van helsing's thoughts on faith and reason

Finally a dialogue on faith and belief, doubt and science. Considering what this books protagonist is I am surprised it did not come about sooner. These excerpts are actually both from Van Helsing but on two different occasions to two different people. They fit nicely though I think:

“I have learned not to think little of any one’s belief, no matter how strange it be. I have tried to keep an open mind; and it is not the ordinary things of life that could close it, but the strange things, the extraordinary things. The things that make one doubt if they be mad or sane.”
It is always so easy to believe something when it can be proven to us or when every day we interact with it but that is not hard to do, you could even argue that it is not belief but simply our own reality. Something we never really question.

“You reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? But there are things old and new which must not be contemplate by men’s eyes, because they know – or think they know – some things which other men have told them. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain. But yet we see around us every day the growth of new beliefs, which think themselves new; and which are yet but the old, which pretend to be young – like the fine ladies at the opera.”

I like this second quote I think best. Both of these men are men of science, doctors, raised in a humanistic world, and yet, Van Helsing is willing to question rather than always accept what another man tells him, what ‘science’ tells him. Whether it be ‘mad or sane’ his open mindedness allows him to explore more possibilities and in this sense to see the truth when others blame giant bats and dogs or the pricking of a pin.

van helsing's thoughts on laughter

At one point Van Helsing gives a treatise on laughter which I thought was interesting. How often do we think about something as common as a laugh? What brings it on? Even when we think “I laugh because this is funny” we don’t always go further and think about why it was funny… We know some people have good humor or none, we even recognize that some people have different humors but beyond that do we question why? Maybe there is something more behind humor, something we have no power over. At times we laugh even when we know it will hurt another, or when they have warned us not to laugh, asked us not to, but we do so anyways without ever wanting to hurt the other. Laughter comes without our even wanting it at times and sometimes at the worst times.

A couple of excerpts from Van Helsing’s speech:

“Do not think that I am not sad, though I laugh… But no more think that I am all sorry when I cry, for the laugh he come just the same. Keep it always with you that laughter who knocks at your door and say, ‘May I come in?’ is not the true laughter. No! he is a king, and he comes when and how he like. He ask no person; he choose no time of suitability. He says, ‘I am here.’"

…

"We men and women are like ropes drawn tight with strain that pull us different ways. Then tears come; and, like the rain on the ropes, they brace us up, until perhaps the strain become too great, and we break. But King Laugh he come like the sunshine, and he ease off the strain again; and we bear to go on with our labour, what it may be.”

more dracula quotes

Still reading Dracula; here are a few more quotes I particularly liked:

“And yet, unless my senses deceive me, the old centuries had, and have, powers of their own which mere ‘modernity’ cannot kill.”

“away from this cursed spot, away from this curse land, where the devil and his children still walk with earthly feet.”

I wonder how Romanians feel about that…

“A good deal of interest was abroad concerning the dog which landed when the ship struck, and more than a few of the members of the SPCA, which is very strong in Whitby, have tried to befriend the animal.”

I didn’t even know the SPCA has been around that long. Stoker seems to be mocking their concern with the dog considering the inhumane situation the captain of the ship was found in; which is somewhat understandable.

stoker's dracula

I had started reading Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” about a year ago and then I put it down for some unknown reason, probably the semester starting. That is normally the cause, school ruins my reading schedule. Well, after reading Kostova’s “The Historian” I picked it up again. The further I read the more interesting it is. It is nothing like I would have thought. The first couple of chapters with Jonathan Harker in Dracula’s Castle are what I expected but then it delves into the stories of people who seem to be in an entirely different world than the dark forests of Transylvania. But then the worlds cross and well, that’s where I’m at now, about half way through and discovering why Stoker’s novel has never been out of print since it was first published.

A few passages I found interesting:

So, I know I’m not supposed to like the Count but I do appreciate his feelings towards old houses:

“… to live in a new house would kill me. A house cannot be made habitable in a day; and, after all, how few days go to make up a century.”

I think the best line though so far was when the Count warned Harker:

“We are in Transylvania and Transylvania is not England. Our ways are not your ways, and there shall be to you many strange things.”

Talk about chilling… kind of a realization of Alice going down the rabbit hole and entering a world so foreign.

a medieval home companion

I read yesterday a small book entitled: A Medieval Home Companion (translated/edited by Tania Bayard). It was written in the late 14th century by an elderly husband to his young bride as a guide to how to keep house, especially if he should die and she should have to remarry and no longer had his guidance.

I was surprised at several points of this book:

First: I expected to be bombarded by a stereotypical dark age like mentality of chauvinism. You know, let the man run all over you, wash the dishes, clean the halls and the stairs, sweep the chimney. However, in his introduction to his wife he mentions how pleased he is with her and how he demands nothing more than how she already is (to me this translates to: I love you just the way you are) he does add a “but”. “…not so much for my sake but either to aid another husband if you have one after me, or better to tech your daughters, friends, or others if you so desire or have the need”. He seems concerned more with helping her then trying to keep her under his thumb. Plus, most of his directives are merely recipes and how to guides (like how to make red rose water and hot to make compote).

Second: My next surprise was how similar so many of their remedies are to our own modern ones. Very few seemed like superstition and most were actually good pointers. For instance, in his section on ridding the house of flies he says to have a “hanging cord soaked in honey” so the flies will stick to it and be easily thrown away. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Apparently we are not as evolved as we thought or maybe the dark ages were not so very dark after all.

Third: Apparently there was/is something called a “Paris Measure”. I have not been able to discover what this is, only that the Italians seemed confused by it as well. “When you want to make hippocras, take an ample half ounce of this powder and mix it with a half pound of sugar and a quatre of wine, Paris measure”. The only thing I can think of is that in the 14th century “quatre” was the beginning of our “quart”… I may need to do a study of the origins of weights and measures.

reigniting the passion

I just finished reading Elizabeth Kostova’s The Historian. It is actually the reason I have started this journal. Most of the times I just take notes in the margins of a book I am reading but sometimes the margins are not large enough so I really need a journal. However, every time I start a reading journal I never seem to use it more than a couple times and then forget about it. I also have that problem with blogs. So, this experiment will be interesting. I will either never write in this blog again or the double negative will work in my favor and this will be very well used.

Back to Kostova…I did not pick this book up for several months because I thought this was yet another modern book which is like every other modern book. Yet, and maybe it is just because of who I am, I loved this book. I am History/Anthropology double major and I do prefer European history and have an odd fascination with Eastern European history/folklore like Dracula so in an odd way it was perfect (for me). I don’t always like it when people add to history but Kostova seemed to me to be very respectful of it, and as often as she could stuck with facts, only adding to history (or just being very free with her interpretation) when the plot demanded.

I think what I appreciated most from this particular read was how it excited me again about my major. I think every student goes through times of losing a little of the passion that made them love their subject in the first place. This work reminded me of the joy of researching for hours, staying up till 4am, and drinking more coffee than is good for a person. It has also instigated my exploration of other areas of European history. I think any book that creates more questions than it answers is good, no?

first post...

So this is my first post on my reading journal. It is really just for me to keep track of thoughts on the books I read. I don’t seem to be able to keep an actual notebook reading journal so let’s see if I do any better with a virtual one.