The novel Beloved is an elaborate metaphor for the lasting scars of slavery. The characters Sethe and Paul D embody the concept of repressing the horrors they suffered at Sweet Farm. Sweet Farm itself is a metaphor for the generic plantation that thousands of slaves could identify with. So this novel is trying to use the gothic theme to expose the emotional toll they suffered through. In a way it is the best theme to use. It would be impossible to think any other genre would fit. The characters are haunted by the ghosts of slavery and even the actions taken during the most oppressive times. This would be referring to Sethe killing her children to keep them out of slavery.
Sethe is the woman’s perspective on what slavery takes away from a person. She suffered the loss of her children. Two by running away and one by her own hands. She had to kill her baby, which is partially killing herself, and it is a desperate attempt, and success, to keep them out of slavery. This cruel institution caused a woman to sacrifice the one extension of herself that could keep her happy. Now she is forced to live as an outcast in her own community because of her actions. The other horror that a female slave faces is the control over her sex. Sethe was sexually abused and affectively lost control of herself and her sexuality.
People like Paul D represent the loss of identity and home. He constantly wanders after he leaves Sweet Farm. The irony is that Sweet Farm never leaves him. All the slaves are forever linked to your plantation and the memories that you received there. The sad thing is when they arrive to Sweet Farm all their past memories of their real home are left behind. Here you are yanked out of Africa to a new place that is oppressive and foreign. You are separated from your family, probably never going to see them again, and are expected to work on a farm or plantation. So where can a slave go to get any solace? Is it possible to find a piece of themselves. On page 25 Paul D muses about the trees of Sweet Farm. He says they were inviting and he liked to sit under them. He had his favorite called Brother. The tree might seem insignificant, but I think it refers to roots. Paul D is searching for his roots away from the farm and the white people. His longing for his roots attracts the other men to come sit with him. This action of gathering together is a simple way of trying to get the sense of family, community, or more realistically home.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Final Project
I’m going to write a short story based on the concepts of love lost in Wuthering Heights and The Monk. I picked these two novels because at least one of their central themes was love and or lust. Lust being more from The Monk and love being from Wuthering Heights. Because love is more of the idea I want to go with I will use this quote from Wuthering Heights as my inspiration, “I am Heathcliff and he is me” . It embodies what I want my story to be about. That hopelessly in love feeling that overwhelms the character almost to the point of a frenzy. Love is such a powerful emotion and that it walks a fine line between insanity and true happiness.
My story will be about the ideas that are driving forces behind The Monk and Wuthtering Heights. It’s will be about unrequited love, but with a gothic twist of course. Love can be such a cruel element that can conflict and torment characters. It can drive them to madness or harm the ones they are in love with. I chose to write a short story, because writing is an interest of mine, and I would like to challenge myself to write a piece of gothic literature. I chose love as a central theme, because it, love, can be a very complicated and it can give life to a story. To keep this story more relevant to my life I will draw from personal experience. That will keep the piece more relatable and familiar to the readers. I think it’s best to try to incorporate some part of yourself in a story that way you have a central point to come back to if you lose focus.
To begin my story I will be drawing from a short short I started in a creative writing class. This short short will help me create a more elaborate story . I want to be able to write a convincing gothic story that is surprising and interesting. I also want to make sure that my inspirations, Wuthering Heights and The Monk, do not become my story. Meaning I do not want to copy their plots, obviously. That would have to be the one red flag I have with writing my own story. I want to use the novels as support, but I do not want similarities that are so obvious it just looks like I ripped off the other two novels.
My story will be about the ideas that are driving forces behind The Monk and Wuthtering Heights. It’s will be about unrequited love, but with a gothic twist of course. Love can be such a cruel element that can conflict and torment characters. It can drive them to madness or harm the ones they are in love with. I chose to write a short story, because writing is an interest of mine, and I would like to challenge myself to write a piece of gothic literature. I chose love as a central theme, because it, love, can be a very complicated and it can give life to a story. To keep this story more relevant to my life I will draw from personal experience. That will keep the piece more relatable and familiar to the readers. I think it’s best to try to incorporate some part of yourself in a story that way you have a central point to come back to if you lose focus.
To begin my story I will be drawing from a short short I started in a creative writing class. This short short will help me create a more elaborate story . I want to be able to write a convincing gothic story that is surprising and interesting. I also want to make sure that my inspirations, Wuthering Heights and The Monk, do not become my story. Meaning I do not want to copy their plots, obviously. That would have to be the one red flag I have with writing my own story. I want to use the novels as support, but I do not want similarities that are so obvious it just looks like I ripped off the other two novels.
Interview with the Vampire family
The American family consists of mother, father, brother and sister, figuratively speaking, and when that social norm is threatened the family is judged. The family in Interview with the Vampire consisted of two male parental figures and one female pseudo daughter . The roles of mother, father and child are interchangeable, especially between Louis and Claudia. This new type of family is gothic because of how it uncanny it is. The three of them create this grab bag of a family and it for the time they are living it is considered bizarre. If you look at the roles that Lestat, Louis and Claudia play they fill in all the spaces of the modern nuclear family.
Lestat- is the authoritative father that controls the action of the rest of the family. I would consider him the provider. He had to show Louis and Claudia how to kill and survive their vampirism. He is very controlling and with him being the only one with vampire knowledge the other two depend on him for support. He is also the one that created this family. He turned Louis and Claudia and in a weird way played mother and father.
Louis is the other father figure but he regularly fills in as the mother. From the very beginning he was the one to take care of Claudia. They shared the same coffin and he was there for her. Louis is the sensitive caring figure Claudia needs to embrace her newly acquired immortal life.
Keep them together use kid to fix the problem. Lestat found a clever way to make Louis stay with him, he turned Claudia into a vampire child. This is sort of a modern way to fix a failing relationship. A child Like a couple in trouble He used Louis’ compassion for human life and suckered him into staying.
“He was going to go away. But now he’s not. Because he wants to stay and take of you and make you happy. You’re not going are you Louis? “
You bastard! Said Louis
“Such language in front of your daughter”
“I’m not your daughter. I’m my mamma’s daughter”
“No, dear, not anymore” “You’re our daughter , Louis daughter and my daughter, do you see?
Claudia is the daughter and woman figure. As Claudia grows older and matures into a women she becomes a sort of twisted wife/companion of Louis. She fills the void of love that Louis is missing from his own family. Her appearance is a metaphor of her role. She looks like a little doll, but as the years go she becomes a woman. Claudia embodies Louis on the outside, childlike and caring, but on the inside she is a mature killer like Lestat. She almost becomes a double of Louis and Lestat.
Lestat- is the authoritative father that controls the action of the rest of the family. I would consider him the provider. He had to show Louis and Claudia how to kill and survive their vampirism. He is very controlling and with him being the only one with vampire knowledge the other two depend on him for support. He is also the one that created this family. He turned Louis and Claudia and in a weird way played mother and father.
Louis is the other father figure but he regularly fills in as the mother. From the very beginning he was the one to take care of Claudia. They shared the same coffin and he was there for her. Louis is the sensitive caring figure Claudia needs to embrace her newly acquired immortal life.
Keep them together use kid to fix the problem. Lestat found a clever way to make Louis stay with him, he turned Claudia into a vampire child. This is sort of a modern way to fix a failing relationship. A child Like a couple in trouble He used Louis’ compassion for human life and suckered him into staying.
“He was going to go away. But now he’s not. Because he wants to stay and take of you and make you happy. You’re not going are you Louis? “
You bastard! Said Louis
“Such language in front of your daughter”
“I’m not your daughter. I’m my mamma’s daughter”
“No, dear, not anymore” “You’re our daughter , Louis daughter and my daughter, do you see?
Claudia is the daughter and woman figure. As Claudia grows older and matures into a women she becomes a sort of twisted wife/companion of Louis. She fills the void of love that Louis is missing from his own family. Her appearance is a metaphor of her role. She looks like a little doll, but as the years go she becomes a woman. Claudia embodies Louis on the outside, childlike and caring, but on the inside she is a mature killer like Lestat. She almost becomes a double of Louis and Lestat.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Interview with the Vampire 2
Knowledge is defined as acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition, but what is the value of knowledge when it becomes obsolete? I have thought of a few questions that the idea of knowledge and what its use is and how that theme shapes Interview with the Vampire.
Is there ever a point in a persons life when they know too much? What do you do with all of your acquired knowledge. You spent a lifetime getting only to die before you can effectively use it. That somehow trivializes the average human experience. Life will go on without you, you’re knowledge didn’t really impact anything and from a hundred years from nothing you have ever done will really matter. I mean reproduction and keeping the family counts for something, but even animals have been doing that longer than humans.
Knowledge is just floating out in the air , figuratively speaking, but what happens when the wrong people use it. If knowledge is considered pure why does it hurt people. Look at the atomic bomb. Someone had to think that up and someone had to think up genocide. So would it be wrong to eliminate this type of knowledge from the public or is it all fair game?
There has been a long history of who has privilege of gaining knowledge. It has been based on gender, class, and race. Women were once considered inferior to men and didn’t have any use for learning and that their time would be better spent in the kitchen and rearing the family. Then it seemed that only the rich were allowed to get an education. They had the money to pay for a private tutor and then college. Finally education and knowledge was separated by race. Segregation of black and white kids effectively kept kids in the minority down. The schools were terrible and not equal. Here we are now, if you don’t have a college education you can’t get a decent job that you can make a living off. When did knowledge become an elitist? It seems any sort of knowledge keeps you down.
The really fascinating thing about the comparison between people and vampires is the time each has to learn. Vampires may seem vastly more intelligent than normal people, but then again they have the time to learn. In fact they have forever to learn. Louis and Claudia have a thirst for knowledge that is comparable to the blood lust of Lestat. On page 99 and 100 Louis says “I’d find her tucked in the arm of my chair reading the work of Aristotle or Boethius or a new novel just come over the Atlantic.” “ She was my companion her long hours spent with me consuming faster and faster the knowledge that I gave her.” When Louis talks about knowledge he uses words like consume, and he talks about learning the way Lestat talks about feeding. Lestat is the one who doesn’t believe in the power of learning. All he knows is learn what you need to survive and forget the rest. He doesn’t see the use for anything human related.
Is there ever a point in a persons life when they know too much? What do you do with all of your acquired knowledge. You spent a lifetime getting only to die before you can effectively use it. That somehow trivializes the average human experience. Life will go on without you, you’re knowledge didn’t really impact anything and from a hundred years from nothing you have ever done will really matter. I mean reproduction and keeping the family counts for something, but even animals have been doing that longer than humans.
Knowledge is just floating out in the air , figuratively speaking, but what happens when the wrong people use it. If knowledge is considered pure why does it hurt people. Look at the atomic bomb. Someone had to think that up and someone had to think up genocide. So would it be wrong to eliminate this type of knowledge from the public or is it all fair game?
There has been a long history of who has privilege of gaining knowledge. It has been based on gender, class, and race. Women were once considered inferior to men and didn’t have any use for learning and that their time would be better spent in the kitchen and rearing the family. Then it seemed that only the rich were allowed to get an education. They had the money to pay for a private tutor and then college. Finally education and knowledge was separated by race. Segregation of black and white kids effectively kept kids in the minority down. The schools were terrible and not equal. Here we are now, if you don’t have a college education you can’t get a decent job that you can make a living off. When did knowledge become an elitist? It seems any sort of knowledge keeps you down.
The really fascinating thing about the comparison between people and vampires is the time each has to learn. Vampires may seem vastly more intelligent than normal people, but then again they have the time to learn. In fact they have forever to learn. Louis and Claudia have a thirst for knowledge that is comparable to the blood lust of Lestat. On page 99 and 100 Louis says “I’d find her tucked in the arm of my chair reading the work of Aristotle or Boethius or a new novel just come over the Atlantic.” “ She was my companion her long hours spent with me consuming faster and faster the knowledge that I gave her.” When Louis talks about knowledge he uses words like consume, and he talks about learning the way Lestat talks about feeding. Lestat is the one who doesn’t believe in the power of learning. All he knows is learn what you need to survive and forget the rest. He doesn’t see the use for anything human related.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Interview with the Vampire
When you think of vampires you think of blood thirsty (pun intend) killers that have no regard for human life. The prime example would be Bram Stokers Dracula, but Anne Rice has taken a new direction with her vampires in Interview with the Vampire. The main character, Louis, has a different view for human life.
“I had no fear regarding my own death, only a squeamishness taking my life myself. But I had a most high regard for the life of others, and a horror of death most recently developed because of my brother” (16). It must be difficult to be a vampire that is squeamish when it comes to killing. I think this is the true sign that he is not a monster, but a human coping with his immortal prison. Despite the fact he, Louis, is a vampire he shows the most human qualities. He is always struggling with life and death and the consequences of his actions towards other people. Louis is a vampire, by those rules he needs blood, preferably human blood, despite this fact he tries hard to avoid hurting people. Louis is willing to eat rats to survive, but like a human he has his faults, and he does break down and feed on a human. It is not with out remorse though. Just like a human most try to go there whole lives without hurting anyone and feel terribly when they inevitably do. Because Louis carries these feelings of guilt and remorse I do not believe he is a monster. He was just an unfortunate man that was cursed to continually hurt people, by becoming a vampire. This seems very ironic. Louis was in pain for part of his life, but instead of dying he has to go on and inflict pain on others.
Louis is very different from Claudia and Lestat. Those two characters are monsters. They thoroughly enjoy the hunt of humans and then their ultimate joy, sucking out the blood. Claudia the innocent “doll” seems to be even more vicious of a killer than Lestat, and is eager to learn the ways of being a vampire. Unlike Louis who tried hard to fight the entire process and believes himself to be evil and belonging in Hell. So it’s interesting to watch their relationship evolve, considering they have different views on life. You would think Claudia and Lestat would be closer. I think Claudia needed a human quality and Louis was able to give her that. She is just so eager to kill though, and it makes it difficult to think of her as a child or young woman. “Only kill with me tonight. You never let me see you kill, Louis!” (101). Louis kills out of necessity and it’s not a sport for him like Claudia and Lestat. These two get excited by the kill, almost like it’s a game. Claudia is just too young to understand the importance and fragileness of life. Lestat is too reckless and uncaring to understand the tragedy of death.
“I had no fear regarding my own death, only a squeamishness taking my life myself. But I had a most high regard for the life of others, and a horror of death most recently developed because of my brother” (16). It must be difficult to be a vampire that is squeamish when it comes to killing. I think this is the true sign that he is not a monster, but a human coping with his immortal prison. Despite the fact he, Louis, is a vampire he shows the most human qualities. He is always struggling with life and death and the consequences of his actions towards other people. Louis is a vampire, by those rules he needs blood, preferably human blood, despite this fact he tries hard to avoid hurting people. Louis is willing to eat rats to survive, but like a human he has his faults, and he does break down and feed on a human. It is not with out remorse though. Just like a human most try to go there whole lives without hurting anyone and feel terribly when they inevitably do. Because Louis carries these feelings of guilt and remorse I do not believe he is a monster. He was just an unfortunate man that was cursed to continually hurt people, by becoming a vampire. This seems very ironic. Louis was in pain for part of his life, but instead of dying he has to go on and inflict pain on others.
Louis is very different from Claudia and Lestat. Those two characters are monsters. They thoroughly enjoy the hunt of humans and then their ultimate joy, sucking out the blood. Claudia the innocent “doll” seems to be even more vicious of a killer than Lestat, and is eager to learn the ways of being a vampire. Unlike Louis who tried hard to fight the entire process and believes himself to be evil and belonging in Hell. So it’s interesting to watch their relationship evolve, considering they have different views on life. You would think Claudia and Lestat would be closer. I think Claudia needed a human quality and Louis was able to give her that. She is just so eager to kill though, and it makes it difficult to think of her as a child or young woman. “Only kill with me tonight. You never let me see you kill, Louis!” (101). Louis kills out of necessity and it’s not a sport for him like Claudia and Lestat. These two get excited by the kill, almost like it’s a game. Claudia is just too young to understand the importance and fragileness of life. Lestat is too reckless and uncaring to understand the tragedy of death.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Dracula
Like Frankenstein, Dracula has been glamorized by Hollywood, so once again I've been shocked when I read the literally description of the legendary vampire. Here are my thoughts of what I expected him to look like: tall, dark well quaffed hair, handsome face, lean, well dressed,young, and very suave.
This is what Dracula actually looks like: "His face was a strong-a very strong-aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty doomed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, cruel-looking, with particularly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years" (23) "For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremly pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin...The backs of his hands had seemed rather white and fine; but seeing them now close to me, I could not but notice that they were rather coarse-broad, with squat fingers...there were hairs in the centre of the palm. The nails were long and fine, cut to a sharp point. As the Count leaned over and his hands touched me, I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me (24).
That said Dracula does not sound like the seductive killer that people have come to know. (I'm on team Edward, but I don't read Twilight, Rob Pattinson is just really attractive lol)
What I find bizarre though is that the novel begins with a male character that Dracula is trying keep imprisoned. Everything that I previusly knew about vampires, at least the males, was that they seduce women. They turn on the charm to get the girls pretty little necks. In the first few chapters all I see is Dracula trying to "seduce" Jonathan Harker with his hospitality, status in life and knowledge of history. I get that creepy old guy pedophile vibe from Dracula, especially when he says "This man belongs to me!" and "Yes, I can too love; you yourselves can tell it from the past!(43). So why is there this underlying homoerotic feeling coming from Dracula? I don't know, to be honest. I know that latter on there are female victims, but opening sets the tone of this uncanny story of a monster.
This is what Dracula actually looks like: "His face was a strong-a very strong-aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty doomed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, cruel-looking, with particularly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years" (23) "For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremly pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin...The backs of his hands had seemed rather white and fine; but seeing them now close to me, I could not but notice that they were rather coarse-broad, with squat fingers...there were hairs in the centre of the palm. The nails were long and fine, cut to a sharp point. As the Count leaned over and his hands touched me, I could not repress a shudder. It may have been that his breath was rank, but a horrible feeling of nausea came over me (24).
That said Dracula does not sound like the seductive killer that people have come to know. (I'm on team Edward, but I don't read Twilight, Rob Pattinson is just really attractive lol)
What I find bizarre though is that the novel begins with a male character that Dracula is trying keep imprisoned. Everything that I previusly knew about vampires, at least the males, was that they seduce women. They turn on the charm to get the girls pretty little necks. In the first few chapters all I see is Dracula trying to "seduce" Jonathan Harker with his hospitality, status in life and knowledge of history. I get that creepy old guy pedophile vibe from Dracula, especially when he says "This man belongs to me!" and "Yes, I can too love; you yourselves can tell it from the past!(43). So why is there this underlying homoerotic feeling coming from Dracula? I don't know, to be honest. I know that latter on there are female victims, but opening sets the tone of this uncanny story of a monster.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Wuthering Heights
The "love story" between Heathcliff and Catherine is still way too far fetched for me. The past two classes we took the time to discuss each character and it made me wonder how these two people could possibly say they love each other.
Catherine is a selfish, narrow minded, fool. She is almost childlike in her thought process. One example of this is when she is talking to Nelly after Edgar has proposed to her on page 64. Catherine has concocted this grand scheme of marrying Edgar Linton, but using his money to support her "love" Heathcliff. Nelly responds by saying "You'll find him (Edgar) not so pliable as you calculate upon: and, though I'm hardly a judge, I think that is the worst motive you've given yet for being the wife of young Linton" (64). Catherine's reply is "It is not, it is the best" (64). It's almost as if she is not familiar with how marriage or the real world works. This shallow look at the world is the reason i wonder how she can love or even fall in love with Heathcliff. The whole novel she treats him as an annoyance that won't leave her. He gets in the way of her becoming a proper lady and her ability to climb the social ladder. The class discussed that Catherine might be a "wild child" and Heathcliff embodies that persona. Out of that jealousy for his freedom, she covets him, but doesn't really love him. She is quoted as saying "I am Heathcliff". Her saying that solidifies her want to be Heathcliff not to be with him. This is very selfish of her, she seems to enjoy toying with the emotions of Heathcliff. If she really loved him she would have married him. Throughout the entire novel Catherine always got what she wanted. So how is it that the one person she claimed to be madly in love with is out of reach for her. I don't feel that it's believable. Catherine had her fun playing around with Heathcliff, but when it got down to her life and what she wanted, she went with the easier life. Edgar will be able to provide for her, despite the lack of spontaneity she would have received from Heathcliff.
Heathcliff is no better than Catherine when it comes to selfishness, but he also has the added brooding characteristic. His entire life has been trying and how is someone that hardened to the world able to fall in love with someone as superficial as Catherine? As you read more into the story you can see that his love of Catherine is more of a possible plot to exact revenge on Hindley, Catherine's cruel brother. Hindley caused Heathcliff so much suffering in his life, Heathcliff was willing to take his time to execute his plan. Marrying his sister would be the perfect way to get back at him. Heathcliff would be in the family forever and there wouldn't be anything Hindley could do about it. This is just proving that Heathcliff is just as crazy as Catherine. These two characters do not seem to have a concept of how surreal they appear the "normal" people in the book. Their actions dictate how the rest of the characters act, so it's like you have the two puppet masters controlling the story and nothing about this novel makes it a love story.
Catherine is a selfish, narrow minded, fool. She is almost childlike in her thought process. One example of this is when she is talking to Nelly after Edgar has proposed to her on page 64. Catherine has concocted this grand scheme of marrying Edgar Linton, but using his money to support her "love" Heathcliff. Nelly responds by saying "You'll find him (Edgar) not so pliable as you calculate upon: and, though I'm hardly a judge, I think that is the worst motive you've given yet for being the wife of young Linton" (64). Catherine's reply is "It is not, it is the best" (64). It's almost as if she is not familiar with how marriage or the real world works. This shallow look at the world is the reason i wonder how she can love or even fall in love with Heathcliff. The whole novel she treats him as an annoyance that won't leave her. He gets in the way of her becoming a proper lady and her ability to climb the social ladder. The class discussed that Catherine might be a "wild child" and Heathcliff embodies that persona. Out of that jealousy for his freedom, she covets him, but doesn't really love him. She is quoted as saying "I am Heathcliff". Her saying that solidifies her want to be Heathcliff not to be with him. This is very selfish of her, she seems to enjoy toying with the emotions of Heathcliff. If she really loved him she would have married him. Throughout the entire novel Catherine always got what she wanted. So how is it that the one person she claimed to be madly in love with is out of reach for her. I don't feel that it's believable. Catherine had her fun playing around with Heathcliff, but when it got down to her life and what she wanted, she went with the easier life. Edgar will be able to provide for her, despite the lack of spontaneity she would have received from Heathcliff.
Heathcliff is no better than Catherine when it comes to selfishness, but he also has the added brooding characteristic. His entire life has been trying and how is someone that hardened to the world able to fall in love with someone as superficial as Catherine? As you read more into the story you can see that his love of Catherine is more of a possible plot to exact revenge on Hindley, Catherine's cruel brother. Hindley caused Heathcliff so much suffering in his life, Heathcliff was willing to take his time to execute his plan. Marrying his sister would be the perfect way to get back at him. Heathcliff would be in the family forever and there wouldn't be anything Hindley could do about it. This is just proving that Heathcliff is just as crazy as Catherine. These two characters do not seem to have a concept of how surreal they appear the "normal" people in the book. Their actions dictate how the rest of the characters act, so it's like you have the two puppet masters controlling the story and nothing about this novel makes it a love story.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Frankenstein 2
The creature is not a human. Sure “it” or “he” may appear to be a grotesque, hideous human, but he lacks the soul and humanity that makes a person a person. I think of the creature as a sociopath. Like a sociopath, the creature has the ability to mimic people, but “he” lacks the social cues to function in society. Because the creature is isolated from the world he grows to resent the world he can’t be a part of. With this built up anger he seeks revenge on the man that created him. The creature kills Victor’s brother and new wife Elizabeth and indirectly kills an innocent Justine. After he kills he feels no remorse. Real people, no matter how much anger or hatred they are harboring for a person they killed, have some feeling of guilt or sadness. The creature doesn’t even know he should feel like this. The creature doesn’t know how to really express any real human emotions because he is an unnatural being.
He is a freak of nature, but the irony is that he finds his solace in nature. Nature is supposed to be pure, but the creature is a contradiction to the environment he lives in. He possesses left over limbs and discarded organs. There is nothing pure or original about him at all. Man should not intervene with nature, because if you do disastrous things occur. With this notion, I believe that is why Victor destroys the companion he promised to make the creature (115). “I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and, trembling with passion tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged.” He is showing some restraint with the powerful knowledge he has, and maybe that is the point Shelly wanted to get across. Science is a good thing, but there must be caution or terrible things could happen.
He is a freak of nature, but the irony is that he finds his solace in nature. Nature is supposed to be pure, but the creature is a contradiction to the environment he lives in. He possesses left over limbs and discarded organs. There is nothing pure or original about him at all. Man should not intervene with nature, because if you do disastrous things occur. With this notion, I believe that is why Victor destroys the companion he promised to make the creature (115). “I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and, trembling with passion tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged.” He is showing some restraint with the powerful knowledge he has, and maybe that is the point Shelly wanted to get across. Science is a good thing, but there must be caution or terrible things could happen.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Frankenstein
Frankenstein: I think of a large, grotesque, slow moving imbecile. I am of course thinking of the movie and not the gothic work of Mary Shelly. It seems that Hollywood has gone to great lengths to distort what “Frankenstein” is. The monster is just the monster, he doesn’t have a name. I feel that giving him a name is too normal. A name would show that he could fit into society, but it would be impossible for him. The perception of what the monster is and what he appears to be are explored through the novel. Shelly provides so many more layers to the monster and his creator
Frankenstein is an obvious gothic novel, there is the creation of an unnatural life. The monster coming to life sets an uneasy feeling tone. To see a man walk and talk is normal, but the monster, although alive, is uncanny and terrifying. Questions of who controls life and death play on the fears people have about their own mortality. If a scientist can play “God” why believe in anything? An isolation lies in that question, and isolation is felt by Victor himself. He throws himself into work and disregards his family and friends. Victor’s unfortunate for the unknown secrets of science have led him to the secret of life. What appears to be a wildly fantastic discovery, is now the horrific image that haunts his dreams. Victor flees his creation, until they collide on Victor is finally able to hear, from the monster himself, his life.
The monster in Mary Shelly’s novel is the exact opposite of what the movie portrays, but has the characteristics of what a good monster or antagonist should be: strong, elegant with their speech, and well rounded character. The monster has the ability to rely his own account of his life with a sadness. No matter how hard her tries, he can’t fit into normal society.
Frankenstein is an obvious gothic novel, there is the creation of an unnatural life. The monster coming to life sets an uneasy feeling tone. To see a man walk and talk is normal, but the monster, although alive, is uncanny and terrifying. Questions of who controls life and death play on the fears people have about their own mortality. If a scientist can play “God” why believe in anything? An isolation lies in that question, and isolation is felt by Victor himself. He throws himself into work and disregards his family and friends. Victor’s unfortunate for the unknown secrets of science have led him to the secret of life. What appears to be a wildly fantastic discovery, is now the horrific image that haunts his dreams. Victor flees his creation, until they collide on Victor is finally able to hear, from the monster himself, his life.
The monster in Mary Shelly’s novel is the exact opposite of what the movie portrays, but has the characteristics of what a good monster or antagonist should be: strong, elegant with their speech, and well rounded character. The monster has the ability to rely his own account of his life with a sadness. No matter how hard her tries, he can’t fit into normal society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)