Within this essay, I should like to discuss the way in which the heroes and heroines of Gothic succeed against overwhelming odds, mysterious events, and powerful opponents. Further, I should like to discuss the values these heroes and heroines represent.
However, to accomplish this, it seems vital for us to explore the preliminary questions that our inquesitor has taken for granted: Who are the heroes? What are their goals? Are the heroes successful in these goals? If so, are the odds indeed overwhelming? All this shall be discussed below.
Let us first look to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Though one could be hard pressed to determine who is the hero (Victor Frankenstein or his monster), it seems obvious that both have failed.
Victor's initial goals could have been counted among the following: to
create "a new species [which] would bless [Victor] as its creator and
source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me" and
"in the process of time... [he might] renew life where death had
apparently devoted the body to corruption"
Victor, had he courage, may have succeeded in the first of these goals,
"but now that [Victor] had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished,
and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the
aspect of the being [he] had created, [he] rushed out of the room..." Thus, Victor undermines his own attempts to create a new
species and be blessed as its source.
After the monster's creation, the second goal, reanimating the dead, was no longer aspired to... Thus, another failure.
On the other hand, if we are temped to take the creature as the hero, the
hero has still failed. The monsters goals were these: to intreat Victor
"to turn a favourable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness
and compassion", to convince Victor of the creature's own benevolence,
and to induce Victor to "create a female for me with whom I can live in
the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being" . However Victor neither turns a favourable eye nor is
convinced of the creature's benevolence. Under duress Victor agrees to
create the female, however further reflection forces Victor to change his
mind and destroy his progress .... The monster has failed.
Victor now takes on the new goal of destroying the monster. The creature, conversely, takes upon himself to torment Victor ultimately leading to Victor's own destruction. However, I feel this is not so much actually a goal, but rather more a reaction of sour-grapes. The consequence of this "success" is the monster (whose extended reading never included any works by Marquis de Sade) is tormented by his own guilt and, further, leaves himself condemned to life-long loneliness (as he never read of carnival freak shows, either). With this in mind, in the end, the monster has also failed.
If the monster was destroyed, it was only because the monster
self destructs after Victor's death; however, we have no evidence the
monster carried out its claim of suicidal intentions (our only knowledge
of this intent as relayed by the creature to Walton at the very end). Regardless, I can not call this Victor's success.
Even the minor characters in Frankenstein have failed. Walton and his crew does not cross the Arctic. The Irish never get their murderer. Frankenstein's entire family (both friends and relatives) is hewn with tragedy. Success plays no role in the story of Frankenstein.
We also find no success in Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Again it is hard to find a hero. We may claim Mr. Utterson as a hero, but Utterson's only goal is to learn of the mysterious Mr Hyde, in care for the welfare of his friend Dr. Jekyll. He does succeed in this, but only after it is too late, as Dr. Jekyll (a.k.a. Mr. Hyde) is already dead. Further, it was not as a product of his own resourcefulness, but rather the answer was handed to him on a silver platter by Dr. Lanyon, and further, by Dr. Jekyll himself.
The other possible hero in this tail would be Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde, a hero in the "Sadean" sense. To explain what I mean by a "Sadean" hero, I must give you a brief quote about The Marquis de Sade:
At first Sade probably thought himself safe in
the fool's paradise which seemed separated from the world of
responsibility by an impenetrable wall. And perhaps, had no scandal
broken out, he would have been but a common debauchee, known in special
places for having rather special tastes. Many libertines of the period
indulged with impunity in orgies even worse. There are certain "sexual
perverts" to whom the myth of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is perfectly
applicable. They hope, at first, to be able to gratify their "vices"
without compromising their public characters. If they are imaginative
enough to see themselves, little by little, in a dizziness of pride and
shame, they give themselves away... ...To what extent was Sade being
provocative in his imprudence? There is no way of knowing. He probably
wished to emphasize the radical seperation between his family life and
his private pleasures, and probably, too, the only way he could find
satisfaction in this clandestine triumph lay in pushing it to the point
where it burst forth into the open. His surprise is like that of the
child who keeps striking at a vase until it finally breaks. He was
playing with fire and still thought himself master, but society was lying
in wait. Society wants undisputed possession. It claims each individual
unreservedly. It quickly seized upon Sade's secret and classified it as
crime.
The heroes in Sade's works are of similar disposition to Sade himself.
The would-be-libertine Jekyll's goal was also quite similar:
If each [the moral and the immoral], [Jekyll]
told [himself], could but be housed in seperate identities, life would be
relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust might go his way,
delivered from the aspirations and remorse of his more upright twin; and
the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path, doing
the good things in which he found his pleasure, and no longer exposed to
disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil.
However, this failed in several respects.
It is true, he did create a powder to effect this transformation, however, the goal was not fully realized. While Jekyll (as Hyde) may have been delivered from "the aspirations and remorse of his more upright twin", Jekyll (as Hyde) was still subject to the aspirations and restraints of society at large. The Hyde persona (of Jekyll) was a failure. Though Hyde was free from guilt, he did not gain the necessary stoicism to act out his evil nature without fear of consequences. His evil never extended itself beyond a single murder (we know this is the worst as it is the one that finally caused Jekyll to attempt to abandon his dual life).
We find further failure with the Jekyll-persona, he is not immune from Hyde's actions: when Hyde commited a murder, the vase broke. Though society had not yet caught up with Hyde, Jekyll's conscience had. Jekyll would no allow Hyde to exist. Unfortunately for Jekyll, by this time his decision came too late; Jekyll could not succeed in terminating Hyde. Hyde's evil nature was as much a part of Jekyll as Jekyll's good nature and Hyde's evil nature could no longer help but to expose itself. Necessity forced Jekyll to reveal himself to Lanyon and in time others should most certainly of learned. Jekyll, however, did not live to face their reproofs, as Hyde eventually took over their shared body.
Hyde continued to fail once he had taken over their shared body. He could not function without his alter ego to hide behind. He did not have the courage to leave his sanctuary when there was no longer any advantage to remaining beyond keeping himself hidden, an advantage of increasingly fleeting value. Then, when intrusion becomes immanent, rather than facing a possible evasion by either attempted flight or attempted fight (or even perhaps winning a court case on the grounds of insanity), he destroys himself before Utterson, Poole, and the others could enter. Thus Hyde failed to exist as an independant being.
As with Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is unquestionably another story of failure.
Bram Stroker's Dracula is much more obvious
in discovering the heroes to be the "Crew of Light", placing themselves
in opposition to the forces of darkness -- represented by the Count
Dracula. And, it is obviously the goal of our heroes to destroy their
powerful opponent. Further, I shall allow (without contradiction or
argument of any form) our heroes meet with success. However, the
intelligent reader should easily realize, the overwhelming odds were
simply non-existent. The know-it-all Dr. Van Helsing made a most
competant member of the Crew, placing them on an equal footing with
Dracula. Were this not enough, the odds were thrown massively the Crew's
favour, as the omnipotent and good God was effectively on the Crew's side
in their crusade against darkness. Should we attempt to dispute the deity
as an effective member of the Crew, how else shall we explain the power
of the Holy Crucifix and the Sacred Wafer in fighting off the dread
vampire Dracula and the women he has recruited to his service? Many other
elements may also only be attributed to God or luck .
Within this essay, I should like to discuss the way in which the heroes
and heroines of Gothic succeed against overwhelming odds, mysterious
events, and powerful opponents. However, I must conclude by way of saying
this is unanswerable. The inquisitor begs the question with occurances
that have never occured; at least not within our examples of Nineteenth
Century Gothic Fiction. Within both Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as I
have shown, what success there is, is both rare and then accidental to
boot; these are, by-and-large, tragic tales of failure. With Dracula, wherein I admit an
intentional success against a powerful opponent, but the odds fail to be
overwhelming -- the Crew had an infinite advantage via the omnipotent God
no their side .
As I have explained, it is impossible to discuss the way in which the heroes and heroines of Gothic succeed against overwhelming odds, mysterious events, and powerful opponents; either the heroes do not success or the odds are not overwhelming.
Appendix - The Success of the Crew of Light in
Dracula
As I have explained above, though I feel Van Helsing brought equal odds between the Crew of Light and Dracula, the Crew's odds were actually overwhelmingly in their favour as God was obviously on their side. If not God, then massive luck, not the least of which is a universal crucifix-phobia in vampires, and an extreme allergic reaction in vampires when exposed to unleavened bread.
As I have stated, the success of the Crew derives from the odds being clearly in favour of the Crew of Light: Van Helsing along with either God or luck.
To begin with the treatment of Lucy (in itself a failure, beyond saving her from the ranks of the undead), Dr. John Seward luckily knows and calls upon another doctor, Dr. Van Helsing; this latter doctor, despite being very far and very busy, was capable and culpable, of and for, dropping everything at once and rushing over to England, simply at the implore of his old friend. Then, luck would have it, for reasons we are never aquainted with, the only doctor called to assist (Van Helsing) is not only a believer, but also an expert on vampires and, who by further luck, had mysterious contacts who could supply him with further information. Van Helsing recognizes Lucy's symptoms as being having been inflicted by a vampire. Helsing convinces his reluctant friends to this truth.
Further luck would have a friendship between Lucy and Mina, else the connection between Dracula and Lucy would not have been made so easily. Helsing gather his friends and they share their information about vampires, Dracula, and Renfield (who was luckily in Seward's asylum, as opposed to elsewhere -- whereas this connection could not otherwise have been made). Having pooled this information, they then trespass and bribe (which, luckily the characters have the wealth and influence to accomplish) to discover more information.
They then destroy Dracula's boxes using the Sacred Wafer. Strange a small piece of bread should prove so potent against a dread vampire! Luckily, Dracula had hid only one box using his own vast strength, prefering rather to use human servants who keep records, thus only one box was untracible. Further, they were lucky Dracula chose to retreat rather than stay hidden (or relying on the stealth of his final box; or suffering his insomnia and going without sleep) while having one or more agents pack and deliver more boxes.
The Crew also was lucky in respect to Dracula's own actions. He foolishly allowed Mina a psychic connection with himself, allowing the Crew clues to track his movements. These clues were followed up with more information gathering (via bribes, etc.). Luckily, Dracula had not set up any other sanctuaries within Europe, other than his own castle (which the Crew seems only to have known from guess work), so he was forced to return home, otherwise he should not have been so easily traced.
The Crew follow in his path and are obviously prepared to immorally kill gypsies (who may be innocent of their cargo) in order to destroy Dracula. Luckily, it only takes gun fire to frighten them off. Then, just in the nick of time, right before the sun goes down, when Dracula could have given a powerful battle on his home turf, Jonathan manages to cut off Dracula's head which Morris shoves his own knife threw Dracula's heart.
All I have to say is: the Crew should not have succeeded if they had not luck, God, or an author biased on the side of the crew of light.
Bibliography
Fowler, H. W. and F. G. (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969).
Sade, Marquis de, The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings, (London: Arrow Books Limited, 1990).
Shelly, Mary, Penguin Popular Classics: Frankenstein, (London: Penguin Books, 1994).
Stevenson, Robert Louis, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Weir of Hermiston, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Stoker, Bram, Penguin Popular Classics: Dracula (London: Penguin Books, 1994).