An interesting video

Here's a somewhat funny animated version of Metamorphosis, it's only the first part of it though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfrBcjisVo&

Society: 1 Individuality: 0

Lu Xun’s Diary of a Madman does an excellent job of conveying the fear that must have gone along with acting outside of the social norm in the restrictive Chinese culture of the early 1900’s. In a lot of ways I think this piece actually mirrors Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler in that it is about conformity, and the suppression of individuality. Where Hedda was at odds with her gender’s accepted place in society, and her desire to break away from that place, The Madman is at odds with how society eats individuals; unlike Hedda however, The Madman makes a dramatic transition through the story. Early on in his diary The Madman writes, “Even though I don’t eat human flesh, I still have a lot more courage than those who do.” (Xun 1923), as he fights to assert his independence from society and it’s customs. I think that this passage is important because by it’s tone it is putting down society for ‘eating people’, but at the same time his tone indicates some level of acceptance of the way society works. I think that represents the turning point for The Madman, as he begins to realize that despite his individuality he is still a part of society whether he likes it or not. Towards the end of the story, The Madman writes “Although I wasn’t aware of it in the beginning, now that I know I’m someone with four thousand years’ experience of cannibalism behind me, how hard it is to look real human beings in the eye” (Xun 1929), indicating his acceptance that while he disliked society, he was still a part of it, and indeed still responsible for his own part in it. Diary of a Madman seems to bridge the gap between Romanticism and Enlightenment, presenting a compromise of sorts between Society and Individuality, and recognizing both as having merit.

Whitman's Song of Myself

In Whitman’s Song of Myself, section 7, he presents a speaker who is open minded and accepting, but at the same time the speaker is innocent and naive of evil. The first stanza sets an interesting tone for the rest of the section, as the speaker says, “Has anyone supposed it lucky to be born? I hasten to inform him or her it is just as lucky to die, and I know it” (Whitman 983). This statement is playing on the audience’s preconception of life and death, and asserts a connection between life and death; presenting them as identical events in the course of life. In the second stanza the speaker again associates life and death when he says, “I pass death with the dying and birth with the new-washed babe” (Whitman 983), and again tries to bend the listener to acceptance of death and it’s union with life.

I’d like to contrast that perspective of utmost optimism and acceptance with the writings of Frederick Douglass. In Douglass’s Narrative Of The Life, he writes of one particular incident in his life that “It was the blood-stained gate, the entrance to the hell of slavery, through which I was about to pass. It was a most terrible spectacle. I wish I could commit to paper the feelings with which I beheld it” (Douglass 925). I think the differences in view between Whitman and Douglass are extreme to say the least, with Whitman writing of acceptance and even writing, “Undrape! you are not guilty to me . . . “ (Whitman 983). Whitman’s writings, while inspirational and well written, show a level of innocence that is separate, and perhaps ignorant of the cruel and evil nature that some people possess, as was demonstrated in Douglass’s account.

Hope of Freedom

After reading Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler I find myself disagreeing with the introduction. The introduction portrays Hedda as a vicious and malicious woman, however I believe that she was only responding to the circumstances others placed her in; not acting out of malice. We’re given a picture of Hedda as being aloof and haughty, but what is only hinted at is the manipulative nature of the people who surround her.

All of the men in the story are obsessed with Hedda, even to the point of self destruction. Judge Brack actively pursues her, despite her turning down his advances, and Eilert is equally obsessed, and desires her greatly. Even her husband is so focused on her that he ignores his growing debt, and overlooks her faults to avoid confrontation; but none of them truly loves Hedda, and they only seek to control her. Where the introduction paints Hedda as being malicious, I think that she simply felt trapped by all of the people trying to control her life, and responded in the only way that she knew how; which was to try and control them as well. We’re shown how Judge Brack desires to be Hedda’s “. . . trusted friend . . . ” (Ibsen 1484), and gives Hedda strong indications of his true desire. However it is not until he gains power over Hedda by blackmail. We’re also shown how Eilert tries to manipulate her into giving herself to him when he says “Didn’t you love me either? Not - just a little?” (Ibsen 1493), and later when he tells her “Yes Hedda. You’re a coward at heart” (Ibsen 1494). Her husband George also tries to manipulate her, and in essence bribes her to become his wife by promising her the freedoms of social life, but when his career plans fall through, he immediately reneges on his promises.

Hedda wanted freedom, from the men who constantly hounded her, and from the society pressuring her to be something she was not. When Judge Brack blackmails her and she realized that she would never be free, and that she was “Dependent on [his] will, and [his] demands. Not free. Still not free!” (Ibsen 1517), Hedda took the only path that she saw remaining; that of suicide. In doing so she did what she envisioned for Eilert, and had “. . . the courage and the will to rise from the feast of life so early” (Ibsen 1515), and found her freedom.

Birth of Individuality

In reading the work of Frederick Douglass I feel that I am starting to see the distinction between the Enlightenment and Romantic periods much more strongly, and getting a better grasp on what that distinction means. Whether by design or accident, I actually see a lot of those same differences in Douglass’s work as he describes his own education, and eventual acquisition of identity as a person. During the early parts of Douglass’s story he shows us how the slave masters did everything in their power to deprive their slaves of a personal identity, and Douglass writes that “I do not remember to have ever met a slave who could tell of his birthday” (Douglass 923). In a lot of ways this reminds me of the Enlightenment view of society vs. individual, as the slave masters tried to suppress personal concerns in the slaves, in an attempt to govern them as a group. As Douglass progressed in educating himself he gains awareness of both himself and his surroundings, and begins to understand both why the slave masters suppressed their individuality, and the horrific nature of their scheme. When Douglass becomes aware of just how cruel his own circumstances were, he writes, “It had given me a view of my wretched condition, without the remedy. It opened my eyes to the horrible pit, but to no ladder upon which to get out” (Douglass 941). I think that as Douglass learned more about himself, he realized that being a slave was a state of being, not a personal identity.

There seems to be a strong relationship between Douglass’s early state of being a slave and the Enlightenment system of dealing with society rather than individuals, further, Douglass’s discovery that he was a person and not some meaningless part of a societal caste of slaves, fits very well with the idea of Romanticism.

Competitive Misery

I think it is almost comical the continual competition between Victor and The Monster, to prove which of them has suffered the most; they seem much like two children competing to be recognized for their suffering. Ironically they both bring their state of suffering onto themselves by their desire to feel validated in themselves, seeking attention from others, while at the same time believing that no one else could possibly understand what they are going through. In that regard I can see how strongly Shelley’s work ties into the Romantic period, since both Victor and The Monster are so caught up in their own condition to talk about much else. When Victor and The Monster first speak with one another The Monster begins by saying, “I expected this reception. . . [a]ll men hate the wretched; how then must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things!” (Shelley 65), and later while Victor talks with Walton he says, “To you first entering on life, to whom care is new and agony unknown, how can you understand what I have felt, and still feel” (Shelley 141); it is little wonder that they both brought destruction to those around them, since they had so little consideration for anything but their own feelings. Shelley’s story has really reinforced the concepts of Passion vs. Reason that we saw in our earlier readings for me, and seems to demonstrate the far extreme of passion much like the story of Candide, just on a individual level rather than societal.

Overlooking Our Faults

One of the most challenged books for 2009 was The Catcher in the Rye written by J.D. Salinger in 1951 and has been subject to numerous challenges for a variety of reasons. The story, which centers on a young man who’s having difficulties in his life, paints a picture of life that is gritty and imperfect. The book has been aggressively challenged in schools all over America for over forty years, with reasons for the challenges ranging from objections to the profanity in the book, to objections about the sexual references contained in it. The Catcher in the Rye has been restricted primarily from high school students and school libraries, though because of the controversy surrounding it, many schools later reinstated it. It has been several years since I read The Catcher in the Rye, but one of my stronger recollections of it is how realistic the book seemed. When I read The Catcher in the Rye, I felt it was showing a realistic (even if occasionally ugly) picture, and I strongly disagree with the challenge, because I believe that literature (good or bad), is a part of our lives and our history. A book that shows the ugly side of our world is not a ‘bad’ book, but a real one, and efforts to hide socially unacceptable parts of our society from our children, gives them a false picture of their own lives. I feel that the challenges that were overturned are supporting our right to choose for ourselves what we read, and those that upheld the challenge and banned the book, are promoting the censorship of reality.

The Monster's theme song?

Yesterday I heard this song being played on the radio, and it just seems a perfect fit for Frankenstein's story from The Monster's perspective. Here is the link to it.

A Passionate Spirit - Part One

In Shelley’s story we’re given a unique insight into the lives of three different men, and the things that drove them. Shelley uses Walton, Frankenstein, and The Monster to show us the same personality in three different lives, and how all three were linked by the same passionate spirit.

Early in the story Walton’s letters show him to have a thirst for knowledge, and in one of his letters to his sister he says, “I am going to unexplored regions, to ‘the land of mist and snow;’ but I shall kill no albatross, therefore do not be alarmed for my safety” (Shelley 11). Later however we are shown how strongly his passion drove him (and how close he came to ruin), when he writes, “How all this will terminate, I know not; but I had rather die, than return shamefully” (Shelley 150). Walton possessed reason and compassion, but his passion for knowledge and the unknown brought him to the brink of madness.

Where Walton is shown to us as being in the budding stages of lust for knowledge, Frankenstein shows us the realization of those desires. In reflecting on his creation, and having realized how far from sanity his passion had driven him, Frankenstein tells Walton, “A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquillity. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule” (Shelley 33). Frankenstein realized that his reckless pursuit of knowledge had set his feet on the path to destruction, and was what ultimately brought him to his end.

A Passionate Spirit - Part Two

Much like Walton and Frankenstein, The Monster is possessed of a thirst for knowledge and discovery. As The Monster gains knowledge, he learns of his own creation through Victor’s letters, and he also gains the thirst for vengeance, eventually driving him to murder William. However, by murdering William and by allowing Justine to die in his own place as the murderer, The Monster allowed his passion to rule him, and manifested his own murderous nature; sealing his own eventual fate. Even though through threat and reason he was able to incline Frankenstein to create him a mate, because The Monster had proven to be murderous, Frankenstein could not bring himself to complete the task. Ironically, The Monster asks himself “Was man, indeed, at once so powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base?” (Shelley 80); while at the same time demonstrating the very same traits he saw in man. In the end, when The Monster’s rage, passion, and vengeance were utterly spent, he realized how far he had come, telling Walton, “I cannot believe that I am he whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendant visions of the beauty and majesty of goodness” (Shelley 154). Much like when Frankenstein realized his fate, and said, “. . . but the apple was already eaten, and the angel’s arm bared to drive me from all hope” (Shelley 131), The Monster realized he could never undo what he had done.

Walton was given a chance neither Frankenstein nor The Monster were given, that is, the chance to see exactly where his choices would lead him, but even when shown the folly of his pursuit, and it’s almost inevitable end, his passion still drove him, and only when his crew gave him no alternative did he consent to return. Frankenstein, The Monster, and Walton all shared the same spirit, a spirit which drove them to the brink of madness, and beyond.

Beautiful Scenes

One of the foremost things that I have noticed so far in reading Frankenstein is the extensive use of environmental descriptions. In our previous readings, the authors have been fairly analytical, but very sparse in describing the setting for the story. For example, when Gulliver is first stranded on the isle that is to be so central to his story, he describes it quite simply as a land “. . . divided by long rows of trees, not regularly planted, but naturally growing; there was great plenty of grass, and several fields of oats” (Swift 438). In a strong contrast to this Shelly goes to great lengths to describe the scene, providing details on the setting, weather, and even temperature, with the effect of drawing the reader into the experience. An excellent example is when Victor first encounters his creation on the outskirts of Geneva as he attempts to locate the site of William’s murder. In his account, Victor writes, “I quitted my seat, and walked on, although the darkness and storm increased every minute, and the thunder burst with a terrific crash over my head. It was echoed from Saleve, the Juras, and the Alps of Savoy; vivid flashes of lightning dazzled my eyes, illuminating the lake, making it appear like a vast sheet of fire” (Shelly 48). Comparing that vivid and detailed description with the flat and terse descriptions by Swift in Gulliver’s Travels, shows their tremendous difference in style of writing. While I think that in large part this is due to Swift trying to present the story as a journal and to lend credence to the story, I find Shelly’s writing much more compelling and involving because of the vivid imagery she presents.

Image by Gürkan Sengün and can be found at this web address.

A Clever Guise

The final chapter of Candide does an excellent job of tying the story up, while raising enough questions make us look back on the story in a new light. Early on in the chapter, we’re shown how Candide’s love (or lust), for Cunegonde dissipates, and along with it the moral high ground Candide tied himself to throughout his journeys. We discover that Candide’s passion for Cunegonde was because of her beauty, and not his love, and that Candide married Cunegonde only because “. . . the baron’s extreme impertinence decided him in favor of the marriage” (Voltaire 578). Because of Candide’s change of heart in regard to Cunegonde, we’re forced to question his motives, since it was his supposed love for Cunegonde that drove him around the world. While during the story Candide manifests his love as true, looking back on the story, he actually uses that love as an excuse for almost every bad choice he makes. A very good example of this is when Candide and Cacambo are contemplating leaving Eldorado, and Candide says “It’s true, my friend, I’ll say it again, the castle where I was born does not compare with the land where we now are; but Miss Cunegonde is not here” (Voltaire 550). Here Candide is using Cunegonde to cover his own restlessness, but shortly after, Candide shows his true motivation saying “If we stay here, we shall be just like everybody else” (Voltaire 550). Considering the story in this light, Candide shows himself to be much like Pangloss, using people around him as convenient to justify whatever his passion drove him to do.

In closing, I found this video very funny and entertaining, and the site also has some very interesting interviews concerning Candide as well.

Using Ignorance to Enlighten?

In reading Voltaire’s Candide, I think it is very interesting the contrasts between Candide and everyone who he meets. Candide is presented as being very naive, but not simple, he is trusting and lacks an understanding of deceit, but is capable of learning through his experiences. During his stay at the castle of Thunder-Ten-Tronckh, Candide is educated by Pangloss, and is taught “. . . that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end” (Voltaire 521), and through the majority of the play Candide is shown as trying to reconcile that teaching he was brought up to believe, with the reality of the world.

As Candide matures and is subject to continual misfortune, he slowly loses his naivety and comes to the realization that not all was as he was taught. When he and Cacambo find Eldorado after a continual chain of mishaps, he reasons that “. . . whatever Master Pangloss said of the matter, I have often had occasion to notice that things went badly in Westphalia” (Voltaire 548). Through Candide’s adventures and his nature of taking things at face value, Voltaire shows us the many inconsistencies between what was envisioned as ideal, and what society actually produced. Voltaire’s extensive satire leaves almost no one untouched, and in that I think that he is trying to demonstrate that almost anything taken to an extreme can become foolish. I also think that a lot of the meaning and import of Candide’s message ties in with Immanuel Kant’s philosophical ideas that emerged not long after Candide was written.

From Passion to Reason

I think that one of the main aims of Gulliver’s account is to present us with four distinct groups, each with varying degrees of reason and passion. On one end, the Yahoos who are almost entirely void of reason, and then on the other the Houyhnhnms, who are all but void of passion. Leaving Gulliver and his crew as the two middle groups, each with an opposing allotment of reason and passion.

Gulliver’s crew, display a mixture of reason and passion in their mutiny, when on one hand “Their design was to turn pirates and plunder the Spaniards. . .” (Swift 438), yet at the same time they spare Gulliver’s life (and in fact go to some pains to do so). As for Gulliver, he is more reasonable than his crew, but when he first encounters a Yahoo, he responds to the Yahoo’s curiosity violently, and Gulliver takes his sword and “. . . gave him a good blow with the flat side of it” (Swift 439). The Yahoos demonstrate curiosity (as when Gulliver first encounters them), and some basic level of learning as they both recognize the Houyhnhnm, and for reasons we’re not shown, fear them. As for the Houyhnhnm, even though they avoid violence, they are not ignorant of it and understand (and even accept it), for self defense.

All four groups show a progression from passion to reason, but none of them is truly a pure form. The four groups while very distinct, all share the same basic characteristics of Passion and Reason, just in differing measures. While it may be a stretch, I believe that Swift was trying to demonstrate (through Gulliver’s story), how it is impossible to have one, without at least some measure of the other.