More Frankenstein Notes.

The monster decides he wants a mate. So Victor starts the task of building one, but upon realizing the potential danger, destroys his work. The monster then threatens to kill someone on his wedding night. Yet, at any one meeting the monster could have killed Victor. Why didn't he? Are Victor and the monster one and the same person? Is this all hallucination in the form of the monster? Is Victor a self-destructive person? A Jake Lamotta? And if you've never seen Raging Bull you probably won't get that reference.



If they are in fact the same person, why would Victor want to kill his loved ones? It seems as if Victor uses wretched to describe all that is bad in his life, or perhaps all that does not live up to a certain level of expectation, in regards to happiness for him. He also curiously used the word to describe his homestead after the devastation of his brother's death. Shelley seems to allow the character Walton to use this word when describing Victor upon seeing him in the Arctic, much in the same way Victor will continually describe himself throughout the rest of the novel.

The only other example of wretch being used to describe anything other than the monster or Victor himself is in the description of Victor's father's friend, Beaufort.

A wretch looks in the mirror and sees a wretch...





The "one" who achieves life, the "one" who prevents death..
Are the death's of Victor's family members and friend part of Victor's worry that they could potentially hurt him too much?

The Romantics valued Milton's Satan over Milton's God. Our tendency to sympathize with the villian, perhaps because we see so much of ourselves in him, certainly comes into play here.

Notes

Many Different Perspectives on Bringing up Children

Mary Shelley writes Frankenstein at 19. How could such a young girl write about things so horrible? 

We could look towards Locke's essays as thought on how children are formed. It is said if you bring up children properly you will have a better world. Yet, Day decides he won't teach his children anything... let them decide for themselves. Let them stick their hands in fire and get burned. "On Prejudices" mentions giving children something to go on: children tear their toys apart to see how they work. Still, Godwin makes mention that the peasants grew up watching aristocrats, and thus learned the nature of killing and implemented it into the revolution.

So are we all narcissists because of our parents' cultivation of us, our supposed progressive upbringing? Neglect from his parent, provokes the monster's atrocities. All the monster knows is violence. Nature vs. Nurture comes into play here. The monster is so impressionable for he has no one to teach him right from wrong. He simply goes from experience. But surely this monster knows that murder was wrong, as clearly he put the picture in Justine's pocket to frame her of such an atrocity.

Do parents sometimes raise their children in a certain way, so as to prove their superior parenting skills? "My child is better than yours!" Look how many sports he plays, instruments he commands, grades he maintains. Could there be any relationship between kids acting in way that is deemed 'inappropriate' by their parents (in order to prove, to the parents, that they refuse to be that which the adults want so much and seem only to love the child for -instead of loving them for who already are) and the monster's actions upon poor murdered William. When we look closer though, we see not an initial desire to kill William, but instead an attempt to befriend him.

Just as driving cannot be taught in a test- you learn the basics but truly acquiring road skills comes only from experience on the road: navigating disasters, avoiding obstacles, gaining knowledge: however, parenting can not be learned any other way than being one. There is no great rule-book, you simply try your best and pick it up over time. Knowledge is gained eventually and only through your initial set of  values and personal convictions  can you hope to even come through as a decent parent, from those ignorant beginnings at the birth of the child.

The Unwanted Child

The Monster's story allows for more respect concerning his existence and struggle, even going so far as to beg you to sympathize with him. His story recounts things we all have gone through: rejection, loneliness, a desire to fit in, to know our purpose; yet his is a story so dramatic that this mythical creature, who seems a phantom or emblem of fear at first notice, becomes at once understood and pitied.
Slowly he has become aware of the unethical creation behind his life, and probably the most horrific realization of all: that his very creator wants nothing to do with him, even despising his very existence.
So the monster fights to make sense of this world and surroundings that he finds himself in, the unwanted child of society, yet never giving up; finding inspiration in those he lodges next door to. At first, he contributes to the poverty of his neighbors and upon the guilt he feels from that action, tries to make it right by secretly giving back. Not much unlike Victor's guilt, I'm sure, for the accusation of Justine in the murder of his brother.
Nevertheless, the monster does make attempts to become 'human', yet he is rejected both by his neighbors and also by an action to help a girl in need.
One can understand slowly the dread towards human nature that would build up, in this being, after time, and has eventually become apparent in the murder of Victor's kid brother.
The monster's request for a mate seems reasonable, but we as the reader know just how much of Victor's life will be required to go back into that process of creation. And lest he should allow someone else, like Elizabeth, to undergo that process too, he will have to postpone the only true happiness in his life right now. Will he do it...

Notes

Victor's desire to create/sustain life: His quest for divine powers may also possibly be a desire to gain that which he had lost with the death of his mother.

Three poems directly related
Aeschylus's"Prometheus Bound"- 'these slimy things live on and so do I' - the character sees the beauty and is saved but must retell his story. The bird, here, becomes a Christlike figure, so why would he want to kill a bird he loves? It seems unconditional, deep, divine love is a scary thing. You would simply not want to belong to any club that would have you as a member.
"Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner"



"Alastor"- Alastor sent the dream to the poet; the poet, in turn, spurned her because he was afraid of love. Does Victor spurn nature's gifts in the process of creation? He used to get joy out of nature but during the creation he gives up all that joy. Is Victor building the monster to resurrect his mother or to prevent elizabeth from ever dying? Victor, it seems, is afraid of a world without Elizabeth. He cuts off connection with her during the entire process of creation.

Victor's show of jumping all over the chair portrayed a wildness in his eyes, that Clerval picked up on.



"Before I was attacked by the fatal passions..." AKA "Before I indulged in my egotistical dream to create a new species."
One side of this lays blame to something else. Another allows Victor to take fault for those things in his life. Shelley here critiques her character Victor of too often being an innocent bystander.

"I bore a hell within me.." Victor thinks that he suffers most because he is guilty. Elizabeth supposedly suffers less because she is innocent.
Yet, Elizabeth says "I wish I could die with you" - clearly she is suffering too.

Notes

Walton wants to overcome the mundane boundaries of life; wants to be a poet and discoverer. Victor has desires to become a scientist. Yet, both these men are artists consumed by obsession. Within this story, Mary Shelley critiques the romantic artist.

The 1831 version shows Victor's obsession with secrets and adds the concept of fate.
Thus, does she let Victor off the hook? Excusing the romantic artist by assuming fate holds the responsibility would certainly do so.

Laura says that the 1831 version does not just introduce the concept of fate, but the idea of Victor claiming " I was fated." Here, Victor is not let off the hook; he simply tries to exonerate himself by blaming fate. Not that fate was necessarily to blame, but that the main character has brainwashed himself into allowing this fate concept to rob him of all his responsibility. (He is really still to blame from the reader's point of view).

Alchemy is the search for sorcerers stones; the search for immortality. Alchemists are in a sense, magicians. This was in a time before scientific exploration or processes. What Aristotle said was truth. The 'Great Man' theory held up. These Alchemists aspired to be 'great men'.



It was a battle between the old scientists and the new ones.

What the class says about Victor's process:
He allows the process to take over his life. His imagination fogs his perception of reality and what he is really creating, carried on by the idea of what he can accomplish. He attempts to create life while neglecting his own. A modern term for this behavior would be obsessive compulsive. He creates a 'God complex' for himself. It is the expectation he holds of being adored by his creation; of being worshiped. This creative process takes his own life as he, in turn, gives it to another. Could this be compared with pregnancy? Mary Shelley's mother died while giving birth to her. And as an artist, she would know about giving some of herself to the creation- or the creation giving something unto herself? If you feel empty at the end of a creation should you be doing something else? Well, clearly Victor becomes so excited by his first success that he continues on, ignorant of the moral responsibilities of his next undertaking. Immersed in and working for his 'Ego'. The ego cannot be associated with the exercise of art. In art one must work through the ego.

"A mind of modern capacity... consumed with one study"

Is this a criticism of specialization by Mary Shelley? The minuteness of pieces take too long. Victor doesn't want to be slowed down. About speed. Its all about Victor's ego. A concern with self. Shelley critiques also here the very way of being an artist.

Notes

Discussion on Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights:

How could Emily Bronte create such a vile character as Heathcliff? The class remarks that sometimes when you create, that creation evolves out of your control. The artist, in turn becomes inspired by the very creation they have brought about. In this case, the characters start leading the action instead of the writer controlling the situation.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein:

Walton wants to be remembered, even if he is not necessarily ready to commit to the processes of becoming great in a certain aspect. He spends a year trying to become a Homer or a Shakespeare.

Lamont is quoted as saying: "Getting published won't give the results you think you will get." Yet, this comes from someone who has, in fact, been published.

Frankenstein published in two editions: 1819 (finished 1816) and 1831

"Unhappy man! Do you share my madness?"

Mary Shelley's husband, Percy Shelley, was alive for the 1819 version; even writing an introduction. Percy was a great poet.

Walton as Frankenstein

The character Walton, does in many ways, resemble the title character Dr. Frankenstein. He seems a man possessed by his own undertaking, unable to turn back, even upon seeing imminent danger. For too long he has been content with calm existence, and now that he has the chance to truly live... he shall take it to no ends. For better or worse.

"My life has been passed in ease and luxury; but I preferred glory to every enticement that wealth placed..."( page 7)

What is it that drives men, often past any logical understanding, to far greater lengths than perhaps they should have ever gone. Surely, some of the most interesting men have become consumed by a life's passion and work.






Perhaps the character Walton will take head of Frankenstein 's story. Maybe he will become a better man by listening to the faults of another.

What the class says

Wuthering Heights is discussed as in relation to Kant: Heathcliff's love as being a transcendental love. In other words, it transcends all time. Another Scholarly Article compares Heathcliff to the monster in Frankenstein (or is it Dr. Frankenstein himself?). He strikes down his daughter, then has a moment of reflection. And yet another comparison of Heathcliff, as drawn from the book, labels him the personification of capitalism

Scholarly Articles
Are they written for the average person? Laura argues that scholar's write these articles, and while they are very well prepared, they become only applicable to those who are at an equal level of education within respected fields. When scholars have to simplify their message they often have great trouble. It appears that wihting society; however, some will seek out scholarly articles and some will seek out simpler definitions. There will never be a consensus.

The class on the films:

One creative procedure involves the same actress that portraying Catherine, portraying her daughter, as well. Film versions lack however, in that, they are not quite as dark as the book hints at. Yet, some of the nonverbal actions are much easier to understand when viewing individuals acting them out, instead of simply reading them on a page.

Laura's Message: Don't marry your soul-mate, he's a bum. Marry the person you want to have children with.

A look at the Film/ A look at the book

In watching the film version of Wuthering Heights, I randomly chose the 1939 version, which was free, and in good quality on Hulu.com. However, I did not know that this film adaption chose to leave out the entire second half of the book, therefore, the only major scene from the last part of the book that I can talk about would be the scene of the elder Catherine's death.
Now, the movie differs slightly in this scene from the book, the most dramatic difference being that she is not giving birth to a daughter here, yet other liberties were taken that I thought were interesting. I particularly like the act of Heathcliff (played here by Mr. Laurence Olivier) picking up Catherine (Merle Oberon) and carrying here to the window to look out over their beloved Moors.
It was as if that was the only place those two could truly be themsleves, to live with no expectations of others' standards. (Catherine, it seems, got married for fear of shame. If only she could have only gotten past some shame culture notion, she could have experienced something more; some true freedom with the one she knew she was most comfortable around).
The moors, themselves, also hint at representing a kind of past innocence. Certainly, an innocence that has here eroded over time, what with her marriage to the character Edgar, and Heathcliff's tragic misinterpretation of Cahterine's speech to Nellly. Yet it remains an innocence that these two characters look back on so fondly. A remembrance that they are haunted by now, looking out over their one conquered "castle", horrified of dying one without the other and of being separated in death for so long a period as it takes the other eventually join.
This scene was a nice addition in the film, and yet, as much as I like it, I can't say I liked the portrayal of Catherine at all. She is, of course, a very indecisive character, but in the film adaption she comes off as being a complete ghost. Never seeming to show any life; just a blank face staring out into the dust of her surroundings.
At least in the book, Catherine shows some forcefulness. Take the scene in which Heathcliff becomes aware of Edgar's soon return from service and is continually trying to get up from holding his beloved. Yet she refuses, in the book, to let him leave, "' You must not go!' she says, holding him firmly.... He would have risen, and unfixed her fingers in the act- she clung fast, grasping; there was a mad resolution in her face" (page 143). A different Catherine entirely.

The class notes that it would, in fact, degrade Cathy to marry Heathcliff. Yet would she truly feel worse or would this woman just be overwhelmed under all the expected social norms surrounding her.

It is possible that Heathcliff and Cathy's are a bit too much alike. Would you really want someone who is identical to your every feelings and thoughts. Two individuals should probably be compatible- possibly have the same faith, interests, and ideas- yet even identical twins are not exactly alike

"Heathcliff is like myself, always within me"

Would that not be suffocating?

And within this story the idea is set that quite certainly no one is truly angelic. Heathcliff, though we feel for him, is in no way an angel of nature. This flaw within the established protagonist separates good art from bad art. That the characters feel real to us; that they have as many faults as we have, allow us, as the reader, to identify with them.

Thrushcross Grange comes to represent a much more presentable aspect of society (pretentious), while Wuthering Heights, on the other hand, paints a picture of Aristocratic vice. The moors, themselves, show nature in all its simplistic beauty, "out into the wild things"; something that could never be tamed by English society.

Heathcliff

The character Heathcliff, from Emile Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" is a complicated case. At once cast into a world that was not his, he became the bearer of bad fortune by becoming a favorite of the master. It is, of course, natural that the biological children would become jealous of this, as Hindley did, but sad, nevertheless, because it was not something the young Heathcliff asked to be brought upon himself. After his protector dies, the end of the young man's reign seems apparent until the young girl takes a liking to him. It is within their friendship that Heathcliff finds peace. He is different, both darker in complexion and hair colour from the established wealth of his suroundings, yet with Cathy he has no need to pretend to be something that he is not. Simply able to be themselves, each of the children enjoy the other's company. This purest of realtionships is eventually destroyed; however, by the continuing hatred haboured by Hinley towards Heathcliff, and the desire of his wife to reform Cathy of her childish ways. With all his own house against him, the Lintons repulsed, the maid ubable to say anything, and even his old playmate suprisingly indifferent towards him now; he is left with nothing.
This emptiness leaves him with a last resort to conform to their expected standards, and yet when even this attempt is thwarted, Heathcliff fills his existence with the seemingly only emotion he has left: revenge.

Maxillary Convulsions

Notes 2/4

Emily Bronte is the sister of Charlotte Bronte, the author of Jane Eyre. Both growing to be very talented, they each used pen names that could easily be interpreted as male. Emily eventually called a "female shakespere" for her time in Britain.

Within the first few chapters of "Wuthering Heights", we are introduced to Lockwood, a misanthrope (hater of people). Once falling in love with a young woman, he fails to voice his affection, thus forcing the admired lady to finally doubt what she too feels is love. Because of his withdrawal, she leaves and he is left alone.

What is it that forces some to desire, and yet at the hint of obtaining that which is wanted, they lose all interest. Perhaps, by taking this route one can avoid love, or perhaps it is simply a game, causing a rush inside the person.

Our character, Lockwood, loves being around those who cannot stand him. He visits Heathcliff, who seems to have a strong desire to love only himself first; a boyish attribute, though he himself, is a grown man.

A key definition to know while reading chapter three would be maxillary convulsions. It is defined as a grinding of the teeth to avoid frustration or perhaps crying. Lockwood pushes Heathcliff into Maxillary convulsions.

Notes

Trauma

spawns from our early involvement with movies and even books

The emotional investment we put within a character eventually manifests itself within our overall reaction to the work. Our very outlook on situations; life; individuals can be changed through the words of a skilled author. Though they are just words on a page, you can feel as thought these are 'true' events, with real people and honest emotions... You feel as if this all could be happening to you.

Bungle

Yes Mr. Bungle did commit a type of rape. Aside from the lines between real and fantasy, virtual and physical, to act in a way that threatens society is overtly wrong. Not merely the act of causing harm to another human- or in this case computer character- but simply the thought, within itself  is something that one needs to have checked out. 

Actions spawn from the thoughts. And to harbor these threatening ideas will eventually lead to damaging repercussions, either harming yourself or someone around you. The character may not have been real, and the entire situation may have never physically happened, but someone's imagination had to dictate those commands.

The greatest computer in the world can only do that which it is told to do.