism have a grip of the play and the audience that view it. This allows more humour to creep in, which in turn grants a kind of 'comic license' to the actors who perform the various roles. The rise in the playing on humour in Faustus such as the scene where "[The Pope] cross[es himself] and Faustus hits him with a box of the ear." has to take a greater precedence in the play because the fear that once played a large part in the production is lesser. Why is it lesser? Well, not only because of the increasing levels of agnosticism and aetheism but also because people's expectations about what is scary have moved on too. Horror movies are what 21st century people watch when they want to be scared not Elizabethan plays. Unfortunately, Faustus can't quite keep a modern audience on the edge of their seat through horror alone and so it has somewhat morphed... into a comedy.

On a lighter note, just got a kindle- it is awesome :D

So is Faustus a Goth? 1/11/2011

So we have beena sked to blog about whether Faustus is truly a Gothic character or a tragic one instead.
I would argue that he is a mixture of both as he has a number of tragic and gothic character traits:

Gothic Traits

1. At the very start of the play Faustus has a strong passion for knowledge, particularly in the 'gothic' art of necromancy-dark magic. His desires for 'power', 'honor' and 'omnipotence' at the start of the play could be described as obsessive through the fact he sells his soul to the devil as a means of achieving them. What is tragic however is that once he has sold his soul, the passions and ambitions that Faustus held at the start of the play ebb away and he is content to be satisfied by Mephistopheles taking control and doing everything for him.
2. Faustus is an intelligent man, this can be seen through his dismillas of great subjects of knowledge including 'law', 'medicine' and philosophy and belittling the works of the great masters of these subjects e.g. 'St Justinian'. Tragically by the end of the play he wishes he had never opened a book, 'never read book!'[act 5] showing that he recognizes his intelligence has caused his downfall.
3. Linked to an idea of corruption- Mephistopheles corrupts Faustus throughout the playthrough: getting him to sell his soul and not allowing him to do the things that he desired when the bargain was made.
4. Inhuman in some way- he sells his soul!

BIG TRAGIC TRAIT

1. Hubris!!- Faustus' arrogance and pride causes him to sell his soul and prevents him from repenting at the end of the play.

Looks like Rory wasn't a very good Mephistopheles :( (Missed lessons 18.10.2011)

Right, I am going to have to blog very, very, very quickly today as my internet is being incredibly tempremental and could die at any second. During the quick period that I have taken to research the productions of Faustus, (googled the reviews and 'sage history') I can now tell you a little about the productions of it.

Historically, according to the University of Warwick's English Literature dept (they have a Faustus database- impresive or what) the earliest productions of Faustus were between 1594-1597. Lord Admiral's men were the theatre troop that put it on at the Rose theatre- so there you have it Faustus at its earliest. Little is recorded about the production in Faustus' early years, I guess there wasn't a buzzing industry of arts critics in the 16th and 17th centuries. However following a revival in 1602, Faustus was on the stage for a long period during the 1600s. According to wikipedia in one 1932 production, two devils actually appeared on the stage! (Someone obviously had a really good sense of humour!)

Following links from the warwick website there are some reviews of productions of Faustus in the 20th Century, unfortunately there isn't access for non-Warwick students/ staff, I might see if I can look in the Times archives and comment later (when I know I have a secure internet connecion) on what they have said.

The most recent production of Faustus was this year. The play was staged at the Globe Theatre in London for the first time ever in its history. Unfortunately, it wasn't particularly well met by the criticis, Brian Logan from the Guardian wrote, "You leave feeling you have plumbed the contents of the theatre's wardrobe department, not the depths of the spiritual abyss." (Guardian, 24 June 2011) Logan picks up that a problem with the production is that, "The horrors to which he has pledged his soul, meanwhile, are weakly represented by Arthur Darvill's Mephistopheles, and by a Lucifer wearing silly facial hair."(Guardian, 24 June 2011) It may very well be that Arthur Darvill wasn't convincing, but then I have always thought that Mephistopheles was meant to be the subtle messenger of hell- not obviously evil or horrific, but a character that possesses a greater gold over Faustus as the play progresses.
Charles Spencer's review in The Telegraph is equally critical of the production, he describes Paul Hilton's Faustus as, "vocally underpowered" and says that Arthur Darvill is "woefully miscast as Mephistopheles"

Anyhow, better go now as I think the internet is on its last legs, just wanted to also mention that I saw the RSC's version of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' down in Stratford at the weekend- my favourite Shakespeare production yet


Links to reviews (tried to get The Independent one too but internet wasn't coopertating)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jun/24/doctor-faustus-review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8597343/Doctor-Faustus-Shakespeares-Globe-review.html

The Other Side of the Argument... or is it? (13/10/2011)

Not really blogged for a while so thought I was over due a post. This past week we have been examining the question 'How far do you agree that Faustus has fallen in grace by Act iv?'. When I initially wrote the essay on Thursday afternoon I decided to be non-controversial and agree with the question. However, when I went out of the room to discuss my work with Mr. Francis I realised that actually I completely disagreed that Fautsus had fallen in grace at all- I just wasn't confident in taking a stance that completely opposed the question. I'm going to use this blog to explain my actual position, and the one that I will take in June if the question comes up again.

The crux of my argument that Faustus doesn't fall from grace by act iv is basically that he was never a nice person to begin with. My understanding of 'falling from grace' is that one has to be in a morally superior position at the start and a much lower position by then end. If we look at Faustus however, he is clearly presented as an arrogant, obnoxious, aetheistic, rude man in act i. Plainly, this is not in any way, shape, or form a morally superior position. The Faustus in scene one is not at all the sort of man that anyone would particularly like to meet. If Faustus' characterisation in scene i is contrasted with his character in scene iv a definite change can however be spotted. Faustus is meeker, he has lost his arrogance and in many respects could be regarded as helpless e.g. his dependence on Mephi. The sharp edges of Fautsus' character in scene one have been worn down over the years follwing the selling of his soul and actually it could be argued that Faustus hasn't fallen from grace because his experiences have actually graced him with tiny little bit of humility.

Another point, although I've been told not to get hung up on it, is that 'fallen from grace'- like it or not- does have religious connotations. At the tiume that Faustus was written all of Christendom (and the H.R.E where the play is set) would have understood 'fallen from grace' to be falling from the will of God. I may be being pedantic but Faustus sells his soul in the first act, let's face it you can't show that you disagree more with God than that. Case closed by act one, not act iv, surely?

Or maybe not. The phrase 'fallen from grace' is ambigious, and as I've already pointed out my understandings of it lead to the question appearing quite frankly irrelevent/pointless. I don't think Fautsus falls from grace by act iv, if he does fall in the semantic sense it is in act i, otherwise he does not. There is however a character change in Faustus which is noticeable as the play progresses. His ambitions die. I may not like Faustus, but I would be mad to deny that it is his ambitions that are the life force behind the character. By the time that the play reaches act iv, they have been erroded away and replaced by melancholy acceptance that Fautsus is not destined for greatness but to act as a servant or jester- to entertain others. At least at the start of the place Fautsus has an interesting albeit despicable charcter, by Act iv he is completely void of any of the spark he once had. It's funny but the audience really do get to see the devil suck Faustus' soul from him through the play. I'm not sure whetehr this change in character can be called a fall from grace but whatever it is it is noticeable and it does happen to a large extent.

Things aren't looking great for Fautsus (4/10/2011)

Last week Mr Francis asked us to consider the question, 'How does Faustus fall further in act 4?' I'm going to quite with my usual waffle at the start of blog posts and just get into answering that very question.

It is obvious even from the chorus that begins act 4 that Faustus has completely abandoned his ambitions, "of power, of honour, of omnipotence" that he presented in act one. Instead Faustus is content to be "feasted 'mongst his (Charles V) noblemen". No longer does Faustus crave to control the whole world as a kind of God, he is happy to settle for "fame spread forth in every land". In this sense, Faustus' character has fallen further in act 4 because the very ambitions that drove him to sell his soul to the devil (the ultimate sacrifice) are no longer present in him making the decision seem completely pointless. At this point I'd like to point out that I think, Marlowe was being very clever in his choice of Charles V as the Emporer that Faustus meets. Charles V was a man who fulfilled many of the ambitions that Faustus once held, controlling the majority of the discovered world at the time of his reign as King of Spain and Holy Roman Emporer. Marlowe's choice of Charles V to star opposite Faustus in this scene would therefore suggest that he was trying to emphasise the difference between Faustus' old ambitions and what he prepared for in scene 4.

Further evidence of Faustus falling in Act 4, can be found in the way that he suddenly discovers humility, declaring himself, "far inferior to the report men have published (of his skill with magic)". It is strange in a sense that Faustus loses his arrogance, a negative character trait, after he sells his soul to evil as one might have expected him to seek further into his ungodly character traits shown at the start of the play. I think that Faustus acknowledgement that his skills actually aren't that great as well as the fact he recognizes he is not equal to Charles V, "...nothing answerable to the honour of your Imperial Majesty" show that he has lost faith in himself, which in itself surely evidence that he has fallen further.

Interestingly enough, throughout the scene the people that Faustus meets become of gradually lower and lower status. Faustus initally, uses his sorcery to please Charles V by summoning the spirit of Alexander the Great, yet by the end of [4.2] he has been asked to summon some grapes for a Duchess. The difference in status between the individuals is obviously great, one is one of the greatest King's ever and the other a mere woman. However it is the difference in the tasks assigned to Faustus that show a real marked difference, summoning the ghost of Alexander the Great seems much more complex then conjuring up some grapes. It is almost as if by the end of Act 4 not only have Faustus' ambitions faded but also his fame has too.

Very quickly, I would just like to finally point out that throughout scene 4 it is Mephistopheles that does the actual magic, Faustus merely tells him to do so. If one reflects back to the beginning of the play Fautus himself managed to summon Mephistopheles yet it seems that even though he sold his soul to the devil to become better at magic, his use of magic has actually decreased. A bitter irony. Note also, Faustus crying out to Mephistopheles, "Help, Mephistopheles!" when a rogue man pulls Faustus leg off (really didn't get what was going on there- literal or figurative?). It strikes me that Faustus' reliance on Mephistopheles to do everything for him is arguably further evidence of his fall as he is no longer able to do anything for himself.  

Jennystopheles on Mephistopheles Act II Scene III 29/09/2011

Sorry for the title, I'm all out of inspiration for today's blogging sesh. I'm only going to do one blog for both of Thursday's lessons as they were both focused on the same scene [2.3] .
Today, I'm going to blog about Mephistopheles again, in a kind of gathering-my-thoughts kind of way in preparation for the essay writing we're going to do on Thursday.

It was raised, last Thursday, that the relationship between Faustus and Mephistopheles may have in part a homoerotic tension between them,

(Mephi) "I tell thee, 'tis not hald so fair as thou"

I can see why some people might think this if you take what Mephistopheles says on a literal level. That said, I think he is actually being quite sarcastic and droll with Faustus. Once Faustus has sold his soul to the devil in [2.1] Mephistopheles starts to change the way that he treats Faustus. No longer is he the sympathetic little devil warning Faustus 'oh how horrible' hell is. Instead, he is dry, "Think'st though heaven is such a glorious thing?", and unaccommodating, "Move me not, for I will not tell thee". As a result in this character shift and Mephistopheles perhaps feeling he can actually show his real attitude to Faustus I would say that he is taking the opportunity to mock the stupid man who thought selling his soul was a good thing.

This lead me nicely on to another observation about Mephistopheles. He patronises Faustus because in fact he is smarter than Faustus. The man who claims that his "common talk" is "sound aphorisms"[1.1] must ask Mephistopheles about things he wants greater knowledge of, "But tell me, have they all one motion, both situ et tempore?"[2.3]. Moreoever, Mephistopheles has the power to deny Faustus the knoweledge he craves and knows just how divert Faustus wishes into Mephistopheles' wishes for example exchanging the idea of a wife with the idea of concubines. The language of intelligence, latin, has often been used as evidence to illustrate Faustus' amazing brain power yet Mephistopheles uses the language too, "Per inaequalem motum respectu totius"[2.3] Yet Mephistopheles doesn't use latin to show off as Faustus does, he doesn't use the language flamboyantly in order to make the audience feel belittled in fact his matter of fact use of the language in some sense belittles Faustus for making so much fuss about it. Ultimately, the gist of what I've been trying to get at in this blog post is that whilst Mephistopheles might not be that sweet little devil he was in act one, in scene two it is definitely Mephi who is pulling the strings.

Was Marlowe just 'clowning' around? (excuse the pun)

Struggling for laughs...

Mr Francis has asked us all to blog on one of the comedy scenes ( Act I, scene iv) in Dr Faustus. The scene could act as a bit of comedic light relief (LOUIS SAYS HI) ..bit of irony there... between the scenes were Faustus first meets with Mephistopheles and the scene where he signs his soul over to the devil. Or the reason for the comedy scene may have been to build up tension, making the audience wait to find out what happens to Faustus.

The scene is one of light hearted exchange beteen a "clown" character; a formulaic character that can be seen in many plays written during the Elizabethan period and Wagner- Faustus' servant. The exchange is meant to be humorous with multiple lines that play on words:

Wagner: Sirra, hast thou no comings in?

Clown: Yes, and goings out too, you may see sir.

I'm not going to lie, I don't find this very funny at all and to be quite frank the idea of an audience finding this hysterical is quite strange. The need for the scene is very strange too, it just doesn't quite fit with the serious nature of the topics that Marlowe explores during Dr Faustus. Perhaps this humour was genuinely funny in Elizabethan times and the audience did find it funny, it is fairly obvious too so even an uneducated man would be able to appreciate it. One theory that I have been pondering is that the very unfunny formulaic humour shown in this scene is all part of Marlowe very cleverly belittling his audience. At the moment, I am very much a fan of the idea that Marlowe is using irony left right and centre in Dr Faustus to satirise the beliefs and hostilities that people had in those days. Whilst appearing to be a very conventional play with a message that the audience would undoubtedly appreciate -don't sell your soul to the devil- Marlowe's own 'atheistic' beliefs suggest that the play is just one great piece of irony. Perhaps, what might have made Marlowe laugh when he wrote this scene was actually that people would find this funny when it so clearly was not to an educated man like himself. Then again, he might have actually valued this humour, in which case he has just gone so far down in my esteem.

Satan 20/09/2011

In the second lesson on Tuesday we were asked to draw a picture what we believed the devil to look like. This was part of an effort to introduce us to Mephistopheles, the miniature devil that acts as the intemediatry between Faustus and Satan to broker a deal for Faustus to sell his soul. Interstingly though, Mephistopheles really challenged the class's ideas about how a devil should act, he is a sympathetic and even warns Faustus against selling his soul. All of this talk of devil's got me thinking about the way that the devil is presented in different religions. Obviously, the Christian faith teaches that Lucifer is a fallen angel that rules as the overlord of hell. But what do Islam, Judaism and Buddhism have to say about the devil?

In Islam, the devil (Iblis) is a great deciever. He is a jinn, created from smokeless fire by God. The Islamic story of the devil goes that Iblis refused to bow before Adam (humanity) as God desired him to. He deliberately disobeyed the will of God causing him to be cast out by God. Iblis is seen in Islam as being the enemy of humanity, not the enemy of God. It is aim to try and tempt human beings into sin and away from God so that when resurrection day comes and Iblis is cast into the fires of hell, all of those that he has decieved will be cast their too.

Interestingly enough, Judaism does ot have a concept of the devil like Christianity does. This really surprised me as it is one of the three Abrhamic relgions. Instead mainstream Jews consider the devil to be "the adversary" which translates directly from the hebrew word ha-satan. Wikipedia states that the reason why the devil is viewed as an adversary or prosecutor is because of the need to recognize God as the ultimate judge.

Buddhism's devil-like figure is Mara. Mara is the thing that tempts people, even Buddha himself. He tries to make things that are bad seem good as well as distracting people from their tasks by making other things seem more appealing, it is Mara that causes procrastination (somewhat ironic as I am on facebook at the same time as writing this). Buddhist's view Mara not as a separate entity but as part of the mind itself, something that must be overcome in order to lead a spiritual life.



Buddha battling Mara...

'American Gothic' 20/09/2011

American Gothic c.1930

During the first lesson today, we were shown a number of paintings and pictures which were considered to be 'gothic'. I chose to talk about one in the bottom corner that really caught my eye. Although I didn't know it at the time, this picture entitled "American Gothic" is actually incredibly famous. Painted by Grant Wood in 1930 the picture depicts a man and supposedly his daughter standing outside a house made in the 'Gothic Revival' style. When I initially described the painting, the impresion that it had on me was that it was trying to convey the: miserable, religious and austere life of the puritan 'founding fathers' of America. What really made the painting have a gothic feel about it for me is the chilling expressionless faces of the two characters depicted. It really made me think of historic events such as the Salem Witch Trials and the much more fictional epic film that is, Sleepy Hollow.

After doing some research into the painting (I'm not going to lie the research was limited to Wikipedia) I discovered that the painting was not as old as I believed it to be. I think I put a date on the picture as being set at somepoint in the 1600s, but actually the painting was set in the 1800s. How can you tell? The tunic that the woman is wearing.. apparently. This may sound pretty dull to most of you but this sadly did interest me, appealing to my history nerd side.
The man in the painting, was actually the artist's dentist in real life. I think this shows the artist's sense of humour- turning an everyday frightening character into a supernatural gothic one!
Another interesting fact about the painting is that the woman in the painting is meant to be the man's spinster daughter, not his wife. It is ambiguous as to whether this was originally the artist's intention but apparently the woman who posed for the painting was embarassed to be presented as being married to a man twice her age.

Thought I'd end this post with a bit of humour. The characters in 'American Gothic' make an appearance in the Rocky Horror picture show. See if you can spot a certain man and woman...

Introducing...Dr Faustus! 15/09/2011

I think today's bog will be about whether or not I think that Dr Faustus is presented as a 'traditional' gothic character in scene one.
Some of the characteristics that one might expect to find in a stereotypical gothic character, the archetypal one being 'Count Dracula', include: being inhuman in some manner, having a degree of status, a strong physical presence, arrogance and intelligence.

Dr Faustus' fascination with magic is something that distinguishes him from a 'normal' human being.
Faustus' love of magic is evident at the end of his opening speech, when he decides that magic is what he shall concentrate his studies on.

"These metaphysics of magicians
And necromantic books are heavenly."

Being able to perform magic, obviously makes Faustus more than a human- he has super powers! Furthermore Faustus' captivation with magic, contextually would separate him from his peers with dark magic flying in the face of God; the wrath of whom most humans would fear.

Faustus' characterisation as a typical gothic character perhaps falls short in the area of status. In the opening chorus, it is said that Faustus' parents parents being, "base of stock". Clearly this is very different to the aristocratic status of Count Dracula. That said, I think there culd be an argument that Faustus does in fact have status but that status is an academic one, earned through his intellectual prowess,

"The fruitful plot of scholarism graced,
That shortly he was graced with a doctor's name,"

If I now turn to 'physical presence', I think it that it would be fair to say that there is little evidence in the first scene as to what Faustus is like physically, given that there are no stage directions which specify what Faustus must look like. That said, the physical actions of throwing away the books of the great masters of: philosophy, medicine, law and divinity, hint at a physical confidence to match Faustus' mental one.

There is an absolute abundance of evidence in scene one which suggests, that Dr Faustus has more than a little bit of arrogance in his personality. I think the most obvious piece of textual evidence is his systematic rejection of great areas of studies and the most prolific writers in those areas. It's as if Faustus believes that these subjects are below him and his intelligence, "Affords this art no greater miracle?" (rejection of philosophy).

Finally, I will take a very quick look at the evidence to suggest that Faustus is intelligent as this is clearly the character trait that Marlowe is aiming to emphasise the most when he let's the audience get their first glimpse of Dr Faustus. The setting of the scene, in Faustus' study, immediately lets the audience know that Faustus is a scholarly man. The chorus as previously mentioned, also let's the audience know that Faustus has excelled academically at university. I really like the way that Faustus casually drifts into Latin, and then translates for the 'common' audience,

""Summum bonum medicinae sanitas."
The end of physic is our body's health." 

This for me has the effect of Faustus asserting his intellectual superiority over the audience members too.

After, very quickly going through the tick list of character traits I think it would be fair to say that Marlowe does a good job of creating a typical gothic character in Dr Faustus.

Christopher Marlowe; the Elizabethan James Bond? 13/09/2011



Today's lesson gave the class an introduction to some of the religious ideas that we will be studying in Dr Faustus. We were also introduced to the play's writer, Christopher Marlowe, a man with both an interesting life and of course rather gruesome death. It is this topic that I would like to focus my blog on for today.



Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593)



One of the greatest theories surrounding Christopher Marlowe's life is that he was a spy. After consulting the *ever reliable* source that is Wikipedia, I must admit that I do find this theory very plausable.

Marlowe studyed at Corpus-Christi College Cambridge, he was successfully awarded his Bachelor's degree in 1584 but the trouble surrounding him being awarded his masters in 1587 is perhaps the first piece of evidence to suggest that Marlowe was in fact a spy. The Privy Council, the elite set of advisors that formed Queen Elizabeth's government, intervened when the University of Cambridge declared that it found issue with awarding Christopher Marlowe his masters as it was rumoured that he would be voyaging to Rheims university to train to be a Catholic priest. This level of intervention, whilst could be explained through Marlowe's strong political connections is most likely explained through the espionage theory, espcially given that the Privy Council ordered the award on the basis that Marlowe had been engaged in "matters touching the benefit of his country". Furthermore the fact that Marlowe did not 'keep term' at Cambridge (a rule which still exists today) is further evidence of his potential involvement as a spy.

The weight to which I would give other proposed evidence of Marlowe being a spy e.g. the theory that he was Arabella Stuart's tutor, is probably lesser. This is because to me there are other plausible if not more plausible explanations to these theories.


What really interests me though is Marlowe's death. The recorded account of his death, that he was stabbed in the eye after a bar fight is undoubtedly very gruesome (I actually exclaimed "eugh" when I read it). Whilst this might be the case, the cornoner's report neglects to mention that the three men in the room with Marlowe at the time of his death had been employed by members of the Walsingham family (Francis Walsingham was on the privy council and was known for his envolvement in espionage). Given that Marlowe had apparently been spreading more 'aethestic views' just before his death (for which he had been arrested 10 days earlier) quite frankly I think that the Privy Council saw him and as a liability and needed to be 'taken out'- Marlowe's death was a modern day 'hit job'.

How does all of this really link to Dr Faustus? Given that I haven't read the play yet, I honestly can't say. To be honest this conspiracy theory just caught my interest. No doubt I'll look back on this post in June with a clear vision of how the symbolism in the play relates to Marlowe's own life and vies. Well, at least I hope so...