Frankenstein: deaths all around

If one were wanting the smallest morsel of a happy-ish ending, he would be far from satisfied with the ending of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  By the end of this novel, I didn't know who to feel more sorrow for between Victor and the creature.  Victor had literally lost every person he had ever loved, but the creature had never been given the opportunity to love.  Victor loathed the fact that he had brought the monster into existence, but the creature loathed every moment in which he existed.  In a way, they both commited suicide.  Whether he was aware or not, Victor began killing himself the moment he started creating the creature, and the creature vowed to burn himself alive to rid the world of his presence.  They both ended up being miserable wretches.  "How strange is that clinging love we have of life even in the excess of misery" (Shelley, 126).  I don't know how either of these characters managed to live as long as they did.  They absolutely hated their lives, and yet that just made them cling to it all the more.  Their enemy was their reason to keep living, and once one was dead, the other (creature) ceased to have any will to live.

Frankenstein: Victor's dilemma

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is making me have very mixed emotions about our Mr. Victor.  At this particular point in the novel, I wanted to both smack some sense into him, and grudgingly agree with him.  He was aware of the strength and wrath of the creature.  Why on earth would he be so stupid then?!  "I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise..and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged.  The wretch saw me destroy the creature...and with a howl of...revenge, withdrew" (Shelley, 121).  Can't see anything possibly going wrong with THAT series of events.  I understand that Victor is caught between two unknowns.  If he were to complete the female creature, there would be no telling what she would do.  He could very well unleash a heartless monster on all of humanity, or a peaceful mate for the male creature to hide with.  If he went back on his word, there was no telling what the creature would do.  Why wouldn't he take the chance of making another creature?  He had to have known by then that the creature's form of taking revenge on him was by killing one of Victor's loved ones.  How could Victor think that he or anyone he ever cared about could ever be safe again after enraging a very strong, very clever, and very dangerous monster such as the one he had created?

Frankenstein: destroyed tree

I definitely called a foreshadowing incident from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and was spot-on...no big deal.  After a violent storm in Victor's childhood, when the family went to look at a lightening-struck tree, he said that "it was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood.  I never beheld anything to utterly destroyed" (Shelley, 22).  On first reading this, I wondered if the tree were symbolic of how Victor would later turn out in the story; "utterly destroyed".  As it were, not only did Victor become reduced to a fraction of the man he had been, but he also made a reference once more to a lightening-struck tree.  "But I am a blasted tree; the bolt has entered my soul..." (Shelley, 116).  Victor, like the tree from his childhood, has been destroyed.  There is no hope of him being returned to his former state.  His very core has been struck.  He seems to me to just be a walking corpse, with no zeal or desire left for life.  I think Victor is perfectly aware that he will never be the same, but, at this point, he must go through the motions of living in order to carry out his promise to the creature.

Frankenstein: religioug allusions

All throughout Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, religious allusions are made by the creature.  His comparison of himself to both Adam and Satan evoke much sympathy for him from the reader.  Like a newborn child, he did not CHOOSE to be brought into the world; it had been the choice of others.  He had been created, carefully and painstakingly.  I cannot imagine the depths of loneliness that the creature must have felt, nor the sense of abandonment.  He knew that he was utterly alone; there was no other like him and no other species could bear his presence.  I think the creature was deeply hurt that, while God made Adam to be happy and perfect, his creator had made him to be a hideous monster.  "Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition..." (Shelley, 92).  In the beginning stages of the creature's existence, he was more like Adam in character.  He was peaceful, lived a simple life, and didn't want to hurt anyone.  However, as the novel progresses, it becomes more and more evident that the creature's character and temperament morphs into that of Satan.  He becomes evil; hardened and hateful towards all that is good and innocent.  The more he loses hope in humanity, the more he seeks to destroy it.

Frankenstein: DeLacey

First off, I want to start this blog by commenting on the unbelievable use of description and imagery in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  "In the meanwhile also the black ground was covered with herbage, and the green banks interspersed with innumerable flowers, sweet to the scent and the eyes, stars of pale radiance among the moonlight woods..." (Shelley, 83).  Secondly, the role of the DeLacey family is critical in this novel.  The creature learns details about humanity that would have been impossible to comprehend had he not been observing this family.  I noticed that, at the beginning, the family's actions led him to love the human race and seek their acceptance and companionship.  They were his first real example of what love was.  He saw the way they took in sweet Saffie as though she were their own.  She was not a part of there family, she was an outsider, she was different.  In his mind, the creature was just the same; why wouldn't they accept and love him in the near future as well?  The family inadvertently taught the creature how to speak, how to communicate, lessons on the history of mankind, etc.  However, the DeLacey family also educated the creature on the evils of man.  I couldn't help but ache for and with the creature when, at long last, he had worked up the courage to make contact with the father, only to be attacked and rejected by the rest of the family.  The creature could have remained in peaceful, blissful ignorance of life's evils had it not been for the DeLacey family.

Frankenstein: Creature

Mary Shelley dedicates several of the first few chapters of Frankenstein to giving details about the creature.  I was surprised at the fact that, while only being two years old, the creature was unbelievably eloquent in the English language.  He has clearly learned a great deal in his first years of living, and he is learning how to read and sympathize with the emotions of humans by observing a family from a back shed.  The creature, based on his inner thoughts and actions, is not an evil, murderous being, but a gentle and caring one.  "I saw no cause for their unhappiness; but I was deeply affected by it" (Shelley, 77).  The creature, saddened by the sufferings he witnessed of this family, decided to help them as much as he could.  He doesn't want to be seen, however, for obvious reasons.  I am finding it harder and harder to believe that this creature was William's murderer.  He is not a cold-hearted monster.  He would have had no reason in killing the boy, and it would only have made him feel deep remorse and guilt for his actions.  A creature who goes out of his way to secretly support an impoverished family would not savagely strangle a child.  But, if the creature did not kill William, who did?

Frankenstein: death

Mary Shelley, even at the young age when she wrote this novel, shows a firm grasp in Frankenstein on the concept of death.  At the news of William's death, Henry tries to console Victor in saying, "He can no longer be a subject for pity; we must reserve that for his miserable survivors" (Shelley, 48).  This line struck me, because it is something that I have always thought.  Once someone had died, our worry or pity for them is useless.  If they have made it into heaven, they have nothing to worry about or any reason for us to pity them.  When we lose a loved one, we mourn not for them, but for ourselves.  We grieve because they have left us, because we must go on living without their presence.  Henry insists that Victor should not feel bad for William, but should focus his attentions on comforting the members of his family who were still living.  It seems to me that Shelley had strong faith and beliefs based on the last words of Justine.  She focused on the fact that God would carry her through her hardships, and that she would soon be reunited with William.  She often mentions prayers, guardian angels, and destiny as well, all religious references.

Frankenstein: foreshadow

Throughout all of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, she consistently uses foreshadowing as a literary tool.  She makes the reader want to press on in the story with the constant hints she gives of what is to come.  She has the characters make references, or look in retrospect, on an event which has not yet been discussed.  "I prophesied truly, and failed only in one single circumstance, that in all the misery I imagined...I did not conceive the hundredth part of the anguish I was destined to endure" (Shelley, 49).  Victor makes this remark after he was told of his brother's murder.  This excerpt from the story made me even more curious about what is going to happen.  Victor had just been told that his young brother had been killed.  He knew that his family was in mourning and was suffering greatly.  And yet, despite this, he says he had no idea at the time what pain and suffering was to come his way.  What more could he endure?  What, besides the murder of his sibling, could make him feel even more miserable?  He also says that William and Justine were "the first hapless victims to my unhallowed arts" (Shelley, 60).  Who else will be killed by the end of this story?

Frankenstein: mother

Victor Frankenstein's mother, Caroline, plays a key role in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  Because one of my biggest goals in life is to be the best mother possible, I immediately grew attached to and admired Victor's mother.  So many characters throughout this first part of the story seem to be in complete awe of Caroline Frankenstein.  She was a mother to all, she took anyone in and loved them unconditionally.  She rescued Elizabeth from a poor family, Justine from an abusive mother, and loved her own children dearly.  She inspired admiration from everyone she took under her wing.  Elizabeth stated that Justine saw Caroline as "the model of all excellence and endeavored to imitate her phraseology and manners, so that even now she often reminds me of her" (Shelley, 41). 
The events of Caroline's life and death contributed to Victor's fate in regards to his creation.  He had been told how much his mother had suffered while taking care of her dying father til the day of his departure from this world.  He witnessed the anguish she had felt as she attended to Elizabeth while she was suffering from smallpox.  Victor was also deeply affected by the grief he and his family went through after the death of his mother.  I believe his obsession with giving life to a dead object originated from these events.  He never wanted himself or his loved ones to suffer from the loss of a loved one again, so he strove to develop a way to eliminate the possibility of death.

Frankenstein: friendships

It becomes clear early on that relationships, both with friends and with family, is an important aspect in the lives of the characters in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.  Both Walton and Victor desire a close friendship.  In Walton's letters to his sister, he mentions how lonely he felt aboard his ship.  "I have no friend, Margaret: when I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate in my joy; if I am assailed by disappointment, no one will endeavor to sustain me in dejection: (Shelley, 4).  Because of this loneliness, it seems natural that Walton became so quickly attached to Victor when they rescued him from the ice.  After further reading, though, I found that the two men were similar in so many ways; they share numerous characteristics. 
Both men are unbelievably ambitious.  They, at one point in their lives, desired to do something seemingly impossible, something that had never been done before.  Walton was trying to reach the icy north pole for the first time to discover the workings of magnets and compasses.  Victor had had a dream to put life into an inanimate or dead object.  Both men are very close familial ties.  However, for both men, the more/longer they pursued their goal, the more they lost connection with their families.  The fact that the two men were so similar gave Victor the reassurance to confide his story in Walton, so that we may learn the story as well.

Bartleby the Scrivener

I can honestly say that I have no idea what the point was of Herman Melville's short story Bartleby the Scrivener.  It could have been told in one sentence: "There once was an annoyingly stubborn and useless employee, and then he died." 
I will take the opportunity to discuss my favorite character. The Lawyer, also the narrator, seems to be a decent old man.  His little nicknames for all of his employees show how much notice he takes of each of them.  He took care to get to know each of his employees.  He knew their temperaments, their habits, their personalities, etc.  He seemed to want a pleasant relationship/rapport with the workers of his firm.  He is very observant, mild-mannered gentleman.  However, I think one of his flaws was the fact that he always assumed/expected that people would abide by his orders without question.  Bartleby startled him so much because he (the Lawyer) has a "natural expectancy of instant compliance" (Melville, 649).  Maybe the theme of this story is that, every once in a while, life is going to throw an odd-ball of a person at us just to see how we handle him.

Miss Brill

Katherine Mansfield's short story Miss Brill literally made my heart hurt with its ending.  For one perfect Sunday afternoon, sweet old Miss Brill felt important, excited, happy to be alive.  "No doubt somebody would have noticed if she hadn't been there; she was part of the performance after all" (Mansfield, 185).  She felt needed, as though she were a part of something.  I was disgusted with the young couple who came up next to her.  They spoke of her as though she were a mangy animal; they never bothered to consider that she might be able to hear them.  After being lifted by Miss Brill's previously buoyant spirits, I felt just as crushed as she was when she realized what people really thought when they saw her.  She was an annoyance, a burden, a "stupid old thing".  She was absolutely devastated.  I found it cruelly ironic that, while she took the time and care to observe others and try to learn their stories so she could sympathize with them, the young couple who made the degrading comments had never spoken to her in their lives.  They did not know how dearly she loved her furs, how proud of them she was, how much she adored everyone she saw.  They superficially judged her, bringing an old woman to tears.

Much Madness is divinest Sense

I love Emily Dickenson's poem Much Madness is divinest Sense.  She stuffs so much underlying meaning and messages into just eight short lines.  The whole poem is one big paradox.  One would expect madness to be frowned upon, but Dickenson states that it is "divinest sense...to a discerning eye" (Dickenson, 830).  In her opinion, "madness" is not equivalent to being psychotic or crazy.  "Madness", as portrayed in this poem, is merely having a sense of individualism, and the ability to question the norm and authority.  Emily looks down upon sanity in this poem.  Sanity is what the majority of human kind possess; it does not inspire individualism, but conformity.  Emily urges people to be rebellious, to embrace themselves as they are, and not what society wants them to be.  Those who have much sense are "handled with a chain" (Dickenson, 830).  They have no freedom because they allow others to set their limitations.

I felt a Funeral, in my Brain

One of the things I noticed in Emily Dickenson's I felt a Funeral, in my Brain was that she used each quatrain to represent a different aspect of a funeral.  The first stanza, with its "Mourners to and fro kept treading" (Dickenson, 776), is clearly about the showing of a funeral.  The following section talks about the actual funeral service, as though in a church.  The casket is being moved in the third quatrain.  Church bells are heard at the casket's departure in the forth, and it is lowered into the ground in the last.  It was clear, however, that this poem was not about a literal funeral.  Dickenson uses only auditory imagery in this poem, with not a single reference to sight.  If this person, who is clearly in the casket, can hear, interpret, and understand everything that is occurring on the outside, then he surely can not be dead!  It seems to me that something traumatic has happened to the narrator of this poem.  She speaks of the funeral being IN her brain.  Perhaps she lost a piece of her innocence, or is deeply disturbed by a newly discovered truth?  It could also be that the speaker may have come to terms with the fact that she is mad and can no longer control her brain.

APO 96225

After reading Larry Rottmann's poem, APO 96225, I immediately thought of the phrase "be careful what you wish for".  The soldier's mother begged and begged for him to tell her what exactly war was like for him.  However, when he finally did respond with "Today I killed a man.  Yesterday, I helped drop a napalm on women and children" (Rottmann, 846), his father was disgusted with him and his mother couldn't stand to write back to him.  Maybe his parents felt obligated to ask him to confide in them, even while they were nervously hoping he wouldn't.  I noticed a lot of situational irony in this poem.  One would assume that, when a son is off at war, the PARENTS would be the ones trying to find the silver lining and protect HIS feelings.  That is not the case in APO 96225.  It is the son, who is undoubtedly already going through physically and emotionally traumatic situations, who is comforting his parents, and trying to be positive.  He was trying to shield his parents from the cruel world of war in which he was engulfed.  I think the poem represents the fact that war cannot be put into words.  The things a soldier goes through everyday can not be accurately described to others.  The son understated his situation to try and keep his family from worrying about him, and then got scolded for opening up a little bit about his life at war.