Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
One of the most important quotes from this section of the book came after Victor destroys the woman, and the creature retaliates with "I shall be with you on your wedding-night," (Shelley, page 123). The irony of the situation is the difference between what Victor takes as his threat and what is more likely (and actually is) to happen. The audience realizes that the creature had no intentions of killing Frankenstein when his beloved Elizabeth would cause so much pain and sorrow. Because the creature showed early signs of violence and determination, we believe that Elizabeth is the target. However, Victor was still pretty insane and one-minded enough to believe the creature was after him. I'm not sure exactly why he thought that because the creature hadn't tried to harm him previously. Elizabeth's death was sad, though we all expected it, and his father's death was a bit more unexpected. That family sure likes to exaggerate feelings and grow mentally/physically ill from weird things... That was one of the most annoying elements of the novel--Victor's illnesses after like every major event in his life.
Even more ironic than his misunderstanding is the big picture--that Victor made the creature in order to end suffering and mourning, but that is exactly what he caused in the end. Of course, I was saddened to find out that the creature regretted being evil and was ready to die as his master had--all ties back to the nurture theory.
Honestly, all I want to know now is Walton's sister's reaction to all of this.
And why couldn't the creature have had a real name?
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Frankenstein 9
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
I got excited when the creature asked Victor for a mate because it would be so interesting! Then I remembered that we only read tragedies in AP Lit and knew that Victor would not go through with it. Of course, he had to destroy the woman and break the creature's heart. That was my last hope for his happiness, and it was destroyed as his mate was. If Victor had made her, then the creature, I believe, would have left society and really followed through with his word. Once again--all Victor's fault... However, his reasons for not making her are legitimate because she possibly could have destroyed "the whole human race," (Shelley, page 121). Victor also thought that they could create "a race of devils," (Shelley, page 121) if left to their own devices. That completely begs the question-- do they have the reproductive organs necessary for that? Well, I shouldn't read into that too much because it is science fiction. I think that's why I don't particularly like this novel--nothing's very realistic...
Mary Shelley
I got excited when the creature asked Victor for a mate because it would be so interesting! Then I remembered that we only read tragedies in AP Lit and knew that Victor would not go through with it. Of course, he had to destroy the woman and break the creature's heart. That was my last hope for his happiness, and it was destroyed as his mate was. If Victor had made her, then the creature, I believe, would have left society and really followed through with his word. Once again--all Victor's fault... However, his reasons for not making her are legitimate because she possibly could have destroyed "the whole human race," (Shelley, page 121). Victor also thought that they could create "a race of devils," (Shelley, page 121) if left to their own devices. That completely begs the question-- do they have the reproductive organs necessary for that? Well, I shouldn't read into that too much because it is science fiction. I think that's why I don't particularly like this novel--nothing's very realistic...
Frankenstein 8
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
The theme of nature versus nurture was evident all throughout the novel. As opposing characters, Frankenstein takes the nature theory, while the creature resembles the nurture theory. From the moment he formed the creature, Victor believed he was horrible and disgusting. When the creature asked for a mate, Victor thought that she would be just as terrible and gruesome by nature. "She might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate, and delight, for its own sake, in murder and wretchedness," (Shelley, page 120). This displays the nature theory because the creature seemed inherently evil. The other side is the nurture theory, which I happen to favor over nature. The creature had no one to care for him as a child, so he turned mean and too aggressive. When the creature is trying to convince Victor to make him a mate, the claims that he "had feelings of affection, and they were required by destation and scorn," (Shelley, page 122). The creature had so much potential to be a good being, but Frankenstein neglected him and did not show him how to behave or love him.
Frankenstein 7
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
When I read about William's death, I was relieved to know exactly what had happened, although most of us thought the creature had killed him. I thought about Of Mice and Men and Edward Scissorhands because they both have scenes in which a monster mistakenly harms an innocent person. However, the creature in Frankenstein realized what he was doing, to some extent, and wanted to inflict pain upon his creator. This scene was sad and evoked (some) pity in the audience because he only wanted a companion and felt he had been neglected. I am definitely team Creature because I feel bad for him and entirely blame Frankenstein for his upbringing--or lack thereof. [But that's for another post.] Anyway, the creature's ideas were valid in that he thought an innocent would look past the differences. The fact that William was just a child is very relevant to the theme of society's attacking those who are different. The creature thought that he, being a child, would tolerate him and not be so afraid as others had been. However like any sane person, William tried to get out of the creature's grasp. This was just further realization to the creature that he was "hideously deformed and loathsome" (Shelley, page 85).
Mary Shelley
When I read about William's death, I was relieved to know exactly what had happened, although most of us thought the creature had killed him. I thought about Of Mice and Men and Edward Scissorhands because they both have scenes in which a monster mistakenly harms an innocent person. However, the creature in Frankenstein realized what he was doing, to some extent, and wanted to inflict pain upon his creator. This scene was sad and evoked (some) pity in the audience because he only wanted a companion and felt he had been neglected. I am definitely team Creature because I feel bad for him and entirely blame Frankenstein for his upbringing--or lack thereof. [But that's for another post.] Anyway, the creature's ideas were valid in that he thought an innocent would look past the differences. The fact that William was just a child is very relevant to the theme of society's attacking those who are different. The creature thought that he, being a child, would tolerate him and not be so afraid as others had been. However like any sane person, William tried to get out of the creature's grasp. This was just further realization to the creature that he was "hideously deformed and loathsome" (Shelley, page 85).
Frankenstein 6
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
Throughout the creature's first year of life, he learned an incredible amount of information about the world and how he fit into it. The most important influence on him was the DeLacey family who did not know of his presence until he decided to visit the old man. That was such a sad scene! I totally pitied the creature because he just wanted to make their acquaintance and they completely rejected him, as everyone else had. The family's leaving their home was [one of] the final straw for the creature. He broke down, set their home on fire, and "bent his [my] mind towards injury and death," (Shelley, page 99). It was also sad when he came across the woman in the woods and tried to help, but once again, society blocked him from normalcy. I am a nurture theorist, so I blame Frankenstein for neglecting him as a baby(?). Because of the DeLaceys and Frankenstein, the creature snapped and decided to declare "ever-lasting war against the species," (Shelley, page 97). Those scenes also evoked pity in the audience, as he just wanted to fit in, and society made him an outcast.
Mary Shelley
Throughout the creature's first year of life, he learned an incredible amount of information about the world and how he fit into it. The most important influence on him was the DeLacey family who did not know of his presence until he decided to visit the old man. That was such a sad scene! I totally pitied the creature because he just wanted to make their acquaintance and they completely rejected him, as everyone else had. The family's leaving their home was [one of] the final straw for the creature. He broke down, set their home on fire, and "bent his [my] mind towards injury and death," (Shelley, page 99). It was also sad when he came across the woman in the woods and tried to help, but once again, society blocked him from normalcy. I am a nurture theorist, so I blame Frankenstein for neglecting him as a baby(?). Because of the DeLaceys and Frankenstein, the creature snapped and decided to declare "ever-lasting war against the species," (Shelley, page 97). Those scenes also evoked pity in the audience, as he just wanted to fit in, and society made him an outcast.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Frankenstein 5
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
With Frankenstein, we bring many pre-conceived notions about him and the story. However, very few are even accurate to the original story by Mary Shelley. Most common, perhaps, is the name: Frankenstein is the man who created the monster, not the monster itself (as we so often assume). Also, many call him Doctor Frankenstein, which is inaccurate, although some would consider the amount of time he spent studying would qualify him as one. The creation process is also very different from the actual plot because most people associate lightning with creating the monster, when really, lightning was just in the background--along with some light rain. The beast is also different from his portrayal in movies and other works. He does not have stitches everywhere and bolts on the side of his neck, but looks sort of like a bigger version of a normal man. He is also not scary, but can talk, walk, and function emotionally as people do. In the movies and other shows, he moans around and can barely walk straight. One of the most important differences is that he is not scary but can tell his own story. "It is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original era of my being: all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct," (Shelley, page 71). That part was especially surprising to me, as I had no idea he would be able to talk, much less formulate thoughts.
Mary Shelley
With Frankenstein, we bring many pre-conceived notions about him and the story. However, very few are even accurate to the original story by Mary Shelley. Most common, perhaps, is the name: Frankenstein is the man who created the monster, not the monster itself (as we so often assume). Also, many call him Doctor Frankenstein, which is inaccurate, although some would consider the amount of time he spent studying would qualify him as one. The creation process is also very different from the actual plot because most people associate lightning with creating the monster, when really, lightning was just in the background--along with some light rain. The beast is also different from his portrayal in movies and other works. He does not have stitches everywhere and bolts on the side of his neck, but looks sort of like a bigger version of a normal man. He is also not scary, but can talk, walk, and function emotionally as people do. In the movies and other shows, he moans around and can barely walk straight. One of the most important differences is that he is not scary but can tell his own story. "It is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original era of my being: all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct," (Shelley, page 71). That part was especially surprising to me, as I had no idea he would be able to talk, much less formulate thoughts.
Frankenstein 4
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
I'm sure everyone immediately thought of Harry Potter when we started reading, so I found this clip of Hermione talking about the Elixir of Life. And I'll go out even further and explain a connection between Victor Frankenstein and Victor Krum--no just kidding--Voldemort. Both men are quite frankly, obsessed with defying death and acquiring the power to do so. While Voldemort is evil and terrifying and will kill mercilessly to get what he wants, Frankenstein has different motives--he wants to rid the world of diseases and defeat death in order to end mourning. One could also argue that both men are products of their early childhood environments because they both had tragedies befall their families. Both Frankenstein and Voldemort had family members pass away during their childhoods, yet one maintained a relatively happy situation, while the other was sent to an orphanage. [And I don't pity Voldemort or am a Death Eater or anything--I just wanted to state some common qualities.] Another similarity is their success in defying death. However, ever-selfish Voldemort made others bring him back to life, while Frankenstein wanted to do good and help the world, so he "infused[ing] life into an inanimate body" (Shelley, page 35). Another major difference between them is their ability, or inability, to love others. Obviously, Voldemort is unable to love anyone as much as he loves himself and his desire to possess the power of the world. Frankenstein loves his sister very much and partially wants to conquer death to protect her from further mourning.
Mary Shelley
Frankenstein 3
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
Characterization plays an important role in the story of Frankenstein. We first get a glimpse of Walton's life in the letters he writes to his sister back in England. He had studied and read many books on travelling, and he finally was ready to set sail and discover in the North Pole. He planned to "satiate my [his] ardent curiosity" (Shelley, page 1), but he had to leave his family back home in the process. He also admits to his sister that he has no friends and is lonely, and he wants someone to support him in his endeavors. Through the letters, we learn that Walton's crew picked up a stranger [Frankenstein], and these two men get along well because of their common interest in knowledge and exploration.
Frankenstein is more easily characterized because he is purposely describing himself and his story to Walton. As a child, Frankenstein realized his love for the natural sciences and studied them copiously during his teen years and in college. He also is interested in his sister and loved her very much, though he did chose to leave her behind. When his mother passed away, he began entertaining thoughts of outing death so that people would not have to be mournful. While this thought led to his eventual demise, it is one of his fundamental characteristics.
Mary Shelley
Characterization plays an important role in the story of Frankenstein. We first get a glimpse of Walton's life in the letters he writes to his sister back in England. He had studied and read many books on travelling, and he finally was ready to set sail and discover in the North Pole. He planned to "satiate my [his] ardent curiosity" (Shelley, page 1), but he had to leave his family back home in the process. He also admits to his sister that he has no friends and is lonely, and he wants someone to support him in his endeavors. Through the letters, we learn that Walton's crew picked up a stranger [Frankenstein], and these two men get along well because of their common interest in knowledge and exploration.
Frankenstein is more easily characterized because he is purposely describing himself and his story to Walton. As a child, Frankenstein realized his love for the natural sciences and studied them copiously during his teen years and in college. He also is interested in his sister and loved her very much, though he did chose to leave her behind. When his mother passed away, he began entertaining thoughts of outing death so that people would not have to be mournful. While this thought led to his eventual demise, it is one of his fundamental characteristics.
Frankenstein 2
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
Destiny is also an important theme in the novel because both men feel they have been brought to their current situations to serve a specific purpose. In the letters, Robert Walton described his journey as necessary for fulfillment and his goal in life. Frankenstein also declared his [prior] dreams of accomplishment when he began telling Walton his life story. In the first few chapters, he described his original desire for exploration and education of the natural sciences. After beginning to further his education, Frankenstein met with Mr. Waldman who told him he was welcome to his machines after he knew how to work them. At the time, he knew what was to be his destiny--"Thus ended a day memorable to me: it decided my future destiny,"(Shelley, page 29). Several other times, Frankenstein uses "destiny" to describe his faith. This also serves as foreshadowing, as the audience and Walton do not know where the story will end. Another major foreshadowing occurred when we saw the creature through Walton's eyes toward the beginning of the novel. The point of view of the story is important as it is biased because we are only privy the thoughts and feelings of Frankenstein and his memories.
Mary Shelley
Destiny is also an important theme in the novel because both men feel they have been brought to their current situations to serve a specific purpose. In the letters, Robert Walton described his journey as necessary for fulfillment and his goal in life. Frankenstein also declared his [prior] dreams of accomplishment when he began telling Walton his life story. In the first few chapters, he described his original desire for exploration and education of the natural sciences. After beginning to further his education, Frankenstein met with Mr. Waldman who told him he was welcome to his machines after he knew how to work them. At the time, he knew what was to be his destiny--"Thus ended a day memorable to me: it decided my future destiny,"(Shelley, page 29). Several other times, Frankenstein uses "destiny" to describe his faith. This also serves as foreshadowing, as the audience and Walton do not know where the story will end. Another major foreshadowing occurred when we saw the creature through Walton's eyes toward the beginning of the novel. The point of view of the story is important as it is biased because we are only privy the thoughts and feelings of Frankenstein and his memories.
Frankenstein 1
Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
From the very beginning of the novel, the themes of alienation and solitude are evident. Robert Walton decided to leave his family behind and pursue his dreams of exploring the North Pole, and he also gave up all stability. On the journey, Walton did not make any new friends (except for Frankenstein) and felt alienated from the crew members. Similarly, Victor Frankenstein abandoned his family in order to further his education and experiments. However, both men left behind their sisters, for whom they obviously loved very dearly. Walton wrote various letters, one addressed to "my dear sister" (Shelley, page 7), to his sister back in England , while Frankenstein described his as "my more than sister" (Shelley, page 18). It was extremely difficult for both men to leave their families, but they could not carry out their goals any other way. Walton feels alienated from his crew members until he meets Frankenstein and begins a new friendship. The alienation/solitude is part of the reason they get along so well from the beginning because they share that common affliction. After a little while on the ship, Frankenstein starts to tell his story to Walton because he notices a common thirst for knowledge and exploration and wants to warn him of such dangerous passions.
Mary Shelley
From the very beginning of the novel, the themes of alienation and solitude are evident. Robert Walton decided to leave his family behind and pursue his dreams of exploring the North Pole, and he also gave up all stability. On the journey, Walton did not make any new friends (except for Frankenstein) and felt alienated from the crew members. Similarly, Victor Frankenstein abandoned his family in order to further his education and experiments. However, both men left behind their sisters, for whom they obviously loved very dearly. Walton wrote various letters, one addressed to "my dear sister" (Shelley, page 7), to his sister back in England , while Frankenstein described his as "my more than sister" (Shelley, page 18). It was extremely difficult for both men to leave their families, but they could not carry out their goals any other way. Walton feels alienated from his crew members until he meets Frankenstein and begins a new friendship. The alienation/solitude is part of the reason they get along so well from the beginning because they share that common affliction. After a little while on the ship, Frankenstein starts to tell his story to Walton because he notices a common thirst for knowledge and exploration and wants to warn him of such dangerous passions.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Much Madness is divinest Sense
"Much Madness is divinest Sense"
Emily Dickinson
The first time I read that poem, I honestly had no idea what she was talking about, so I'll start out with what struck me. The structure was very interesting because nearly every line ended with a dash mark, which could either separate two different thoughts or unite two others. I think that in this poem, they break up thoughts instead of periods, possibly to mimic her erratic thoughts. She also uses a contradiction, "Much Sense--the starkest Madness" (Dickinson, page 830), which makes a good point. Too much sense could lead to madness because the person could drive himself crazy with too-intelligent thoughts. The "Assent" and "Demur" parts were also very interesting because they gave comments directly to the "majority" who heard her point of view. I'm also confused as to what exactly a "Chain" is, and how would she "handle" people with it? I guess that after reviewing it several times, I do understand the main point of the poem. Dickinson thinks that the divinest sense is madness, and too much sense is also madness. I also think she is implying that she has a "discerning eye" because she presents that point of view regarding Sense.
I felt a Funeral, in my Brain
"I felt a Funeral, in my Brain"
Emily Dickinson
The first thing I noticed about this poem was the comma in the first line. It is not necessary in that context, and I think that Dickinson included it to add a description to the funeral, almost as if it were an afterthought. I also noticed that she capitalized some weird words that are not normally emphasized--"Mourners to and fro" (Dickinson, page 776). They immediately catch the reader and draw attention to those specific images. Imagery is the most dominant aspect of rhetoric in the poem, and it specifically includes imagery for most of the senses. I think I missed the purpose of the poem because I cannot get past the surface details of a funeral. I guess it could be describing her mental state, which is probably more accurate according to her other poems of the similar nature. Actually, I think it's more of the stages of her mental depreciation. A funeral is very mournful, which implies that she is obviously facing some sort of departure from her surroundings/acquaintances. I also think that the end represents either her mental death or the low-point in her mental health. And the last word and its structure are also very important because it is like an unfinished thought.
Emily Dickinson
The first thing I noticed about this poem was the comma in the first line. It is not necessary in that context, and I think that Dickinson included it to add a description to the funeral, almost as if it were an afterthought. I also noticed that she capitalized some weird words that are not normally emphasized--"Mourners to and fro" (Dickinson, page 776). They immediately catch the reader and draw attention to those specific images. Imagery is the most dominant aspect of rhetoric in the poem, and it specifically includes imagery for most of the senses. I think I missed the purpose of the poem because I cannot get past the surface details of a funeral. I guess it could be describing her mental state, which is probably more accurate according to her other poems of the similar nature. Actually, I think it's more of the stages of her mental depreciation. A funeral is very mournful, which implies that she is obviously facing some sort of departure from her surroundings/acquaintances. I also think that the end represents either her mental death or the low-point in her mental health. And the last word and its structure are also very important because it is like an unfinished thought.
APO 96225
"APO 96225"
Larry Rottmann
This poem was very interesting, especially with the evident irony. The son told his mother the light parts of war and the the weather he was experiencing. Like most parents, his wanted the truth about war and honesty about what he's actually been doing. The son came back with "Today I killed a man. Yesterday, I helped drop napalm on women and children" (Rottmann, page 846). The irony of the poem comes when his father asks him to stop being honest and just talk about the lighter subjects--after he had asked for the truth. The second question in the book was also interesting because it dealt with the war in Vietnam. [I obviously thought of Forrest Gump when I read this one.] Most Americans did not agree with going to war in Vietnam, so many people probably did not want to hear the negative, terrible aspects of the war situations. They only wanted the light parts of war, probably in order to distance themselves from the horrors of war. The theme of this unit of literature was alienation, which was pretty evident in this poem, although the speaker does have parents back home. I'm sure most soldiers feels alienated from their home countries when they are abroad, regardless of how many loved ones they left back home.
Larry Rottmann
This poem was very interesting, especially with the evident irony. The son told his mother the light parts of war and the the weather he was experiencing. Like most parents, his wanted the truth about war and honesty about what he's actually been doing. The son came back with "Today I killed a man. Yesterday, I helped drop napalm on women and children" (Rottmann, page 846). The irony of the poem comes when his father asks him to stop being honest and just talk about the lighter subjects--after he had asked for the truth. The second question in the book was also interesting because it dealt with the war in Vietnam. [I obviously thought of Forrest Gump when I read this one.] Most Americans did not agree with going to war in Vietnam, so many people probably did not want to hear the negative, terrible aspects of the war situations. They only wanted the light parts of war, probably in order to distance themselves from the horrors of war. The theme of this unit of literature was alienation, which was pretty evident in this poem, although the speaker does have parents back home. I'm sure most soldiers feels alienated from their home countries when they are abroad, regardless of how many loved ones they left back home.
Bartleby the Scrivener
"Bartleby the Scrivener"
Herman Melville
Well, we already discussed so many aspects of this piece today in class, so I want to focus on some of the questions from the paper. The third question asks about Bartleby's physical descriptions and their foreshadowing on his outcome. Throughout the piece, he is described as sort of sallow, small, pale, quiet, and eats only ginger nuts. These all contribute to his death in the end of the story because he is a weak person who has pretty much given up on life. Another questions asks about the tales of Turkey and Nippers. I thought some parts of their descriptions were hilarious, especially the thought that one was bad in the morning and fine in the afternoons while the other was hard working in the morning and terrible for the second half of the day. "When Nipper's was on, Turkey's was off, and vice versa. This was a good natural arrangement under the circumstances" (Melville, page 647). I think that the narrator introduced these two characters first in order to partially characterize himself. He was very passive towards them and allowed all sorts of mediocrity.
My favorite scene of the story was when Bartleby said he preferred not to do something, and then Turkey kept saying "prefer." It was hilarious and seemed right out of a sit-com. Other parts of the story were incredibly boring and very hard to finish, but I better understand the purpose now because of them.
Herman Melville
Well, we already discussed so many aspects of this piece today in class, so I want to focus on some of the questions from the paper. The third question asks about Bartleby's physical descriptions and their foreshadowing on his outcome. Throughout the piece, he is described as sort of sallow, small, pale, quiet, and eats only ginger nuts. These all contribute to his death in the end of the story because he is a weak person who has pretty much given up on life. Another questions asks about the tales of Turkey and Nippers. I thought some parts of their descriptions were hilarious, especially the thought that one was bad in the morning and fine in the afternoons while the other was hard working in the morning and terrible for the second half of the day. "When Nipper's was on, Turkey's was off, and vice versa. This was a good natural arrangement under the circumstances" (Melville, page 647). I think that the narrator introduced these two characters first in order to partially characterize himself. He was very passive towards them and allowed all sorts of mediocrity.
My favorite scene of the story was when Bartleby said he preferred not to do something, and then Turkey kept saying "prefer." It was hilarious and seemed right out of a sit-com. Other parts of the story were incredibly boring and very hard to finish, but I better understand the purpose now because of them.
Miss Brill
"Miss Brill"
Katherine Mansfield
When I first read "Miss Brill," I was pretty confused as to who the narrator was. I initially thought that she was the narrator, speaking in first person and telling her story. But when I finished it, I realized that she was not the one telling the story. The point of view is also very important in this story because it allows for the characterization of Miss Brill. It was very interesting because many parts seemed like they were coming from the thoughts of Miss Brill, not an outsider. "Miss Brill had often noticed--there was something funny about nearly all of them" (Mansfield, page 183). I don't know how the narrator could determine this without actually speaking with her. I was also confused with the ending--was Miss Brill actually a part of the performance or was she just sitting at the end of the row? The point of view also seemed omniscient, as when the narrator discussed the young couple who "had just arrived from his father's yacht" (Mansfield, page 185). And that part was so sad. Was the crying Miss Brill, or was she just imagining the fur or something making that noise?
Katherine Mansfield
When I first read "Miss Brill," I was pretty confused as to who the narrator was. I initially thought that she was the narrator, speaking in first person and telling her story. But when I finished it, I realized that she was not the one telling the story. The point of view is also very important in this story because it allows for the characterization of Miss Brill. It was very interesting because many parts seemed like they were coming from the thoughts of Miss Brill, not an outsider. "Miss Brill had often noticed--there was something funny about nearly all of them" (Mansfield, page 183). I don't know how the narrator could determine this without actually speaking with her. I was also confused with the ending--was Miss Brill actually a part of the performance or was she just sitting at the end of the row? The point of view also seemed omniscient, as when the narrator discussed the young couple who "had just arrived from his father's yacht" (Mansfield, page 185). And that part was so sad. Was the crying Miss Brill, or was she just imagining the fur or something making that noise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)