Friday, February 27, 2009

Dr. Frankenstein and Mr. Monster

Victor Frankenstein and his monster-- are they one in the same person? Does the usage of the word "wretch" lend credence to this possibility?
  • page 43 "how can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom...I had endeavoured to form?"
  • page 44 "...I beheld the wretch -- the miserable monster whom I had created."
  • page 60 "...I was destined to become the most wretched of human beings"
  • page 62 "Alas! I had turned loose into the world a depraved wretch whose delight was in carnage and misery..."
  • page 65 "that made me wretched"
  • page 77, Elizabeth says to Victor, "My dearest friend, you must calm yourself. These events have affected me, God knows how deeply; but I am not so wretched as you are. There is an expression of despair, and sometimes of revenge, in your countenance that makes me tremble. Dear Victor, banish these dark passions."
  • page 83:
    • All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends.
  • page 85 "I have been the miserable origin and author? Cursed be the day, abhorred devil, in which you first saw light! Cursed (although I curse myself) be the hands that formed you! You have made me wretched beyond expression. You have left me no power to consider whether I am just to you or not. Begone! Relieve me from the sight of your detested form."
  • page 165 "Human beings, their feelings and passions, would indeed be degraded if such a wretch as I felt pride. Justine, poor unhappy Justine, was as innocent as I, and she suffered the same charge; she died for it; and I am the cause of this -- I murdered her. William, Justine, and Henry -- they all died by my hands."

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Frankenstein Children


Culture facilitates association and thus perpetuates the flaws of society. Locke suggests that, through this cultural association, children's attitudes and prejudices are informed by what other people insist is truth. Hence, if certain derrogatory values assigned to the figures/objects in society are not transmitted through generations, then Locke supposes that children will grow to be morally good.

How does the monster represent this philosophy? In what was is the monster like a blank-slate child? Was the development of Dr. Frankenstein's monster guided entirely by society or did he harbor some internal moral compass? Whenever this question of "nature versus nurture" arises, I think back to Kenneth Clark's (in)famous experiment conducted with children and baby dolls in the 1940s. In essence, Dr. Clark presented African American children with both black and white dolls. Most of the children were not only able to identify the race of the dolls, but additionally, a majority of the children associated the white dolls with positive characteristics and the black dolls with more negative characteristics. Dr. Clark supposed this reaction demonstrated the way in which [white] America has planted a seed of self-hatred in the psyches of African American youth. The experiment was created again in recent years. The results showed no considerable improvement. This scenario makes me think that the process of shaping one's own identity is one that cannot go uninfluenced by society. It's obvious that the biological composition of African Americans does not include innate self-hatred; rather, society has an inevitable hold on the way in which every single child perceives him or herself. In the same way, the aversion and terror with which Frankenstein's monster was met most likely led him to become the brutish character he was.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Losing Love

"Why is the measure of love loss?"

Since discovering this query in Jeanette Winterson's novel Written on the Body, I have noticed more and more how intensely love is guided by the possibility of loss. It seems that every single person in this world is searching desperately for some sort of pure, unadulterated love while simultaneously building enough armor to protect herself from the pain that may shadow this love. Of course, this suit of armor is hardly complete without perhaps the most direct form of protection--repelling affection and love. Just as the beloved followers of Jesus crucified their Savior and the mariner shot the adoring Albatross, there is a recurrent theme of eradicating the one thing/person that offers the most love. But why? We all want to be loved, right? Why does the prospect of being loved unconditionally drive us to not only avoid that source of that love, but additionally, kill that very source? This seems strange.

In the same light, what drives Victor to spurn nature and create the monster? Does he find naturally occurring love so tragic and unreliable that he must take control of the emotion? Are the rejection of Elizabeth and the creation of the monster nearly identical acts? Essentially. As long as Victor can control love, he can insure that he will not be hurt by the effects of love. In short, he desires to control the fate of his once-damaged heart.

Controlling fate. Does Victor usurp the reigns of destiny? He does, after all, assume an arguable God complex by working tirelessly to create life. Yet, he still insists that he was "attacked" by fate. Seems like a bit of denial to me!

Question: why did Victor create a man rather than a woman? Of course, the image of a towering, barbarous man is far more frightening than a pieced together woman, but is there anything to say about his monster's gender aside from the fright factor? Logically, it seems that Victor would prefer to create a woman whose love he could never lose. But, obviously, that's not the case.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Frankenstein

Walton's Wish for Fame

Walton aspires to find a passage to the North Pole in hopes of achieving fame. However, despite his desire to become a person with similar esteem to famous figures such as Shakespeare and Homer, Walton does not dedicate himself to the process of becoming well-known. What does Walton's preoccupation with achieving an elite status without actually practicing the diligence to achieve that fame say about his character?

Monday, February 16, 2009

Cultural Capital

With the proliferation of literary commentary, does the academy facilitate or fetter the survival of literature? It is quite possible that the precocious language and exclusive conversations that constitute scholarly articles are nothing more than a glaring "Keep Out!" sign posted for those who are seen as incapable and, arguably, unworthy of these continuing discussions. This exclusivity is easily comparable to the history of cultural capital that has delineated the social spheres of class and class members' consequent accessibility to success. Denying others the privilege of education has long been a means by which social hierarchy is exercised. Arguably the most obvious manifestation of cultural capitalism has occurred within the spheres of gender and race. Of course, class has always played a role in one's educational possibilities and still does. However, it is perhaps the lack of political progression in terms of class that makes it such a "silent killer." While it would be absurd to suggest that issues of sexism and racism have been entirely resolved, it is undeniable that there has bene sincere political and cultural progress. The feminist and Civil Rights movements evidence this. Hoewver, there has hardly been a Lower Class movement, an active rallying for economic equality! But will this ever happen? Will it ever happen in a democratic, capitalist society? My guess: probably not.

Friday, February 6, 2009

What's Eating Heathcliffe?

A brief compilation of words used to describe Heathcliffe: Savage vehemence; crushing his nails into his palms, and grinding his teeth to subdue the maxillary convulsions; rather morose; violent emotion; exaggeratedly reserved; rather slovenly; vexatious phlegm; a genuine bad nature

Could the gloomy starkness of Wuthering Heights be more perfectly completed by anyone other than the harsh and vindictive Heathcliffe? After being discarded by the class-conscious Catherine and mistreated by a vengeful Hindley Earnshaw, the spoiled child that Heathcliffe once was is soon replaced by a viciously hostile man. His "genuine bad nature" seems to be the manifestation of the grudges he holds against those who have wronged him. I assume that the trauma of being an orphan, losing a loving pseudo-father, being loathed by a jealous brother-figure, and suffering the heartbreak inflicted upon him by his possible soulmate Catherine was quite a burden to bear. This unpleasant exterior seems to be a protective facade meant to shield him from pain and betrayal. This is evidenced by his quick change of character upon Catherine's "arrival." He becomes softened upon seeing someone he feels he can trust and love.



Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights
Emily Bronte (Pseudonym: Ellis Bell)

The novel begins with the narration of Mr. Lockwood, a new tenant of Wuthering Heights who declares his recently-acquired dwelling a "misanthropist's Heaven." It is not long until the reader learns of Lockwood's ambiguously unrequited love affair. Lockwood once loved a woman, but ultimately, the romance behaved as sort of a direct exchange--as soon as Lockwood's beloved expressed similar interest in him, our narrator immediately recoils and his love vanishes. Seeing as Lockwood is the lens through which we read this gloomy love story, his romantic past should be of particular interest to us. He is a man who has no qualms with the disruption of love and is quite comfortable with being an "irritant."

Monday, February 2, 2009

Trauma, trauma, trauma

As I settled down to watch Clockwork Orange with my friends, I was warned by all 3 boys that I might not find the movie enjoyable. I rolled my eyes a little and stood up for my girly self, insisting that I liked creepy fiction and would be totally fine with whatever this film threw at me. I praised the eerie, reveled in the scary, and marveled at creativity--surely I would like this literary classic turned movie. I could not have been more horribly mistaken.

It was terrible. The words, the images, the music-- it was like nothing I had encountered before despite my life-long passion for "scary" movies. But let me tell you, this was not just a scary movie. It was, rather, a gruesome display of sex and violence. I could barely sit still and found my head buried nearly constantly in the shoulder of the friend next to me. To tell the truth, it was not long until I excused myself from the room, apologizing for my inability to endure the film in its entirety. I walked back home (quickly and cautiously, of course) all the while perplexed by the mind that had created the storyline from which I had just run. "What kind of person even thinks of that?" I asked myself. I was wholly distraught by the outward expressions of this obviously (?) deranged mind. But soon, my confusion and distress turned to anger. I became enraged that a person felt the need to pour even more violence into an already corrupt world. I was not just reacting to the film at this point, but I was also infuriated by whoever was involved in the production of that very film. To me, there was no separating the creator from his creation. In the same way, I find it difficult to separate the words and cyber-actions of Mr. Bungle from him as a person. His expressions were as dark and perverse as his mind...