I plan on writing a paper for my final literary analysis project. I want to look at Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. I will also be bringing in some of Candace Benefiel’s Blood Relations: The Gothic Perversion of the Nuclear Family in Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire.
I want to look at the use of a family in both of these novels. Benefiel says, “The figuratively incestuous family of vampires can be traced in rudimentary form to Stoker’s Dracula… Dracula is first presented in his Transylvanian castle with three brides/daughters (Stoker 71-73)…Anne Rice however, expanded on this considerably in Interview with the Vampire, making the nuclear family of vampires a major theme in her novel (Benefiel 263). Both of these vampire families are presented in different ways. Dracula and his brides/daughters are not nearly as close to a family unit as Lestat, Louis and Claudia. I want to examine possible reasons for the differences, but also look at why both authors seem to use this idea of a family when relating to vampires.
I believe that this use of the family when relating to vampires can be seen as slightly uncanny. Family is a very familiar thing to everyone here in the United States, but it takes on a whole new quality when applied to vampires. It makes us question what family really is, if vampires can be family then what qualifies as family. In class we talked a lot about the queering of the traditional American nuclear family as it applies to Louis, Lestat and Claudia and I would like to expand on this idea and also apply this “queering” to Dracula and his family. Dracula had three wives. This is definitely not the traditional family we are used to. Dracula does not really seem to care much about these three women. He tells them what to do, but is more interested in having them come around only when needed. They do not seem to be with him and keep him company. In Interview with the Vampire the vampires are in the family unit for company. They do not want to be alone. Lestat had his real father before creating Louis and after creating him he tried to trick Louis into staying with him by withholding information from him. Then right before Louis wants to leave Claudia is made and Louis just cannot leave her. He feels this need to care for her. This is more like a family then anything else. They need company. The vampires in the novel who do not have a family or other vampires around to communicate with are portrayed as completely uncivilized and wild. This seems to suggest that the vampires need a family type of unit to be civilized and to function in the world. Anne Rice seems to be suggesting that everyone needs a family to survive and be civilized. I think that vampires are used in these novels to represent a superior race of humans. They are what humans should and ultimately do strive for in life. It seems that the family is something that needs to be strived for in humans.
In my final paper I want to look at these ideas and examine them more closely and really expand on them. I think it is interesting to compare the families of vampires and then apply these families to Americans and see what the authors are saying. I also want to examine the uncanny aspect of all of this.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Vampires, Family, and Sex
My blog this week is going to be in response/conjunction with Bailey’s blog, found here http://baileysgothicnovelblog.blogspot.com/ . Bailey discusses the homoerotic tendencies of Louis and Lestat, also the very close relationship between Claudia and Louis. I think that both of the observations Bailey made are valid and I would like to expand on this idea of vampires and family and vampires and sex.
In Candace Benefiel’s essay that we read for class, she discusses these matters as well. She kind of mixes the two issues of family and sex. She says, “ The male sexual penetration of the victim (with the phallic substitute fangs) is followed by the more archetypal female nurturing of the victim, feeding him or her blood from the vampire’s body.” (262) I think this quote represents Interview on a few levels. It seems that in the book the vampires are attracted to the people they turn into new vampires and the changing is always highly sexualized. It makes sense then that the fangs would be a phallic representation. But then once the change has occurred the vampires become like a family and the “father” vampire has to nurture and show the new vampire how to live. Another interesting point I think Benefiel makes is that the drinking of vampire blood needed to create a new vampire can be related to nursing. Supporting the idea of a vampire family. She says, “The vampire gives immortality through blood being sucked from it, an image paralleling maternal nursing.” (268)
It doesn’t seem to matter if this new vampire is male or female. Take Louis and Lestat for example. They seem to have this homosexual love for each other, just as Bailey says. Then there is Claudia and Louis. They also have a love, but this love isn’t homosexual obviously, but it is pretty twisted. Claudia is a child and Louis is this father figure, but also her lover, not physically, but emotionally. Louis describes their relationship as, “Father and Daughter, Lover and Lover.” (Interview 90) Even though they are considered lovers they do not have sex. They satisfy this need by killing. Benefiel suggests that this non differentiating between the sexes means that the vampires are bisexual. (268) I do not agree with this statement. It is hard for me to explain exactly why not, but I will try. I see the vampires as different from humans. They have lost some of the ‘rules’ that humans go by, one of the hose ‘rules’ I think is sexual identity. Yes, they have these homoerotic tendencies and yet they also seem to be attract to the opposite sex. I think speaking from a human stand point we would definitely call this person a bisexual, but it is different when apply this concept to vampires. The vampire does not have actual physical sex with other vampires. Louis and Lestat may have had some sort of love for each other, or maybe it was more of an obligation. Creator and Created. I do not think that this qualifies them as homosexuals. Armand and Louis also seemed to have a little love going on to, but I see this as more of an interest in each other and their knowledge. I do not see anything sexual about their relationship. I do not think vampires can have a sexual identity.
In Candace Benefiel’s essay that we read for class, she discusses these matters as well. She kind of mixes the two issues of family and sex. She says, “ The male sexual penetration of the victim (with the phallic substitute fangs) is followed by the more archetypal female nurturing of the victim, feeding him or her blood from the vampire’s body.” (262) I think this quote represents Interview on a few levels. It seems that in the book the vampires are attracted to the people they turn into new vampires and the changing is always highly sexualized. It makes sense then that the fangs would be a phallic representation. But then once the change has occurred the vampires become like a family and the “father” vampire has to nurture and show the new vampire how to live. Another interesting point I think Benefiel makes is that the drinking of vampire blood needed to create a new vampire can be related to nursing. Supporting the idea of a vampire family. She says, “The vampire gives immortality through blood being sucked from it, an image paralleling maternal nursing.” (268)
It doesn’t seem to matter if this new vampire is male or female. Take Louis and Lestat for example. They seem to have this homosexual love for each other, just as Bailey says. Then there is Claudia and Louis. They also have a love, but this love isn’t homosexual obviously, but it is pretty twisted. Claudia is a child and Louis is this father figure, but also her lover, not physically, but emotionally. Louis describes their relationship as, “Father and Daughter, Lover and Lover.” (Interview 90) Even though they are considered lovers they do not have sex. They satisfy this need by killing. Benefiel suggests that this non differentiating between the sexes means that the vampires are bisexual. (268) I do not agree with this statement. It is hard for me to explain exactly why not, but I will try. I see the vampires as different from humans. They have lost some of the ‘rules’ that humans go by, one of the hose ‘rules’ I think is sexual identity. Yes, they have these homoerotic tendencies and yet they also seem to be attract to the opposite sex. I think speaking from a human stand point we would definitely call this person a bisexual, but it is different when apply this concept to vampires. The vampire does not have actual physical sex with other vampires. Louis and Lestat may have had some sort of love for each other, or maybe it was more of an obligation. Creator and Created. I do not think that this qualifies them as homosexuals. Armand and Louis also seemed to have a little love going on to, but I see this as more of an interest in each other and their knowledge. I do not see anything sexual about their relationship. I do not think vampires can have a sexual identity.
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Queering" the American Nuclear Family
In Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice, I can see a small family form, at least within the first two parts of the book. This family is made up of Louis, Claudia and Lastat. They act like a family and the two men raise the little vampire girl. It is as if Louis is more of the motherly, nurturing character, as he is the one to educate Claudia with books and art. He and Claudia also sleep together. He is the caregiver; whereas Lastat plays the more fatherly role by teaching Claudia how to hunt and how to enjoy the hunt. He cares little about how she acts or what else she learns. This little family is different then the traditional American nuclear family however. There is not a mother and a father, but two males. Yes, one may take on more of a motherly role, but they are in fact two males. The “queering” of the traditional American nuclear family comes in, not only I the fact that there are two males, but also that both males were used to create Claudia, as a vampire. Louis started it by drinking of her blood, but she did not die. Then later as he was finishing her off, Lastat took her from Louis just before she died. Louis says, “I realized what he (Lastat) was doing, that he had cut his wrist and given it to her and she was drinking.” (pg 91) It took both of these males to create this child. That is not the way of the nuclear family. Traditionally it takes a male and a female, but here it is done by just the males. Not just one of the males, but both.
Then later on the family dynamic changes yet again. Lastat is gone, maybe dead, maybe not. Now it is as if Louis and Claudia have progressed not just from a father and daughter relationship, but it has turned into an almost sexual relationship. I am not sure if vampires have sex, but if they do I am pretty sure that Claudia and Louis would have gone there. Not only do they share a coffin, but they share blood as well. Claudia gave Louis some of her blood before she was a vampire, obviously, but then again later on she offers some to him so he can make it through the night. She also says, “I can’t bear you to look at me the way you did. I cannot bear it if you do not love me!” (pg. 139 ) She cries for him not to leave and wants to be with him forever. Later she kisses him. This family dynamic went from father, daughter to lovers. The is definitely not the traditional American nuclear family.
Then later on the family dynamic changes yet again. Lastat is gone, maybe dead, maybe not. Now it is as if Louis and Claudia have progressed not just from a father and daughter relationship, but it has turned into an almost sexual relationship. I am not sure if vampires have sex, but if they do I am pretty sure that Claudia and Louis would have gone there. Not only do they share a coffin, but they share blood as well. Claudia gave Louis some of her blood before she was a vampire, obviously, but then again later on she offers some to him so he can make it through the night. She also says, “I can’t bear you to look at me the way you did. I cannot bear it if you do not love me!” (pg. 139 ) She cries for him not to leave and wants to be with him forever. Later she kisses him. This family dynamic went from father, daughter to lovers. The is definitely not the traditional American nuclear family.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blood and Hierarchy
In Stephen Arata’s essay, The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the anxiety of Reverse Colonization, he suggests that there are racial anxieties in the novel expressed in one way through Lucy Westenra and her blood transfusions. He writes, “But Stoker is careful to establish a strict hierarchy among the potential donors.” (pg. 467) The first to give the transfusion is Holmwood. Lucy’s fiancé but also an English aristocrat. Then Dr. Seward, an Englishman. Then Van Helsing, who is a foreigner. Finally by Morris, who is not only a foreigner but also an American. This order does not make any logical sense. Mostly because, Van Helsing is the oldest, yet he is in line before Morris who is a healthy young man. It furthers the fact that this is a racial anxiety in the novel.
I did not notice this until Arata pointed it out. I did find it odd that Van Helsing was not the last, being the oldest, but I did not look at the deeper meaning. It is interesting that such a hierarchy was put in place among the men, when it came to “purifying” Lucy’s blood. It is as if only the “best” blood would be able to chase out the “devil” blood of Dracula. It is interesting however that although the vampire’s bite is feared because of becoming undead, that the vampire is suggested to be stronger then all other men. This is furthered by the fact that even with the four blood transfusions; Lucy still was changed by the stronger being. Even the English aristocrat’s blood was not “potent” enough against Dracula. Something that is not even mentioned is Lucy’s own blood. It is obvious in the novel that women are seen as the weakest being. This is furthered by Van Helsing saying, “I fear to trust those women.” (pg. 180) in reference to the servant women. So not only is he saying that his old, weak blood is better than a woman’s blood, but also that his foreign blood is better than a lowly servant’s blood. Lucy’s blood was obviously not strong enough to withstand the bite by Dracula on its own. She needed these males blood to keep her alive and from turning into a vampire herself. All of this eventually failed and she inevitable became a vampire. She a woman, viewed in the novel as one of the lowliest creatures has now become string because of her blood or taste for blood, as it turns out.
It is also interesting to note that even though women’s blood in the novel seems to be seen as “bad” blood, this is the only blood Dracula feeds off of. He only seems to bite women. He is sustained off of women’s blood. Was Stoker trying to say something about women and how they were viewed in this time as powerless? Was he trying to show that women may have the “best blood of all”? I doubt it, but it is an interesting thought.
I did not notice this until Arata pointed it out. I did find it odd that Van Helsing was not the last, being the oldest, but I did not look at the deeper meaning. It is interesting that such a hierarchy was put in place among the men, when it came to “purifying” Lucy’s blood. It is as if only the “best” blood would be able to chase out the “devil” blood of Dracula. It is interesting however that although the vampire’s bite is feared because of becoming undead, that the vampire is suggested to be stronger then all other men. This is furthered by the fact that even with the four blood transfusions; Lucy still was changed by the stronger being. Even the English aristocrat’s blood was not “potent” enough against Dracula. Something that is not even mentioned is Lucy’s own blood. It is obvious in the novel that women are seen as the weakest being. This is furthered by Van Helsing saying, “I fear to trust those women.” (pg. 180) in reference to the servant women. So not only is he saying that his old, weak blood is better than a woman’s blood, but also that his foreign blood is better than a lowly servant’s blood. Lucy’s blood was obviously not strong enough to withstand the bite by Dracula on its own. She needed these males blood to keep her alive and from turning into a vampire herself. All of this eventually failed and she inevitable became a vampire. She a woman, viewed in the novel as one of the lowliest creatures has now become string because of her blood or taste for blood, as it turns out.
It is also interesting to note that even though women’s blood in the novel seems to be seen as “bad” blood, this is the only blood Dracula feeds off of. He only seems to bite women. He is sustained off of women’s blood. Was Stoker trying to say something about women and how they were viewed in this time as powerless? Was he trying to show that women may have the “best blood of all”? I doubt it, but it is an interesting thought.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Dracula and Women
I am going to go off of what someone else in the class has written for their blog because I am in complete agreement and had alot of the same ideas. This blog can be found here... http://samjanssen.blogspot.com/ ... When I was reading Dracula by Bram Stoker I was also noticing how he only seems to prey on women. The first time I noticed was when the three women vampires showed up. There is obviously a reason for the use of the number three in the novel as well because it comes up many times. Everything seems to be three or five. i am not quite sure why this yet though. Anyway back to the women. Sam says in their blog, "He is obviously attracted to all these women, since they are all described as beautiful, but is a beautiful woman the only thing he is looking for?" I think that he is looking for more than just beauty, but I think beauty is definitely part of it. Dracula does say, "Yes, I too can love; you yourselves can tell from the past." (pg 43) Dracula says this in response to the three women vampires because they are laughing and saying he can't love. This statement from Dracula seems to suggest that he has been in love before. This makes me think that maybe he is only preying on beautiful women because he wants more than their beauty. He wants their love. The footnote on page 43 suggests that this statement means that Dracula can only have "erotic contact" with humans, not other vampires. This makes me wonder if both Sam and I are wrong in thinking that Dracula is attracted to these women that he changes. If this were true and he can only have erotic contact with human women, why would he change them? Why make Lucy into a vampire if he is attracted to her? I do think that he preys only on women because of sexuality mostly because of the example Sam used about Lucy before and after her change. "She goes from being girlish to voluptuous, a woman to a slut. The men fear her and want to return her to a pure state." I completely agree here. Lucy was seen as being a beautiful, innocent women. Now she is the opposite. "Lucy's eyes in form and colour; but Lucy's eyes unclean and full of hell-fire, instead of the pure, gentle orbs we knew." (pg. 188) There is definitely a reason for Dracula only preying on women. Maybe he wants to show his power over these beautiful women; maybe he wants them; maybe they remind him of the one he once loved and so he thinks they need to lose all humanity. It is hard to say.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Frakenstein
I am going to start off by saying that the ending of Frankenstein does not sit well with me. I could not see the ending coming and I in no way agree with it. I feel like Mary Shelley left room at the end just in case she wanted to add a sequel. Yes, I know that Victor is dead, but we never really know if the Creature is dead. It gives me that weird, I guess you could call it uncanny, feeling not knowing if the Creature really does die in the end. I think I feel this way because he is kind of human, yet kind of of supernatural in his abilities and obviously very dangerous. He takes on that character that I know is fictional, yet in the book is made to seem so real. Kind of creepy.
The Creature says, “I shall die. I shall no longer feel the agonies which now consume me, or be prey of the feelings unsatisfied, yet unquenched.” (pg 155) He says he is going to die, but I am sure eventually he will. That does not mean he is going to die rigt now. Then he brings up that his feelings throughout the book, the feelings that drove him to murder innocent people and kill his creator, are still unsatisfied. This says to me that he still has these feelings. Yes, Victor, his creator is dead and he was the only seemingly knowing person in how to make another creature come alive, but he may find another. We cannot trust the creature that he is going to go off and never see another human again and he will die.
Why did Walton let the creature live? He could have very easily seized he opportunity given when he was alone in the room with the Creature. The Creature seemed to be pretty distracted by Victor’s death. All Walton would have had to do was to seize this opportunity. He should have listened to Victor when Victor said, “He (the Creature) shewed unparalleled malignity and selfishness, in evil: he destroyed my friends, he devoted to destruction being who possessed exquisite sensations, happiness, and wisdom; nor do I know where this thirst for vengeance might end.” (pg 151) Even Victor on his death bed is not convinced that the Creature will stop killing and being evil once Victor dies. Why did Walton believe the Creature? Even after knowing everything he knows about this Creature and how evil it is, he still believes it and lets it live. I think this was a terrible choice and the book ends with me wondering and leaving a feeling of uneasiness. It is a Gothic novel so I guess I should expect these feelings at the end and throughout the book. I felt uneasy about the Creature throughout the book, but I guess I always just assumed that at one point he would be killed or I would somehow know that he was dead and gone forever. Neither of these happened and it bothers me. Shelly really gave this novel a very Gothic, uncanny feeling, especially the ending, at least for me.
The Creature says, “I shall die. I shall no longer feel the agonies which now consume me, or be prey of the feelings unsatisfied, yet unquenched.” (pg 155) He says he is going to die, but I am sure eventually he will. That does not mean he is going to die rigt now. Then he brings up that his feelings throughout the book, the feelings that drove him to murder innocent people and kill his creator, are still unsatisfied. This says to me that he still has these feelings. Yes, Victor, his creator is dead and he was the only seemingly knowing person in how to make another creature come alive, but he may find another. We cannot trust the creature that he is going to go off and never see another human again and he will die.
Why did Walton let the creature live? He could have very easily seized he opportunity given when he was alone in the room with the Creature. The Creature seemed to be pretty distracted by Victor’s death. All Walton would have had to do was to seize this opportunity. He should have listened to Victor when Victor said, “He (the Creature) shewed unparalleled malignity and selfishness, in evil: he destroyed my friends, he devoted to destruction being who possessed exquisite sensations, happiness, and wisdom; nor do I know where this thirst for vengeance might end.” (pg 151) Even Victor on his death bed is not convinced that the Creature will stop killing and being evil once Victor dies. Why did Walton believe the Creature? Even after knowing everything he knows about this Creature and how evil it is, he still believes it and lets it live. I think this was a terrible choice and the book ends with me wondering and leaving a feeling of uneasiness. It is a Gothic novel so I guess I should expect these feelings at the end and throughout the book. I felt uneasy about the Creature throughout the book, but I guess I always just assumed that at one point he would be killed or I would somehow know that he was dead and gone forever. Neither of these happened and it bothers me. Shelly really gave this novel a very Gothic, uncanny feeling, especially the ending, at least for me.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Transgendering in The Monk
In Brewer’s article he brought up some points I had never thought of while reading The Monk. He brings up how Matilda could have been human or she could have been a daemon. I do agree with him that Matilda was a human. When I was reading I just assumed she was human. It never even crossed my mind that she could be a daemon. I mean yea she was very manipulative and worked with the devil, but I just assumed she was like a devil worshiper or something. I guess she could have been a daemon, but it is mentioned that she paid the price for being healed from the snake poison. I just assumed this meant she sold her soul to the devil. She also says at the end of the book that she made a deal with the devil. These things say to me that she is human and had a soul. Brewer agrees that she is a human. He says, “Overall, the novel presents Matilda as human, as a free agent rather than the Devil’s passive instrument.” (pg 196) I do not think Matilda was just an instrument in the Devil’s plan. I think that her motives came from her. Yes she was evil, but I think the Devil just used her actions to help further his plan of tempting Ambrosio. I do not think that the Devil forced her to do any of the underhanded evil things she did.
Now moving to how Brewer feels about Ambrosio. Brewer states in his article, ”Ambrosio’s preference for a feminine male over a masculine woman can, of course, be seen as an indication of latent homosexuality.” (pg 198) I do not agree with this statement at all. I think Ambrosio is very heterosexual. This can be seen by his obvious obsession for women and sex. When he sees Matilda’s breast he is immediately excited and knows that he wants her. When he sees Antonia in the magical mirror and she is naked he needs to have her. He goes so far as to go against his vows as a monk and everything he believes to be with Matilda. Then he rapes Antonia. This does not seem homosexual at all to me. Brewers reason of him liking Matilda more when she is Rosario and the meek little boy instead of the strong, bossy woman just says to me that he wants to be in charge. This is seen by his raping of Antonia. He needs to feel that power. He does not like Rosario because he thinks Rosario is a boy, he likes Rosario because he feels he can control him. Matilda is beyond his control. Matilda’s whole personality seems to change when she changes from Rosario to Matilda. I think this is what Ambrosio does not like. Ambrosio has that weird obsession or fantasy that some if not most men have, of wanting to be with a girl who is seen as “innocent”. This is one of the reasons he likes Antonia so much. I mean he tried to rape her and she just got over it. She was portrayed to him as being very naïve and he liked that. I don’t think he liked that Matilda wasn’t that same naïve creature she seemed to be when she was Rosario and that is why Ambrosio no longer wanted to be with her. I do not see how Ambrosio can be considered homosexual at all, give is very heterosexual tendencies.
Now moving to how Brewer feels about Ambrosio. Brewer states in his article, ”Ambrosio’s preference for a feminine male over a masculine woman can, of course, be seen as an indication of latent homosexuality.” (pg 198) I do not agree with this statement at all. I think Ambrosio is very heterosexual. This can be seen by his obvious obsession for women and sex. When he sees Matilda’s breast he is immediately excited and knows that he wants her. When he sees Antonia in the magical mirror and she is naked he needs to have her. He goes so far as to go against his vows as a monk and everything he believes to be with Matilda. Then he rapes Antonia. This does not seem homosexual at all to me. Brewers reason of him liking Matilda more when she is Rosario and the meek little boy instead of the strong, bossy woman just says to me that he wants to be in charge. This is seen by his raping of Antonia. He needs to feel that power. He does not like Rosario because he thinks Rosario is a boy, he likes Rosario because he feels he can control him. Matilda is beyond his control. Matilda’s whole personality seems to change when she changes from Rosario to Matilda. I think this is what Ambrosio does not like. Ambrosio has that weird obsession or fantasy that some if not most men have, of wanting to be with a girl who is seen as “innocent”. This is one of the reasons he likes Antonia so much. I mean he tried to rape her and she just got over it. She was portrayed to him as being very naïve and he liked that. I don’t think he liked that Matilda wasn’t that same naïve creature she seemed to be when she was Rosario and that is why Ambrosio no longer wanted to be with her. I do not see how Ambrosio can be considered homosexual at all, give is very heterosexual tendencies.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Monk: The Catholic Church
A reoccurring theme throughout The Monk is in reality, bashing the Catholic Church. I think this is a pretty obvious thing that Matthew Lewis does in the book. The title itself already has you thinking about the Catholic Church. Most of the really “bad” behaving characters in the novel are from the church. We have Ambrosio, obviously, who is a very sexual being when it comes down to it. We have Agnes who is the nun who is pregnant. I even found that a very small and seemingly insignificant character went against the church. When Don Raymond was telling his story to Lorenzo, we hear of Marguirite’s past. She was telling of how her love had died and she had been given to another member of the banditti. She says, “They cast lots to deicide to whose possession I should fall. I became the property of the infamous Baptiste. A robber, who had once been a monk…” (pg.108) I find this interesting that Lewis would deicide to make even a small character who we hear little about, a monk. This man was now a member of the feared banditti. He killed many innocent people. This man was at one point a monk. There are many other characters that do not perform the way “holy” people ought to throughout the book, these are just a few. It just goes to show how little stock Lewis put into the Catholic Church. It is like he pokes fun at it. I can see why many parents would not like their children reading this novel. It makes them really question their faith. I mean there are other reasons why parents wouldn’t want their children to read The Monk too, but I do think Lewis’ outright distaste for the Catholic Church could be one of them.
Lewis pokes fun of the church in another way. Near the end of the book when the crowd is burning the convent, some of the nuns go down into the tomb’s the take refuge. Here they are all very afraid. I think this a reasonable enough response. I mean people are trying to kill them. It is down here thought that, to me, it seems like Lewis is making fun of their intelligence. “Alone therefore, and in darkness, he prepared to pursue his design, while the nuns were contented to offer up prayers for his success and safety.” (pg. 315) Here Lorenzo is being very courageous and about to go into the dark abyss and he has to go alone. The nuns were described before as being “timid”, but they cannot even go without a light so Lorenzo can see. They then are “contented” to pray for safety. I found this funny. I get this picture of the Lorenzo going down the stairs into complete darkness and above him there is a circle of nuns on their knees praying. They forget the danger and pray. I am not trying to say that praying is bad, but it can only get you so far. Praying was not going to go down those steps and rescue the moaning person. I just think this makes the nuns seem unintelligent. They were afraid of the statue and then once it presented no danger they forgot all about it and moved on to the next thing to be afraid of. It makes the nuns look dumb and it makes you wonder if all nuns are that way. Are these the people you want to be behind your church?
Lewis pokes fun of the church in another way. Near the end of the book when the crowd is burning the convent, some of the nuns go down into the tomb’s the take refuge. Here they are all very afraid. I think this a reasonable enough response. I mean people are trying to kill them. It is down here thought that, to me, it seems like Lewis is making fun of their intelligence. “Alone therefore, and in darkness, he prepared to pursue his design, while the nuns were contented to offer up prayers for his success and safety.” (pg. 315) Here Lorenzo is being very courageous and about to go into the dark abyss and he has to go alone. The nuns were described before as being “timid”, but they cannot even go without a light so Lorenzo can see. They then are “contented” to pray for safety. I found this funny. I get this picture of the Lorenzo going down the stairs into complete darkness and above him there is a circle of nuns on their knees praying. They forget the danger and pray. I am not trying to say that praying is bad, but it can only get you so far. Praying was not going to go down those steps and rescue the moaning person. I just think this makes the nuns seem unintelligent. They were afraid of the statue and then once it presented no danger they forgot all about it and moved on to the next thing to be afraid of. It makes the nuns look dumb and it makes you wonder if all nuns are that way. Are these the people you want to be behind your church?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)