Dracula - Gender Trivia

The reign of Queen Victoria lasted approximately 64 years, and this so-called Victorian Era has a specific reputation for placing unreasonable societal expectations on the citizens which inhabited it. The novel Dracula by Bram Stoker explores the effects of social propriety in this time when characters are faced with something of a beast or monster. Dracula is someone who defies all aspects of the word “human” in the eyes of other main characters, and this allows him to act without regard for any restrictions set by then cultural beliefs. The Count through this becomes a character without any shred of remorse, influencing anything he can come in contact with and manipulating those who are easily controlled. This makes him a difficult character for proper and well-mannered characters in the novel to understand, much less manage when he begins to threaten their lives.

In the novel, other themes are also included. Hypocrisy is something common is all literature, and prevalent in the attitudes and ideals of Victorian culture. The five main males characters of the novel, Jonathan Harker, Arthur Holmwood, Quincey Morris, John Seward, and Abraham Van Helsing, are all guilty of hypocrisy in matters concerning Mina Harker, especially when they begin their search for Count Dracula.

Something considered typical of the era was that men existed in a more public sphere of life, while women were expected to remain more private and outside of plain view. This was an extension of the idea that though women could be educated and intelligent, they were still inferior to men. One particular scene in the novel portrays a meetings between all of the main characters regarding how they should handle Dracula. All the men discuss while Mina acts as a secretary and takes notes for the group. Later, when the group adjourns, the five men decide to try to hide the details of their affairs from Mina, in order to “protect” her from the grueling work. Previously, Van Helsing had called Mina a “clever woman” (156), among many other things to indicate he things very highly of her. Many of the other men consider her a key member of their group, “our star and our hope” (207). Despite this, they all desire to keep her far away from the action, considering it men’s work, and not even inform her of what they are doing. This is done somewhat obliquely, while in other instances they state much more directly that were she a man, her intelligence would be more noted. She, they claim, is far too precious to be involved with such things, despite their high regard for her and her judgement.

Periodically in the book, women are considered as more emotional than men, and not as enduring. They are essentially less valuable to society, something that the characters occasionally note about Mina due to her gender. She is smart and quick-witted, but she is not a man. This is very clearly hypocritical of them, demonstrating an inherent superiority complex among the men, but it also reflects the sentiments of the time. Most men acted similarly in this culture, and understood women to be part of private and secluded sector of life. There was widespread thought that women were mentally and emotionally weaker to their male counterparts, but the idea of women expressing themselves concerned men. Women were often expected to repress their desires and act in a demure fashion, while men were not always held to the same standards.

Dracula very accurately depicts the mainstream culture and social minutiae of the Victorian Era, including the different standings of men and women in that society. The people of the time were often staunchly committed to the common beliefs shared throughout that culture, and clearly demonstrate their hypocritical views in their actions.This hypocrisy is prevalent in the different treatment of the main characters in the novel, namely through how they act with one another.

Invisible Man - Facets of Bledsoe

Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, through its messages about both race and human nature, tells an important tale about the downfalls of society. It uses the dichotomies of invisible as opposed to blind, and inside versus outside of the scope of history to force us as readers to consider previously unknown aspects of ourselves and the past. Both of these are involved in the description of the university president, Dr. Bledsoe, a character both contradictory and hypocritical in nature.

Dr. Bledsoe is a confusing character for the narrator to grasp, as he both idolizes the president and ultimately dislikes his prerogative. The narrator describes him as the students’ “coal-black daddy” that they fear (116), though he has been kind to the narrator since his enrollment at the college. He also has many mixed emotions about the state of his expulsion from the school and how Bledsoe essentially took advantage of him in order to save the school’s reputation, and his own as president. Bledsoe is also guilty of a fair amount of hypocrisy. He often overestimates his position as president because he believes he can control the actions of the schools wealthy white donors when he almost grovels at their feet in their presence as he does with Mr. Norton. This is a sign of his blindness to the realities of his position. He, like many other characters the invisible narrator encounters, is often very narrowly focused and oblivious to things he claims to be so knowledgeable about.

His most obvious hypocrisy is his actions toward the black community that surrounds the school. The narrator and the community view him as their “leader” and their “magic” (116), for he maintains the integrity of the school. This, though, is only a mask he subjects the school to seeing in place of his true intentions. He preaches cohesion and advancement of the race outwardly to the student body, but would willingly “have every Negro in the county hanging on tree limbs by morning” as long as he can retain his position of power (143). His self interest outweighed his desire to actually improve his community, though he creates a facade that prevents the school from seeing this. As the president of the university, Bledsoe works towards the advancement of black society, but would voluntarily allow them to fall to ruin for his own self promotion. Of his hypocrisy, Bledsoe is cognizant and acts intentionally.

The narrator struggles to understand Bledsoe because of his many, often contradictory facets. Part of his confusion come from Bledsoe’s obvious displays of hypocrisy, and the fact the Bledsoe seems not only aware but behaves purposefully to be hypocritical. These sentiments of Bledsoe the narrator later extends to the other characters like Bledsoe that appear at different times in the novel.

Beloved - Paul D's "tobacco tin"

Beloved combines the haunting story of Margaret Garner, a former slave convicted of murdering her young daughter, with the fictional but realistic storytelling of Toni Morrison that breathes life and terror into the experiences of slaves. In the novel, Sethe follows the path of Margaret, murdering her first daughter in an attempt to keep her from slavery. Though ghastly, her efforts are successful, and neither she nor her remaining children must return to slavery. A character she knew during her time as a slave on the plantation Sweet Home, Paul D, appears early in the novel, having not seen each other in about 20 years. Paul D is a very hypocritical character, because though he is seen as “the kind of man who could walk into a house and make the women cry” (20), he himself does not allow anyone to open his “tobacco tin” of his memories and his past (86).

When Paul D first arrives, Sethe almost immediately begins to open up to him and give him information she hadn’t disclosed to most anyone else. Sethe doesn’t seem to understand how he can open women up as he does and make them trust him as they would trust other women. This ability of his is opposite to his inability to express his sentiments on his own past. He allows people to confide and put their faith in him while simultaneously closing himself off to others. Sethe entrusts many secrets to him, and Stamp Paid tells him stories of his past, while Paul D offers little in return of his own past.

Contrary to many other characters in literature, he is also very aware of his fault as he doesn’t allow anyone or himself to access his past memories or his emotions. He often reflects on events such as his time in Alfred, Georgia and Trenton to the readers, but doesn’t convey his feelings about them to the other characters. When he does articulate stories from previous times, he often does it with a distant, detached air to the events. This is an important precaution for him to take, as when he reveals too much to Sethe and realizes his mistake, he is completely destroyed, his heart “blown open, spilled contents floated freely” (258). Paul D is entirely mindful of hypocrisy and its effects on him. He appears to believe that though it is painful, pushing Sethe to examine more closely her traumatic past and free herself from it will help her, but enabling another to open him up would only cause him to break rather than more forwards. He’s bottled up his past to keep it from influencing him the best that he can.

Though demonstrated through many characters in many forms, Paul D is the mostly clearly hypocritical when he behaves in ways that others trust very deeply while rarely trusting anyone himself. His actions don’t seem to affect the novel greatly as a whole, but he becomes a victim of his own actions when he becomes unable to release himself from the horrors of his past.

Henry IV- The King's Damming Hypocrisy

Henry IV, Part 1 by William Shakespeare centers around the recently crowned King Henry IV, a not necessarily morally just or favorable leader that has illegally deposed the previous and rightful king Richard II in a power grab. Henry IV, though now king, often forgets to consider his uncertain grounds with the nobles and questionable rights to the power when giving and taking orders from his court. Because his lack of solid and universally understood entitlement to the power, many of his actions are questioned by his court and by his nation, both because of their purpose and their validity from his position. One of King Henry’s fatal flaws is essentially acting very unlike a king, but expecting that those around him will treat him in a king-like manner.

King Henry’s hypocrisy in this right is reflected in many actions and demands he makes. Henry calls upon Hotspur to deliver his prisoners of battle to the King, but when Hotspur proposes the exchange of his brother in law Edmund Mortimer for the rebel prisoners, Henry states he would rather “on the barren mountains let him [Mortimer] starve” than consider releasing him (I, III, 91). He then demands once again that Hotspur “Send us your prisoners” (I, III, 126). Despite his position as king, Henry does not consider his highly sensitive position as leader, and refuses to compromise with those that can potentially damage his role the most. Hotspur offers him a proposal to resolve past and future issues, but Henry’s stubbornness, stubbornness also later seen in Hotspur, forces him not accept it. His incapacity to make certain concessions for the sake of peace causes others to turn away from helping him and turn to the rebellion for support. His hypocrisy works against him to therefore give cause to his subjects to aid the revolt rather than support his side.

Henry’s hypocrisy is also seem in regards to Prince Hal. Part of the plot revolves around King Henry and the court, but the other ongoing plot elsewhere follows Hal and his endeavors in the taverns of Eastcheap. Henry sets high expectation for Hal and dismisses him when he has a more nonchalant and playful attitude towards life initially in the play, Henry stating he sees “riot and dishonor stain the brow/Of my young Harry” (I, I, 84-5). Though Hal still pledges allegiance and loyalty to the King when asked to go into battle, any hesitance he has is to be expected. Henry himself is not an honorable king, something that become prominent in Act 5. He offers to pardon the rebels if they agree to peace, then turns back on his proposal when the his own forces win the battle. It is unclear, but potential that Hotspur and his army were the only rebels to march against the King. Henry also disguises Sir Walter Blunt as himself, which later leads to Blunt’s death when he is mistaken for Henry. The King places high standards on Hal, but fails to meet those standards of honor himself.

Some of his blatant hypocrisy comes back to harm him in the end, as his refusal to Hotspur’s proposal causes the young nobleman to turn against him, but Prince Hal still rises to honor despite his father’s unreasonable expectations. His hypocrisy stems from his misunderstand of his position as king. The ground beneath him is uncertain and never guarenteed, and he has no willingness to tread lightly while he is still new and somewhat unfavorable in the position. With the political uncertainty of the crown and his illegal deposition of Richard II, he has little right to take the crown for granted as he does. His hypocrisy, because of his position, goes unrealized as it is deemed normal of a king to make demands. King Henry IV’s hypocrisy ultimately causes many problems for himself and his court in the play.

East of Eden- Adam's Ignorance Towards Hypocrisy

East of Eden presents many unsavory aspects of human nature very acutely, demonstrating many dichotomies between behaviors and how they conflict with one another. One of these is the idea of hypocrisy. Characters would frequently see behavior in another that displeases or upsets them, then later act similarly. Adam Trask is the most clearly hypocritical of the characters, demonstrating characteristics he dislikes in his own father. 

Cyrus, though Adam respects his authority, is never truly loved by Adam. His detached style of parenting is something Adam learns to accept but never enjoys, especially when applied to himself. Despite this, he rarely tries to involve himself with his own children more than is absolutely necessary. He has some reservations over how Cyrus treats Charles, then proceeds to treat Cal in a similar manner. Cyrus places many unreasonable and unlikeable expectation on Adam specifically, excluding Charles from any of his hopes and goals for his children. Charles, in spite of this, grows successful and oddly revered among the local community. Adam idolizes the achievements of Aron, though appears ignorants to the ambitions and accomplishments of Cal when others in Salinas can clearly see his work ethic and success.

Adam is often confused and sometimes angered about Cyrus and his agenda over his children's’ lives, though he keeps his thoughts to himself. The very separate and uninvolved manner in which his father used on him is unfortunately the only way he’s knows how to father and treat his own children. His actions are very clearly hypocritical when considering his opinions on the same actions when done by his own father. He has almost no choice but to be as his father is, because every time he tries to change, it ultimately fails and he reverts back to parenting in the way of his own father.

His hypocrisy directed at his own children, though without intention, perpetuates the similarities between him and Charles, and Aron and Cal. In chapter 49, Cal attempts to gift 15 thousand dollars to his father, money he had worked hard to raise. Adam denies the money, stating he would have to return “it to the farmers you [Cal] robbed” while doing his business (540), but accepts Aron’s simple “gift” of returning from college and making him proud. Adam, though he appears to not understand the similarities, mirrors the actions of Cyrus in respect to the gifts he’s given on his birthday, where Charles bought an expensive knife with his money and Adam unintentionally found a dog to bring home. Both subsequently lead to the large falling out between the two sets of brothers, where Charles attacks Adam and Cal takes Aron to meet their mother Kate as a form of mental and emotional punishment (30, 543), and problems that arise afterwards.

Hypocrisy as a general whole often cannot be avoided, especially in the case of Adam, who doesn’t seem to think deeply enough about his actions to notice where he takes after his own father. Adam proves to be very hypocritical towards his children and causes much repetition between his brother and his children’s situations. Decisions made by an individual despite his belief against them is a main cause of many overlapping circumstances between generations within the novel, causing history to repeat itself in similar fashions. Characters in East of Eden often have no control over their own hypocritical behavior because they cannot see the relevance between their actions and the actions of others towards them. Adam succumbs to the effects of allowing himself to behave hypocritically, causing his children to suffer through circumstances he himself disliked when places within them and never appears to see the relationship between them. Hypocrisy is often inevitable within one’s life, East of Eden simply highlights it by demonstrating how ignorant any one person can be towards his own actions and where they have stemmed from.

Unpacking the Question

Hypocrisy is the act of someone openly preferring a particular moral or behavioral standard while not following it himself. I chose this question because hypocrisy is a common subject or action seen within literature, often leading to future issues for a character when expressed. It applies to ancient literature, contemporary pieces, and even in current events as they occur now. Individuals often don’t even realize their hypocrisy in their own lives, both in literature and in reality, and it can lead to their demise. Many a problem has been caused by a person’s hypocrisy within novels and prose. In those cases where it goes unnoticed, hypocrisy is almost impossible to avoid or contain.

Oedipus in Oedipus Rex shows hypocrisy when he refuses to give equal weight to the different advice and truth he is told. He quickly believes the words of Creon when he states that they must find the killer of Laius, then accuses Creon of trying to undermine him with the words of the blind prophet. He attempts to completely nullify the words of the well trusted prophet Teiresias for offending him. Jocasta at one point easily calms him with her words, at another point Oedipus ignores her and everyone before her to seek out the shepherd that only solidifies the bad news he’s already heard. He puts very little stock in the words of others, choosing to consider some advice while allowing others word to bounce off of him and not affect him. This hypocrisy leads to his demise as he only chooses to listen to some people, partially because he believes they are trying to sabotage his position as king. His curiosity over the events foretold to him make it nearly impossible to evade as he loses trust in those around him and becomes more horrified with his own origin and actions.