Frankenstein and the monster being the same person:
examples of wretch:How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? (ch5)
The picture appeared a vast and dim scene of evil, and I foresaw obscurely that I was destined to become the most wretched of human beings. (ch6)
A flash of lightning illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy dæmon, to whom I had given life.(ch6)
Dear lady, I had none to support me; all looked on me as a wretch doomed to ignominy and perdition (ch7)
"I truly thank him. In these last moments I feel the sincerest gratitude towards those who think of me with kindness. How sweet is the affection of others to such a wretch as I am! (ch7)
But even if I were condemned to suffer on the scaffold for the same crimes, I would not change places with such a wretch."(ch9)
I perceived, as the shape came nearer, (sight tremendous and abhorred!) that it was the wretch whom I had created.(ch10)
I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish, nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept.(ch11)
It was a lovely sight, even to me, poor wretch! who had never beheld aught beautiful before. (ch11)
The mild exhortations of the old man, and the lively conversation of the loved Felix, were not for me. Miserable, unhappy wretch!(ch13)
"He struggled violently. 'Let me go,' he cried; ' monster! ugly wretch! you wish to eat me, and tear me to pieces -- You are an ogre -- Let me go, or I will tell my papa.'(ch16)
I, a miserable wretch, haunted by a curse that shut up every avenue to enjoyment.(ch18)
The wretch saw me destroy the creature on whose future existence he depended for happiness, and, with a howl of devilish despair and revenge, withdrew.(ch20)
Presently I heard the sound of footsteps along the passage; the door opened, and the wretch whom I dreaded appeared.(ch20)
human beings, their feelings and passions, would indeed be degraded if such a wretch as I felt pride.(ch22)
I avoided explanation, and maintained a continual silence concerning the wretch I had created.(ch22)
"I am satisfied: miserable wretch! you have determined to live, and I am satisfied."(ch23)
and of the wretched Victor, and thrust your sword into his heart. (ch24)
"I thank you, Walton," he said, "for your kind intentions towards so miserable a wretch; but when you speak of new ties, and fresh affections, think you that any can replace those who are gone?
"Wretch!" I said, "it is well that you come here to whine over the desolation that you have made. (letters)
"But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept, and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery; I have pursued him even to that irremediable ruin.(letters)
I shall collect my funeral pile, and consume to ashes this miserable frame, that its remains may afford no light to any curious and unhallowed wretch, who would create such another as I have been. I shall die.(letters)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
2/25 notes
The Monster could represent many things: art, representation of child upbringing theories (nurture vs nature: monster had virtually zero nurture, could represent Victor's ego).
In one interesting study, a rise in abortion correlates to decrease in crime. When future children are not wanted, their upbringing is not proper. More people were having children who wanted to, less who didn't. This of course challenges the pro-life stance, intentionally or not. This is one of the great dividing moral issues of our time...I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on this, maybe because I can't physically become pregnant. I know that if I were to be in a situation where a future child was mine, pro-life would be my stance in that situation.
In one interesting study, a rise in abortion correlates to decrease in crime. When future children are not wanted, their upbringing is not proper. More people were having children who wanted to, less who didn't. This of course challenges the pro-life stance, intentionally or not. This is one of the great dividing moral issues of our time...I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion on this, maybe because I can't physically become pregnant. I know that if I were to be in a situation where a future child was mine, pro-life would be my stance in that situation.
How does the Monster's tale make you feel about him?
The monster's tale makes me feel heavy sympathy for him. He was described as coming into the world with a mental maturity comparable to a newborn. While early in the book he does some extremely violent things, I think that they can almost be dismissed as part of his existence. He does so after being immediately shunned by his creator, his father. All he wanted was Victor's companionship, and he received nothing. When the monster himself is narrating (kind of through Victor), he recalls events showing his good side. He helps a group of peasants and even saves a girl from drowning. Since he is so frightful in appearance, his good deeds are rewarded with disgust and beatings. As the monster continues on, being torn between vengeance on Victor and remorse for his negative actions in live, you really start to feel for him. Think of his situation: he comes into this world, and is immediately cast out. Everyone he encounters and disgusted and terrified of him. He goes through his whole life having no companions, and only one acquaintance: the man who created him. Too bad Victor is the one who basically has caused all of his suffering, and now is hell-bent on killing him. Really, has anyone in history ever gone through life not only knowing just one person, but having that one person hate him?
Monday, February 23, 2009
2/23 notes
A Proposal: unconditional, deep, divine love is terrifying. When someone really deeply loves you, instinct is to push them away so they can't hurt you: as in Rime of the Ancient Mariner. I'm not sure I agree with this, in fact I often find it comforting and desirable to have someone who cares about you completely. Then again, maybe I can't relate, because I have never had someone entirely obsessed with me.
During Victor's dream on night of monster's creation, he dreams of Elizabeth turning into his mother's corpse in his arms. This suggests that he is trying to overcome the death of his mother, or possibly of Elizabeth's future death, however near or far that is. It's as if he wants to prevent a possibility of a world without her.
Victor compares himself to Satan: most suffering of all. Elizabeth wished to die with J...it sounds like she was also suffering pretty bad (probably worse).
During Victor's dream on night of monster's creation, he dreams of Elizabeth turning into his mother's corpse in his arms. This suggests that he is trying to overcome the death of his mother, or possibly of Elizabeth's future death, however near or far that is. It's as if he wants to prevent a possibility of a world without her.
Victor compares himself to Satan: most suffering of all. Elizabeth wished to die with J...it sounds like she was also suffering pretty bad (probably worse).
comparing Victor and Walton
Victor Frankenstein and Robert Walton are similar in many ways. Walton is after the "country of eternal light", seeking to be the first man to reach the north pole. He thinks that this will put him in the history books, making him into a sort of god. Possessed by this drive, his disregards all safety to quest north. Frankenstein has this same sort of reckless abandon: he thinks that by discovering the secret of life and creating his own being, he will go down in history. Perhaps in a more extreme way than Walton, Victor disregards any consequences of his actions and is focused solely on achieving his goal. Both Victor and Walton seem to have a hard time relating to other humans, as they feel distanced, perhaps more important (self righteous) then everyone else. Both could be viewed as reckless mad scientist types as well as brave explorer types, in the end, however, it is only Victor who lets his drive overtake any morality or logic.
Friday, February 20, 2009
2/20 notes
Frankenstein:
Walton wants to be a poet or discoverer, wants to be great in some way
Victor is ambitious to be great, to overcome death itself. Shelley describes both as artists. Shelley was not indeed writing about how man shouldn't meddle with god's domain, but about analyzing the "why" of the pursuit of Victor, and all humans. Victor is seen as even more criticized in 1831 version. Victor frequently says things like "I was fated". This is simply not true - he decided for himself, it was not his actual fate. Victor exculpates himself, justifies his mistakes through myth. Is fate real, or is it simply a concept endorsed by those trying to justify their mistakes? Of course, fate is often credited to good accomplishments. Perhaps fate is a concept related to religion, in that both center around faith in a concept.
During the creation of his creature, Victor views himself as a god-like father, and that this being will owe him everything. He thinks that this being will be a great creation; benevolent and impressive. He is completely engulfed in this process, almost killing himself in creating this new life. Victor is extremely ego-centric: he believes that he can do no wrong, and he is "fated" for greatness.
Walton wants to be a poet or discoverer, wants to be great in some way
Victor is ambitious to be great, to overcome death itself. Shelley describes both as artists. Shelley was not indeed writing about how man shouldn't meddle with god's domain, but about analyzing the "why" of the pursuit of Victor, and all humans. Victor is seen as even more criticized in 1831 version. Victor frequently says things like "I was fated". This is simply not true - he decided for himself, it was not his actual fate. Victor exculpates himself, justifies his mistakes through myth. Is fate real, or is it simply a concept endorsed by those trying to justify their mistakes? Of course, fate is often credited to good accomplishments. Perhaps fate is a concept related to religion, in that both center around faith in a concept.
During the creation of his creature, Victor views himself as a god-like father, and that this being will owe him everything. He thinks that this being will be a great creation; benevolent and impressive. He is completely engulfed in this process, almost killing himself in creating this new life. Victor is extremely ego-centric: he believes that he can do no wrong, and he is "fated" for greatness.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
2/18 notes
Frankenstein, first published in 1819, republished in 1831 (class version)
Robert Walton, the ship captain, wants to find a passage to the north pole. This was a lifelong goal, due to his desire for fame. Walton wants to become king of elemental forces, elevating himself to a godly level. Along the way by boat, the crew encounters heavy ice and is unable to continue. While sitting, they find Frankenstein, and bring him on board. He's very sick - looks like he is about to die. Victor Frankenstein begins to tell them his story, to try to teach Walton a lesson. "Do you share my madness?" Frankenstein wants to save Walton from his mad quest for greatness, and has a desire for change.
Preface: written by husband Percy Bysshe Shelley (great poet). There is a theory that he wrote the entire novel: Dr. Mandell says that the man trying to prove this theory is insane, probably sexist. What would Percy's motivation be to do this? This scenario seems entirely ridiculous to me, a male attempt to discredit something great created by a female.
Robert Walton, the ship captain, wants to find a passage to the north pole. This was a lifelong goal, due to his desire for fame. Walton wants to become king of elemental forces, elevating himself to a godly level. Along the way by boat, the crew encounters heavy ice and is unable to continue. While sitting, they find Frankenstein, and bring him on board. He's very sick - looks like he is about to die. Victor Frankenstein begins to tell them his story, to try to teach Walton a lesson. "Do you share my madness?" Frankenstein wants to save Walton from his mad quest for greatness, and has a desire for change.
Preface: written by husband Percy Bysshe Shelley (great poet). There is a theory that he wrote the entire novel: Dr. Mandell says that the man trying to prove this theory is insane, probably sexist. What would Percy's motivation be to do this? This scenario seems entirely ridiculous to me, a male attempt to discredit something great created by a female.
Monday, February 16, 2009
2/16
Heathcliff as Frankenstein? (the monster or the doc?)
In the film from 1992, Cathy was played by same actress as Catherine: in a way, this reinforces the timeless love from Heathcliff, which in my opinion makes the movie more eerie. Heathcliff never could hate the real Catherine, just everyone else who represents her, or has had anything to do with their separation and ongoing love/hate relationship.
In the film from 1939, Heathcliff doesn't seem quite as dark as in the book, in fact, he could even be more handsome than the actor playing Linton. This is a little strange, as Heathcliff was never emphasized in the novel as being particularly handsome. Was the writer/producer of this film trying to portray Heathcliff in a different way, or way this simply a Hollywood situation of wanting the most attractive actors for the job? I feel that in contemporary cinema, the latter is true too often. In fact, I would bet there are thousands of amazing actors who would put current "stars" to shame. They just haven't had the chance, since they aren't Brad Pitt.
Scholarly articles often embody "dark sarcasm in the classroom" (pink floyd).
When high end jargon is taken out of the text, many times nothing is left. This is known as the "text curtain". Ordinary English is much more effective, and much less condescending. Maybe if more people bought in to this, groundbreaking and important thoughts could be much more mainstream. Do the current "intellectuals" even want this to happen, or do they want to keep it in the elite world of academia?
In the film from 1992, Cathy was played by same actress as Catherine: in a way, this reinforces the timeless love from Heathcliff, which in my opinion makes the movie more eerie. Heathcliff never could hate the real Catherine, just everyone else who represents her, or has had anything to do with their separation and ongoing love/hate relationship.
In the film from 1939, Heathcliff doesn't seem quite as dark as in the book, in fact, he could even be more handsome than the actor playing Linton. This is a little strange, as Heathcliff was never emphasized in the novel as being particularly handsome. Was the writer/producer of this film trying to portray Heathcliff in a different way, or way this simply a Hollywood situation of wanting the most attractive actors for the job? I feel that in contemporary cinema, the latter is true too often. In fact, I would bet there are thousands of amazing actors who would put current "stars" to shame. They just haven't had the chance, since they aren't Brad Pitt.
Scholarly articles often embody "dark sarcasm in the classroom" (pink floyd).
When high end jargon is taken out of the text, many times nothing is left. This is known as the "text curtain". Ordinary English is much more effective, and much less condescending. Maybe if more people bought in to this, groundbreaking and important thoughts could be much more mainstream. Do the current "intellectuals" even want this to happen, or do they want to keep it in the elite world of academia?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
What does James Phillips do that helps people better understand Catherine Earnshaw's relationships of "love"?
This article, "The Two Faces of Love in Wuthering Heights", (found on Academic Search Complete) greatly helped me to understand and have insight into not just the specific scene in which Heathcliff overhears Catherine discussing her love of Linton, but her relationship and outlook on her love for Linton and Heathcliff throughout the novel. Phillips describes the two loves of Catherine in different terms: Heathcliff as the transcendental face of love, and Linton as the empirical face. Phillips defines the two types of love, empirical and transcendental in terms of the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant: Kant believes that empirical thinking is based off of a background of the transcendental. It cannot exist alone, and it must exist if transcendental thinking (how things appear to us, not necessarily what they actually are) occurs. Phillips describes transcendental as "the necessary and universal structures of experience". Although the occurrences and time line of Catherine's love life were very clear in the novel, I found that at times, it was hard to understand the reasons for her actions. For example, although she marries Linton, she says that she is in love with Heathcliff. Understanding this proved to be difficult through merely interpreting Catherine's words, and this article offered some good insight.
In chapter 9, Catherine puts into words how she feels about each of her loves. She says that ‘My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods. Time will change it, I’m well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath — a source of little visible delight, but necessary’. Phillips suggests that the reason Catherine never considers having two loves as a highly immoral situation is because Catherine relates the two as separate types of love - empirical and transcendental.
In Catherine's relationship with Linton, Phillips says that 'Catherine’s love is determined empirically: it presupposes a scrutiny of experience and an evaluation of the relevant data.' Basically, she loves him in the now because he is beautiful and has money. If these circumstances were to change, it's as if she thinks she has the right to retract that love. Phillips suggests that Catherine does indeed love Linton, but only because of his "lovability". He says that in order to qualify for traditional "true love" circumstances, however, Catherine would need the love to be two-fold: empirical and transcendental. He says that the love for Phillip can never exceed the empirical realm so long as the transcendental love for Heathcliff exists: to happen would blur the separation of the two, perhaps causing Catherine to actually feel guilt.
Heathcliff perfectly fits Kant's idea of the transcendental: he has to exist for Catherine in order for Linton to. He is to her "a source of little visible delight, but necessary". Phillips asserts that this love is not dependent simply on the two's infatuation with each other's individuality, but because, as Catherine says, Heathcliff is the same person as her. Close to the end of the novel, Heathcliff expresses his feelings towards Catherine as she is dying. He scorns her, saying that she has killed herself, and that she deserved to die. He feels as if she has ultimately betrayed him by marrying Linton. Phillips thinks that Catherine does not feel the same at all: from analyzing her words, he feels that she cannot possibly abandon Heathcliff, because their love exceeds that of Linton, which relies on physical facts such as his wealth and appearance. He says that their relationship is "indissoluble", and suggests that Catherine treats Heathcliff badly simply to prove to herself that the relationship is bullet-proof. Phillips thinks that her torture of Heathcliff is in fact a necessary part of their relationship; the cruelty is 'in the service of the transcendental aspect of love because it is the test of empirical destructibility from which the bond between Catherine and Heathcliff is to emerge triumphant. Catherine never pauses to consider that there might be a point of no return. She puts their love to the test, not because she doubts it, but because she glories in the spectacle of its indubitability. Everyone around her takes this for capriciousness." This is the statement that made her ill-treatment of Heathcliff finally understandable to me: she does it because she knows she can. In my opinion, this makes her not only extremely greedy, but a bit of a sadist.
The combination of Catherine's two types of love somehow does not make her insane, but work in harmony. Since part of her love capacity is occupied by each of the men, the two cannot occupy the same realm, making each balance the other out. Phillips sums this up as following for Catherine: "No choice can be made without overthrowing the distinction on which Catherine's loves stand. She must love both in order for the love she feels for Heathcliff to be what it is and in order for the love she feels for Linton to be what it is." To me, viewing Catherine as such makes her seem like the least moral character in the story. Heathcliff is bent on revenge, but only because he has been wronged continually by the one he truly loves. While one could argue that his marriage makes him equally as bad of a person, Catherine seems perfectly content to torture both men she "loves", only so that she can feel personally fulfilled.
Phillips, James. "The Two Faces of Love in Wuthering Heights." Brontë Studies 32.2 (2007): 96-105.
In chapter 9, Catherine puts into words how she feels about each of her loves. She says that ‘My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods. Time will change it, I’m well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath — a source of little visible delight, but necessary’. Phillips suggests that the reason Catherine never considers having two loves as a highly immoral situation is because Catherine relates the two as separate types of love - empirical and transcendental.
In Catherine's relationship with Linton, Phillips says that 'Catherine’s love is determined empirically: it presupposes a scrutiny of experience and an evaluation of the relevant data.' Basically, she loves him in the now because he is beautiful and has money. If these circumstances were to change, it's as if she thinks she has the right to retract that love. Phillips suggests that Catherine does indeed love Linton, but only because of his "lovability". He says that in order to qualify for traditional "true love" circumstances, however, Catherine would need the love to be two-fold: empirical and transcendental. He says that the love for Phillip can never exceed the empirical realm so long as the transcendental love for Heathcliff exists: to happen would blur the separation of the two, perhaps causing Catherine to actually feel guilt.
Heathcliff perfectly fits Kant's idea of the transcendental: he has to exist for Catherine in order for Linton to. He is to her "a source of little visible delight, but necessary". Phillips asserts that this love is not dependent simply on the two's infatuation with each other's individuality, but because, as Catherine says, Heathcliff is the same person as her. Close to the end of the novel, Heathcliff expresses his feelings towards Catherine as she is dying. He scorns her, saying that she has killed herself, and that she deserved to die. He feels as if she has ultimately betrayed him by marrying Linton. Phillips thinks that Catherine does not feel the same at all: from analyzing her words, he feels that she cannot possibly abandon Heathcliff, because their love exceeds that of Linton, which relies on physical facts such as his wealth and appearance. He says that their relationship is "indissoluble", and suggests that Catherine treats Heathcliff badly simply to prove to herself that the relationship is bullet-proof. Phillips thinks that her torture of Heathcliff is in fact a necessary part of their relationship; the cruelty is 'in the service of the transcendental aspect of love because it is the test of empirical destructibility from which the bond between Catherine and Heathcliff is to emerge triumphant. Catherine never pauses to consider that there might be a point of no return. She puts their love to the test, not because she doubts it, but because she glories in the spectacle of its indubitability. Everyone around her takes this for capriciousness." This is the statement that made her ill-treatment of Heathcliff finally understandable to me: she does it because she knows she can. In my opinion, this makes her not only extremely greedy, but a bit of a sadist.
The combination of Catherine's two types of love somehow does not make her insane, but work in harmony. Since part of her love capacity is occupied by each of the men, the two cannot occupy the same realm, making each balance the other out. Phillips sums this up as following for Catherine: "No choice can be made without overthrowing the distinction on which Catherine's loves stand. She must love both in order for the love she feels for Heathcliff to be what it is and in order for the love she feels for Linton to be what it is." To me, viewing Catherine as such makes her seem like the least moral character in the story. Heathcliff is bent on revenge, but only because he has been wronged continually by the one he truly loves. While one could argue that his marriage makes him equally as bad of a person, Catherine seems perfectly content to torture both men she "loves", only so that she can feel personally fulfilled.
Phillips, James. "The Two Faces of Love in Wuthering Heights." Brontë Studies 32.2 (2007): 96-105.
Monday, February 9, 2009
2/9 notes
Heathcliff's revenge: Heathcliff overhears Catherine talking, saying that reason that she cannot be with him is because Hindley brings him down to such a low social class. Before he hears her talk about how much she loves him regardless, he storms out. The first part of Heathcliff's revenge begins with Heath marrying Isabelle. This is done for several reasons, all centering around revenge on the Linton family. This is partially to make Cathy jealous, but more so to get to Edgar. It kind of ends up being a "you take my girl, I'll take yours" situation. Another part of Heathcliff's revenge involves acquiring Wuthering Heights from Hindley through a card game. Something to think about: soulmates. Does this apply to Cat and Heath? Is a soulmate someone who you frequently disagree with? Is it needing the other person to survive? Doesn't this seem fairly oppressive? I think that a "soulmate", if such a thing exists, is someone who you can share ideas and opinions with respectfully, not someone with whom you would argue with until you want to kill them. You share a love and understanding of each other that transcends differences that would normally cause huge arguments. This does not mean you are the same person: I think that such a thing is impossible. The beauty is in the difference: not in being ideal. Wuthering Heights as the greatest love story of all time? I would disagree with that, but I would go as far as to say it is a novel having some of the best character development ever written. Every character is highly complex, having both good and evil, and acting based on a large group of experiences and complex inter-character histories.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Heathcliff
Basically, the whole book of Wuthering Heights centers around Heathcliff. You can tell he is somewhat of an odd and possibly evil character from the first time we are introduced to him. He is said to have "black eyes", with a suspicious look about him. Heathcliff seems to have a very vengeful drive throughout the book, with most of the plot rotating around his desire for vengeance. Where I am in the novel, I am having a very difficult time understanding this character. It almost seems as if beneath his rough and brooding exterior lies some type of good, wanting to do what's right, being some type of romantic hero. I wonder how much more of his violence and malintent I can take before any hope for good is erased from his character.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2/4 notes
Wuthering Heights notes:
The story has a very dark beginning. Lockwood is immediately portrayed as a misanthrope: one who hates other people. Heathcliffe has a son who has died, has a daughter in law who hates him, and has hunting dog who hates him (who he kicks). He tends to treat people pretty much in the same way as his dog. When reading chapter 3, it is important to know the meaning of maxillary convulsions: grinding teeth, angry, trying to hold back crying.
The story has a very dark beginning. Lockwood is immediately portrayed as a misanthrope: one who hates other people. Heathcliffe has a son who has died, has a daughter in law who hates him, and has hunting dog who hates him (who he kicks). He tends to treat people pretty much in the same way as his dog. When reading chapter 3, it is important to know the meaning of maxillary convulsions: grinding teeth, angry, trying to hold back crying.
Monday, February 2, 2009
digital rape
I found the case of Mr Bungle to be a very intriguing one. Did he commit rape? What is rape? Rape can traditionally be defined as unwanted, forced sexual intercourse. Now, in this case, there was no type of sexual intercourse. There was nothing physically, as everything happened in a MOO, which basically is a beefed-up chatroom. Perhaps what Mr Bungle was guilty of is not as serious as rape, but rather guilty of being an asshole. But is that all? I think that in this case, he was guilty of criminal sexual harassment, even if it only involved fictional characters. He was assaulting individuals, without their consent. He was most certainly unwelcome, and while I generally do not agree with censorship, he was past the line of speaking mind and harassing others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)