Renfield, Renfield, Renfield! [ Edited ]

[paulgoatallen]

In your opinion, how important was Renfield’s role and his relationship with the Count? Do you think Dracula had any inside assistance besides Renfield?
Paul

Message Edited by paulgoatallen on 09-27-2007 05:59 PM

[NickinColoma]

Renfield is the classic lackey. Every good monster story with a good evil monster (i.e. Dracula, Frankenstien, every villan against Godzilla) always has a human lackey. The humen serves as the eyes and ears where the monster cannot go, wakes the monster, ect. Renfield serves this purpose during the count's life in London.


As Leslie Nielson would say: "Renfield you Egghead (cleaned for chat room)"

[Curt42]

Dracula is an alpha male. He has to be able to dominate. He uses his vampiric abilities to seduce women to become his wives. Males are another issue. They are either to be subjugated like bug-eating, weak-willed toady Renfield or they are to be forcefully removed like VanHelsing. Renfield was easy to defeat and take over to his side, but you know that Dracula has nothing, but contempt because he is weak willed. Dracula more admires VanHelsing, but in turn he sees Van Helsing as a threat.

[paulgoatallen]

Nick and Curt:
I agree with both of your posts. This is completely going off on a tangent here but I just came across this really cool novel that just came out in paperback: Renfield Slave of Dracula by Barbara Hambly. The link is below. I just started reading it and it pretty much confirms both of your opinions on Renfield.

Any of you Dracula fans out there looking for something new should check this out if it sounds appealing to you...
Paul



http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780425211687&itm=1

[boleynfan]

I'm only on page 150, but am loving the Renfield character. He is disturbing and sympathetic at the same time.

[LordRuthven]

Tim Lucas and Lawrence Barker also put out novels recently examining "Dracula" from Renfield's POV. I wonder what is in the water?

Message Edited by LordRuthven on 10-11-2007 06:27 PM

[PatienceP]

Sympathy for those trapped in mental institutions, perhaps.
When Renfield asks Dr. Seward, in an erudite moment and in front of Seward's friends, to release him before he does something he regrets, is there anything he could have said or done by then that would have convinced Dr. Seward to let him go? I personally doubt it, which is unfortunate because Renfield's fears were justified that time.

[chad]

Stoker presents a world, our world, in which characters simply attempt to survive. The will to survive, or live, is a strong force which emanates from an individual, like that which occurs when a drop of water falls into a still pool. You can be in the path of a ripple(s) and be affected by its force(s), as Renfield obviously is affected by the strong will of Dracula. This is about it for psychology. Anything else is Seward trying to make a buck. Very interesting in light of our modern day psychiatry. I did come across Stockholm syndrome on the news, which was kind of interesting. But maybe I'll go into more detail later...

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 11-05-2007 03:40 PM

[chad]

I thought is was also interesting how belief or faith is represented by the day or good, while science, or the facts, is representative of the night, or perhaps viewed as evil, even possibly obscuring future scientific discoveries. Once something becomes "scientifically proven," it cannot change, it remains fixed for eternity. I should also point out that eligious belief can also impede scientific discovery. The most popular example might be that the earth actually rotates around the sun, and not vice versa. There is, at least, a human gravitation to the fixed or the stable, whether it be fact or belief.


Chad

PS- The law, also centered on facts and legal precedent, can keep civilization perhaps less "civilized" or not much better than jackals, wolves or vultures. Dracula's vessel was possibly subject to salvage law, or the laws of Admiralty, for example.

Message Edited by chad on 11-06-2007 01:23 PM

[chad]

I might remember having some discussion about beliefs and facts, or possibly, fact and fiction. But a set of facts, or my observations can lead to a belief, or my beliefs can influence the facts, and it's difficult to determine cause and effect. In general, I think a fact is more solid, and a belief might be more ethereal-- that point may be moot. My "presence" makes an impact. That is, I produce an effect by being-- why Stoker alludes to Hamlet, with its classic line "to be or not to be...."


Chad

PS-Science continues to struggle with both words in the scientific method, with its hypotheses, observations, conclusions, etc. etc.

Message Edited by chad on 11-07-2007 01:35 PM

[chad]

...but I say the above because facts influence the character's beliefs, or characters ask each other to act on faith or belief, which reveal later reveal more facts. For example, Van Helsing asks the characters to venture into Lucy's tomb on good faith, which reveal facts. Or the facts of the journals elucidate or confirm a belief in vampirism, or the existence of Dracula in London. But the aforementioned fact and belief, in addition to love and duty, are all rooted in time- past, present and future. True love, duty to yourself, true facts and your own beliefs are difficult to elucidate or maintain, when influences exist in all timeframes.

Chad

PS- So, for example, someone else's love could become my duty, and hopefully, with a wave of my hands, like Dracula's driver, I hope to dispel all forces which might consume me. Possibly like the force of an atom bomb. But that's too strong. I would settle for Doug Henning or David Copperfield, as examples- but not necessarily in that order, but maybe...

Message Edited by chad on 11-08-2007 01:47 PM

[chad]

Renfield to Quincey: "Mr. Morris, you should be proud of your great state. Its reception into the Union was a precedent which may have farreaching effects hereafter, when the Pole and the Tropics may hold alliance to the Stars and Stripes. The power of Treaty may yet prove a vast engine of enlargement, when the Monroe doctrine takes its true place as a political fable."

Has there been debate about the state of Texas possibly not joining the union? That is, if Britain were allowed to render aid to the territory or pursue her own interests, contrary to the the Monroe doctrine, it might stand on its own today. It also might have a little more independence due to a "treaty of annexation."

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 11-08-2007 03:25 PM

[chad]

I'm not sure what Britain's interests were in Texas, and it's uncertain whether the Monroe doctrine was upheld due to competition with the south. Possible oil interests- interesting.

Chad