Born of the Dead

I found it very interesting in "Frankenstein's Womb" that the creation says he and Mary Shelley are similar because they are both born from the dead because her mother died in childbirth. Perhaps this is another allegory in her writing. Death from child birth complications was very common during the 1800s. Maybe Shelley is making a plea for advancements in this field to prevent loss of life for the mothers? The creation has no mother, as would a child in the situation, all that is left is the "father" (Victor) who disowns him, much like many children whose mothers died during child birth experienced. They became orphaned despite a living parent which is what the creation has to live through. Mary could also be making a statement about how this unfortunate incident leads to these innocent, yet neglected, children who have tendencies to lash out.

The Two Comics

Reading the two comic’s gave me a new perceptive of what the story represents overall, especially the comic by David. The representation by David shows how the monster’s conversation with shelly creates a sense of the predestined key switches in which she creates the story not only based on her life, but to soon follow up the works she would later create. Also on thing to not is that the monster gives the message that life for her will not end in death, neither her mother, in which her will lives on in the works she created. The other comic by Jason gives the story a more humanistic approach to what humanity guilt is when confronted with the mistakes they have created. The comic more focuses on Frankenstein rather than the monster, and gives a more represented symbol to the people who work in the field of science. Therefore, the message in both comics gives is the greatness of science is unlimited, but humans are weak when confronted with the responsibilities of their own creations.   

Emotional Monster

Something that has always captured my attention about this book is the emotional range given to creature. I really attribute this to Shelley being a woman, and using this creature to express a lot of the perhaps more restricted emotions. The sense of isolation in the creature is more than obvious, but the source of this isolation maybe not so much. Mary Shelley lived a life with a lot of emotional stress, having no mother, strange relationships, and we can't forget that she was a woman in the 1800s, which was not exactly the best situation. With all of that, the creature really does begin to take on this new allegorical side as the embodiment of Mary Shelley's personal struggles.

Burke’s 'Philosophical Inquiry' as applied to Shelley’s 'Frankenstein'

I was strongly taken by Burke’s “Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful”, and find that the majority of his ideas can be applied directly to Shelley’s portrayal of the sublime and beautiful within the characters of her novel, Frankenstein. 

The Creature itself embodies the terror of Victor’s sublime idea in sharp contrast to the beautiful expectation he held for it. According to Burke, the two cannot exist together in one object, for beauty stems from pleasure and the sublime stems from pain. The passions which stir a sense of pain (or danger) concern us with a sense of self-preservation, which leads to a strong sense of horror that our life could be affected by illness, malformation, or death. Something of this nature cannot therefore be categorized as beautiful- no matter its appearance. “…my first observation… will be found very nearly true; that the sublime is an idea belonging to self-preservation. It is therefore one of the most affecting we have. That its strongest emotion is an emotion of distress, and that no pleasure from a positive cause belongs to it.” (Burke)

Burke also has something to say when it comes to Victor, who is a character defined by his solitude and ambition. Victor, who chooses solitude, and the Creature- who is forced into it, both experience “The total and perpetual exclusion from all society, (which) is as great a positive pain as can almost be conceived” (Burke). Burke’s version of the ‘passions of society’ can be broken down into three large categories; sympathy, imitation, and ambition. Sympathy, as a form of substitution, places us in the place of another man. As we discussed in class, we see this occur between Victor and his Creature- but it becomes a cycle that relies on self-preservation and fear as opposed to sympathy and/or pity. Within this cycle is imitation, which the Creature both lacks (because he is shunned), but also strives for as the ‘son’ to his Creator and father figure, Victor. Over the course of Victor’s ambition towards Creation- he realizes that he has pressed too close to danger and has stepped beyond the natural. By Burke’s standards- it is this closeness that makes it impossible for him to feel any pleasure in his Creation. For, “when danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible” (Burke).

Comparing the two graphic novels to the original text

Where to start?  I loved both graphic novels for different reasons.  In terms of something good they both did, I loved that each one still took the subject matter seriously.  Not that there isn't a time and place for fun, goofy, spin-offs, but I think I prefer a graphic novel to take itself seriously.  This is partially because I think a heightened sense of melodrama is part of what makes graphic novels so great; if they are effective, you the reader can buy into it and transport yourself for a while.

Personally, I enjoyed the art style of Frankenstein's Womb more.  I loved that the monster was simultaneously hideous and awe inspiring.  Beautiful by no means, but well adapted to the graphic novel form (apparently Frankenstein had him on a low-carb diet in order to get him that six pack).  I also think the choice to use black and white worked very well; it helped the transition from old text to graphic novel run much more smoothly.

The Electric Beauty

Put simply, I love reading. There's a joy that can't be explained when the words from the pale yellow pages transform into a never-ending picture in your head. I also love reading comics because I love seeing my favorite characters come to life not only in my head but right in front of me on paper. It's an art form that In Frankenstein: The Graphic Novel, there's a scene on page 15 that completely took my breath away because that's when the idea of electricity and the beauty that Victor was seeing really stood out to me because you can imagine the scenes chapter by chapter in your head, but sometimes, words do not replace the beauty of an art work. . It's the part in the comic where Victor is telling his story, beginning with his life. He goes on to tell about a huge thunderstorm that overcame his home growing up and the lightning that struck the tree outside. When I got to that page, the colors were so vibrant that I couldn't look away. The lightning was characterized by a "KARAK!" and the bright white of the lightning against the dark broken tree trunk pulled me in. For a brief second, the artist was able to pull me away from my world into the world of color and entrance me in the beauty, and for that little while, I knew why Victor was so consumed by the idea of lightning and electricity. The depiction of the lightning hitting the tree held so much power and yet elegance, and that was what Victor saw in it, the beauty of the natural electricity. Just for a second, all of that came to life, and I understood.

Frankenstein's Monster

The creation of Frankenstein's monster by doctor Victor Frankenstein features elements of Nature along with what can be seen as unnatural. Frankenstein's creation cannot physically be more than a patchwork of what has been given by nature; however, the mere synthesizing of life by the means of exciting an assemblage of corpse-parts creates a sort of divine, sublime or impossibly unnatural context. Frankenstein being attributed with qualities such as "God" can be rather suiting insofar that "God" is our way of conceiving Nature in the most impossible and unnatural of ways(as ourselves). God or Nature is a paradoxical juxtaposition of the same thing in the same way of Frankenstein's scientific breakthrough can be interpreted as an accomplishment in natural science or a horrid crime that is unnatural; the latter is assumed when we decide to conform Nature to what we think it should be this may seem rather ironic but this is to say Nature is limitless and unrestrained and all we can do is discover. We cannot say that Frankenstein's action was "creation ex nihilo" but rather a scientific discover of an attribute already immanent to Nature.

Frankenstein

Victor wanted to create something beautiful and sublime, instead getting a monstrous creature. What if the creature had come out aesthetically picturesque and pleasing? Would both Victor and the community be more patient and understanding? They would know the truth of how it was created - unnaturally with bits and pieces of humans and animals - but because its beautiful would they be accepting, or still see it as monstrous on the sole basis of what it is; not a natural being. If the creature looked like a normal person, would Victor and the community be more willing to work with it in order to teach it to be like them? To be more human? If so, would they always secretly live in fear of what is inside of the creature?

Frankenstein graphic novels

I've uploaded links to two graphic novels to the course Blackboard site under Announcements; if you'd like to do an extra credit post to the blog about these, please feel free. We'll take some time to talk about them (and other facets of the novel's cultural legacy) on Wednesday. Happy reading!

monstrosity as a whole

When it comes to considering humanity as a whole in comparison to one human, the step is really wide in to the realm of monstrosity. For one thing, when one person analyzes the world, he/she would typically say that humanity is good but the world is cruel but when it comes to questioning the good or evil of humanity as a whole, people most commonly same that the world is good but humanity is cruel. And when we examine the nature of Frankenstein’s monster, we could say he too is good but the world is evil to him when it comes to analyzing the events for which he is a witness too. This in a grander scale of comparing Frankenstein and the monster as a whole of humanity would leave to the conclusion of the world being good but humanity being evil because Frankenstein was miserable and alone he wanted to bring life into something for him to have a friend but this selfishness that came by wanting to create a human being on his own led him to greater sorrow and instead of creating life he brought greater suffering to himself and his monster because of humanities cruel selfishness.   

Frankenstein and Prometheus: Dangers of Knowledge

I found it interesting how the name of the book or another name for the book was The Modern Prometheus and realized just how similar Frankenstein and Prometheus truly were in that Prometheus steals fire from the Gods and gives technology to humanity suffering by having his liver torn out by an eagle every day. The same vein appears in Frankenstein by having Victor study such things as Alchemy and be obsessed with The Elixir of Life of which such thoughts become the thought to create the Creature. Creating the Creature is Victor's stealing of fire from God in that by trying to create life he crosses a line he "Never" should have crossed and it brings him misery of the ultimate kind. The punishment of both is severe in that Victor suffers the death of family and friends, along with innocents while Prometheus has his liver torn out each day by a large bird. The men of each suffer and strive to do something amazing for humanity and both inevitably fail spectacularly with disastrous results for themselves and the human species.

My thoughts of this was that Mary Shelley was using this analogy as way to warn society of the dangers of doing anything without considering the consequences of your actions to yourself and the world.  We used bombs to destroy our enemies, but also destroyed the lives, property, and personal safety of countless innocents people in WWII in the countries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan and such technology resulted in a real threat of war between us and the Soviet Union for fear of being taken over if we didn't have more "weapons of mass destruction" than the other countries did. The danger of weapons that that are so dangerous in the hands of someone without a proper respect and fear of such dangerous technology is a recipe for disaster on a massive scale and Frankenstein illustrates that concept flawlessly.

Trying to recreate the sublime

When we discussed the sublime earlier in the semester, I remember someone describing it as something so beautiful that it frightens you and that’s what the sublime in Frankenstein does. When I think about those massive, majestic snow-covered mountains I am in awe. It is something so awesome, and man took no part in creating it. This novel is partly about Man not having limits on what he wants to create with all this new scientific knowledge. I think the mountains serve as a reminder of the limitations of Man.

Frankenstein’s fascination in natural philosophy is spurred by a sublime scene, when he witnesses a “Most violent and terrible” storm that he watches with “curiosity and delight.” He learns about electricity when a lightning bolt destroys a tree. In that moment, the power of nature is displayed.  Perhaps, Frankenstein’s creation can be seen as his attempt to mimic nature, to harness the power of nature. He tries to recreate the beauty, but when the monster comes alive, “the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” There is no terrifying beauty, just terror.

Mirrored Characters and Obsession with Life

While reading Frankenstein I noticed Victor's constant need to create life. No set back will stop this ambitious need. The fact that this is a horror story speaks a lot about his actions as well. His self centered, single minded desire to accomplish this leads to the deaths of people he loves and much more. Another interesting thing to note is that The Creature is also obsessed with creation. He becomes a reflection of Victor's selfishness; he will do anything to get Victor to create a mate for him. Their lives parallel each other; they are both outcasts who are barely living in the first place; forced to observe life rather than to live it themselves. That is a bleak existence and I can see why someone would want to have a companion to push away the loneliness. Victor, however, had a wife; If he wanted, they could have just had a child and created life the old fashioned way.

Shelley's Critique of Romantic Poets

One thing that I noticed while reading Frankenstein is the overall portrayal of solitude.  Solitude is such an important concept to the Romantics.  It is somewhat of an idealized state of being for a Romantic poet, a way of avoiding the distractions of urban life so that one can compose in tranquility.  Solitude for the Romantics also brought them closer to nature, an effect that the transcendentalists would eventually seek.

While Frankenstein does approach certain aspects of the sublime, his solitude is not portrayed in this idealistic light.  Shelley stresses the unnatural aspects of being alone, how an existence detached from society can eat away at one's soul. 

Finally, there is the failed nature of the experiment.  Frankenstein's creature functions on one level as an allegory for the project Romantic poets undertake in solitude.  By having the creature overwhelm Frankenstein, Shelly is arguing that "success" for Romantic poets may result in a creation that is too much for the writer to handle (on top of costing the writer his physical and mental well-being).

A Human Monstrocity

As I read Frankenstein, I am continually intrigued by the format of the creature. The monster is mad from individual human (and animal) parts, yet seen as a creature unlike any other? If an observer looks at just the creature's forearm, or nose, or foot, or and segment it would look strikingly similar to the observer's own piece of flesh. Now this comparison of parts ignites two different thoughts in my mind:

1. Humans as a whole are a monstrosity. And when we look at history this may indeed be true. For instance, take the French Revolution. When looking at the Jacques executing who they deem guilty in their Reign of Terror without justification or remorse we look at the whole event an act of inhumane and horrible circumstances setting all of society's biggest flaws on a platter with the clear potential of damnation on earth being reached. However, if you were to look at each human as an individual they would not seem quite so horribly insensitive. The individual does not seem crazy, scary, or out of the norm. We see this when we look at the whole of the society much like looking at the whole of the monster.

2. Human judgement is natural and imminent. Despite the monster's features being almost completely human, we are horrified. He is made of humans, yet we conclude him not to be one of us? Why is this? It is because we outcast those who are even slightly different. If we cannot directly identify ourselves to the same category then the other does not belong. Yet there are no written rules of this matter. Who decides the monster is not human and on what grounds? There is no law or precedent, just the consensus of fear amongst the public judged upon appearances.

Monsters and the Unknown

As I was reading Frankenstein, an interesting thought came to mind, and that of course is the thought of monstrosity. But more than monstrosity, it is the very notion of monstrosity and what makes it so. This specifically came to my mind after the events that happened yesterday with the bombing of Boston, which is obviously seen as a monstrous action that someone had committed. This begs to mind though, what is the very definition of monstrosity? We all talk about monsters in a very general sense, monsters hiding our beds, monsters with the sole purpose to scare us as if they have nothing better to do than waste their time making our lives miserable. Why? Because they're monsters. That's all that there is to it. But there's more than that, so much more than that. In our simplistic minds, we simply view monsters as these creatures or beings that exists only to torment, but surely something happened to them to make them so. There had to be some reason, some event, some anything that slowly changed them into the monsters that they are now. The term "monster" is so overused and undefined that it begs the notion of what a monster truly is. Just a simple search on Google presented this:

mon·ster  

/ˈmänstər/

Noun An imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

Adjective Of an extraordinary and daunting size or extent.

Synonyms noun.   monstrosity adjective.   huge - enormous - monstrous - prodigious - tremendous

This can't stand to be true. Monsters truly take all shapes of forms and sizes. That's what makes it so terrifying. The monster itself could be dwelling inside the human mind, the pounding heart, the actions of a people or a being. There is one thing that monsters have shown us through Frankenstein however. The fact that the creation, Frankenstein's monster, had a mind. It had parts of humanity involved in its creation. That is the true monster, the emotions that rage out of control, the despair that became too much to handle, the fear that drives you to the end. The monster itself - it has the potential to rage through everyone because all monsters have a mind to be able to commit the things that it does. That's what makes a monster, not that it has emotions, but that it pays no attention to the control of emotions and lets go of everything that makes the person human.

Separation of the Self; Frankenstein's Flaw

For me personally, the apparent separation of the ‘self’ from society is one of the most striking and terrifying elements of the novel. When I think of someone living on the fringes of society, I typically associate two extremes: one being the solitary monk of a monastic order, and the other being a loner/crazed deviant of society. Neither of which play into the story, I know. 

In Frankenstein the laboratory has replaced the monastery, and the ‘passions’  reflect obsession and scientific ‘exploration’ as opposed to religious reflection. Victor himself is separated from society of his own volition- choosing to indulge his obsessions and block out any persons he cares about. It’s important to see his connection to his creation, however, as both a father and brother character. This unnatural brotherhood ignores all natural progressions of life and subsequent death, or even the natural order of birth. By choosing to identify with the monster over people in society, Victor gives in to his idealization of what his creation could be. 

This identification of ‘self’ with the monster drives him further from the natural order, and yet quickly turns to revulsion upon its realization. Here the separation comes between F. and the monster (who is in many ways an avatar for Frankenstein himself). F’s monster then physically and mentally reenacts the cycle of separation by his own right. Firstly, in his physical presence, we see his body to be a collection of separated parts that are perversely joined together. Secondly, the monster acts to further push away the people that Frankenstein cares about, just as F. did during his experimentation. Notice that NONE of this results in good outcomes? 

Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires, and Global Capitalism

There is a book called Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires, and Global Capitalism. It's basically a Marxist analysis of various monster tropes found in folklore, literature and pop culture; detailing the rise of the zombie motif from Frankenstein to Haitian shamanism to George Romero and much more. In the link below is a recording of the author discussing his book. (It's about 40 minutes long, if you have the time).
http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/monsters-of-market-zombies-vampires-and-global-capitalism

Also, here is another link to an article discussing the rise of the horror genre (in literature and in film) beginning with the Romantic era. (Again, a Marxist analysis)
http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/6/post/2012/10/bloodlines-ii-the-rise-of-modern-horror.html

Really interesting stuff! Enjoy!

Monsters: Creator and Creation

    In the world of Frankenstein, the theme of monsters is discussed with Frankenstein's creature being thought of as the worst monster but was he truly? Frankenstein by going against nature and creating his creature as an affront to God and self proclaiming science is more important than anything, even his soul though this is before he realizes what he's done is wrong and rejects his creation which fuels the creatures hatred for humanity because it's lonely. The creatures monstrosity by being "what it is" a animated body created of the dead limbs of various people would be quit horrifying for any person to accept but the monstrosity of being ostracized from society, being rejected by his creator, and the attitudes of the villagers when they see him and immediately are disgusted all serve to make you feel pity for this creature and put him as a victim of circumstance.
   
   Frankenstein's monstrosity in his flaunting of natural rules shows a pride on the level of the  devil in Paradise Lost because he believes he's justified in creating this creature because science gives him the ability to do this and why shouldn't he if it's possible than God is okay with it? This monstrosity of character only seems to drive Frankenstein more insane as the story goes. The monstrosity of human pride and entitlement serve to be a social critique of how far humanity "should" go in the terms of science and research.

"Maria" and Posthumous Publishing

As we discussed in class on Wednesday, posthumous publishing of an author's work is nothing new. But, is it always a good idea? Especially when the publisher does  not know if the late author would be okay with that? An unedited and unfinished work that could be controversial like Maria has the potential to sully an author's reputation. There are also times when it could invade the author's privacy. I know I don't always like showing unfinished work to others. Someone in class mentioned Dr. Hunter S. Thompson and his posthumous works. Even his suicide note has been made public! While Thompson doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would care, some others might. All this being said, there are posthumous works that I am glad we have. Byron's Don Juan is a good example, as are the poems of Emily Dickinson.

(Presentation notes) Women and the Law; Addressing Inequality, Imprisonment and Madness

Women were viewed by society to be the weaker sex, and faced unequal treatment regarding rights by law, job opportunities, and education. Men had the ability to sue their wives for adultery, gain full custody of children in the case of divorce, as well as a full range of educational and legal resources at their disposal. Women on the other hand were unable to sue their husbands (unless attempting to prove physical danger - which was RARELY proven), were seen as the property of their husbands (along with any assets they owned prior), and faced a lack of educational resources and occupational options.

Mary Wollstonecraft is seen by many critics to be the ‘Mother of Feminism’, drawing from many of her own life experiences to form the basis of many of her feminist and ‘radical’ writings. Mary advocated for the rigorous education of young girls into their adulthood, something that was lacking in her time. She also rejected the idea that women were inherently weaker or less capable than men, and strongly fought against the subjugation of women, both in marriage and society. Coming from a family composed of a violent father and a submissive mother, she strove to avoid facing the same ills, but like many others before her- also faced her own demons when it came to her personal life. Pregnant and unmarried (Mary Shelley is the wonderful result of this pregnancy) Mary Wollstonecraft surrounded herself with friends who strongly supported her publications as a means of supporting herself independently, and only later met someone with whom she found herself an equal. 

“The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria”- the asylum setting parallels the lack of physical and mental freedoms that women experienced in society (i.e. the protagonist is imprisoned by her husband unjustly)

“Was not the world a vast prison, and women born slaves?” ( pg. 167)

Mary felt that by denying women serious, rational pursuits, society relegated them to a lifetime of vanity and weakness/inequality. She uses fiction to address feminist ideas of education and morality, medical theories of the mind, and gender differences in a way that is approachable and instructive to the women readership. This novel also helped to pioneer the celebration of female sexuality and cross-class identification between women. 

The heroine’s inability to relinquish her romantic fantasies of life and character reveals women’s collusion in their oppression through false and damaging ‘sentimentalism’. The novel criticizes the patriarchal institution of marriage and the laws that protect it by aligning women with the insane: a minority to be championed in Romantic society. 

This representation reflects a Societal view rather than an Individual view; addressed the wrongs done to women (repression), and by women (sentimentalism).

'Mary Wollstonecraft' by John Opie

 'A Rake's Progress' by William Hogarth (Bedlam depiction)

 'Mary Wollstonecraft' by John Opie

'The Nightmare' by Henry Fuseli

WORKS CITED:

Black, Joseph, ed. The Broadview Anthology of British Literature- The Age of Romanticism. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Pr, 2010. Print.

Blake, William. "Drawings for Mary Wollstonecraft's "Original Stories from Real Life"" (c. 1791): Electronic Edition. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

"Mary Wollstonecraft." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 July 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. Mary, A Fiction and The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria. Ed. Michelle Faubert. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Pr, 2012. Print.

Maria

Maria by Wollstonecraft is strongly autobiographical.
Mary wanted reform of social norms and conditions; especially focused on the rights and education of women. She strongly believed in living for the future instead of oneself.
Why did she write this novel the way she did?
Why did she write the ending in a very fragmented way?
Why is it that at the beginning of each chapter she capitalized the first, and sometimes second word(s) ? And again she did this at the very end of the novel with "THE END." What is the significance of this feature in her novel? Do they draw attention to an important aspect of the chapter? Or maybe all the capitalized words together represent a uniform meaning of the entire novel rather than each individual chapter.
The asylum is used as a radical space by Wollstonecraft for the characters to interact; social structures and barriers are non-existent. It allows for communication and connection that otherwise would not be possible.

the great mysteries of mary

I think that the fact that Mary left out basic information in the begining but slowly unravels it as the story evolves is magnifiacent. It creates a mysterious feeling and keeps the reader intact and curious as to what is to happen next or wonder how things happened in the first place.

Cult of Sensibility

There was a particular scene in Maria that reminded me of Adeline, from Romance of the Forest. The parallel between Maria and Adeline that I'm talking about is in chapter 2 of Maria. After Jemima brought Maria the copy of Rousseau's Heloise, Maria opened her window and absorbed the scenery, towards which she (if only for a moment) was entranced by nature; Maria was "absorbed by the sublime sensibility which renders the consciousness of existence felicity" (pg 177).

In this moment, Maria, like Adeline, found solace in nature and was emotionally affected by it. I think this provides yet another example of Wollstonecraft's use of a common assertion of women. This runs parallel with the idea of the "Cult of Sensibility."

Wollstonecraft immediately disrupted this moment of felicity by reminding Maria of her institutionalization; "[The] autumnal scent, wafted by the breeze of morn from the fallen leaves of the adjacent wood, made her recollect that the season had changed since her confinement" (pg 177). This example shows that when Maria attempts to transcend her material conditions, she is only reminded of it even more.

I find that this detraction and re-realization of Maria's own material conditions subverts the notion of the "Cult of Sensibility" that Wollstonecraft abhorred. By subverting and challenging these assumptions, Wollstonecraft is telling her audience that decadence, idealism, and excessive indulgence to the senses is simply not enough to free oneself from their material/social conditions within society.

Fragments

One of the lingering questions I have from our reading of Maria is why would this have been published when it was clearly in an unfinished state? With Kubla Khan Coelridge was able to create an end to the poem that overall gave t a cohesive message; here the lack of ending serves to only create confusion. Without a clear eding the various potential messages of the work are in a state of flux, which overall detracts from the work as a whole.

Maria and freedom among society

One of the certain themes presented in Maria is it emphasizes of the human mind free from the societal expectations. The story presents a scenario, which may not be so different from our own, which people live by an unwritten code of how people should behave, in this case the women. The societal expectations presented in the story effect how the people interact with each other and what they think is appropriate. With the inability for women to progress among society and expected to behave a certain way gave more of an oppressive or even a slave mentality. Therefore, when the main character is inside the asylum all of the rules of society no longer apply of how the deemed insane interact with each other. Already deemed unfit to live among the people, the characters reveal the truth about the world they live, in which the audience begins to understand the environments power to gives to the characters a sense of freedom. In conclusion the truth revealed by the characters enables not only the audience to sympathize with the main character, but opens to the truth of what is really happening in the world they live in. In other words, the truth was revealed in literature, not so much in pamphlets or a newspaper. 

Difference in Letters

It's interesting that the Grand Tour was commonly for young men, yet out of all the travel narratives we read, they are all told from the perspective of women. In Mary Wollstonecraft's Letters written during a short residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, there seems to be a different type of travel narrative. It reads more like a story, rather than an account and it seems to be autobiographical. Out of all the stories, this one is very personable, and real. Though all the women use sublimity in their works, in Wollstonecraft's work, Wollstonecraft connects a lot of it to sterility and the beautiful to fertility

The Grand Tour and Mary Shelley's Six Weeks' Tour

The Grand Tour

The tradition started in the late 1600's to 1840s. The idea was to gain necessary criteria for social advancement. It was a conventional idea that served as an educational rite of passage pursued by young, aristocratic and British males. It wasn't until the 18th and early 19th century when it was more accessible to the middle class after the progression of rail and steamships.

The tour lasted between 2 and 3 years. The tour usually started in England and then proceeded Netherlands, France, Florence and Rome. The traveler usually escorted by a tutor known as a "bearleader." The tutor were responsible for presenting important buildings, paintings, and historical sites. The Grand tour was a way for a young man to appreciate a new culture, and develop a new maturity, improved taste and an understanding of foreign cultures. Because of the resources, and popularity,  many writers started to partake in these journeys, but a new travel called "Romantic travel" appeared.  It coincided with a revolution in taste, mainly in relation to the aesthetics of the sublime and the picturesque. 

Mary Shelley

Her mother was Mary Wollstonecraft and father William Godwin, a political journalist. She was taught by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Maria Edgeworth. She met and fell in love with Percy Shelley 1814 and they eloped a few years later, after his first wife committed suicide. They toured France, Switzerland and Germany before settling in Italy. Percy died in 1822 from drowning, which made her feel alone and isolated with no way to support herself so she started writing for income. She wrote for many years and helped bring some of Percy’s earlier

works to the public. She died in 1851 from a brain tumor.  Shelley was conscious of the political issues of her time and was influenced by her ather and mother and various radical thinkers that visited her household. Ideas such as abuse of power and social justice. Shelley wasn't radical, but she did bring about philosophical and social issues in her works. She believed in creating a sympathetic connection between people to create a peaceful society and increase in knowledge. She was committed to Romantic Idealism which heightened interest in nature, sublime and imagination.

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

• Addresses the effects of politics and war on France.

• The letters reflect the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo

• Describes shortage of money, dangers of encountering Napoleon’s recently demobilized army.

• In Letter II she discusses the equality in England versus the equality of other places.

• She also addresses women’s education 
The use of descriptive nature is a prevalent theme throughout Mary Shelley’sworks. 

Romantic writers and the Sublime

Changing political and cultural times

Internalized conflicts

Examples: “It exhibits an appearance as if frost had suddenly bound up the waves and whirlpools of a mighty torrent.”

“Throned among these desolating snows, among these palaces of death and frost, so sculpted in this their terrible magnificence.”

Time and the sublime examples:

“we arrived at sunset”

“when we returned, in the only interval of sunshine during the day, I walked…”

Feminine: “We see the lovely lake, blue as the heavens which it reflects, and sparkling with golden beams.”

Masculine: “Observing the lightning play among the clouds in various parts of the heavens, and dart in jagged figures upon the piny heights of Jura dark with the shadow of the overhanging cloud…”

Work cited: 

Black, Jeremy. The British and the Grand Tour. London: Croom Helm, 1985.

Cardinal, Roger. “Romantic Travel.” In Rewriting the self: Histories from the Renaissance to the Present. Edited by Roy Porter. London: Routledge, 1997.

 "The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The 18th Century: Topic 4: Texts and Contexts." The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The 18th Century: Topic 4: Texts and Contexts. N.p., 2010. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Social Classes in Maria

I think the bond between Maria and Jemima is an important notion in this novel. Obviously their social classes are much different. This was written in a time when social class was much more important than it is today. Maria is of more elevated rank than Jemima, and yet the two form a strong friendship based on their mutual hardships. Both women have endured horrendous events in their lives, which allows them to connect in a way they normally would not be able to because of their difference in social classes. Mary Wollstonecraft is credited with opening up a commonality between women of all social classes. This novel is a great example of her ability. Maria and Jemima show that no matter a woman's social standing, hardships exist. A woman of high social standing can feel the same way as a woman of low social standing.

Don Juan

Don Juan is very particular, in my opinion. He is both womanized and a womanizer. The term "Don Juan", in more recent times, is a term used to describe a man that flirts with a lot of women, and potentially has relations with them, in private. How odd it is that in John Clare's poem, it discusses love and marriage, rather than sex and masturbation, as it was in Lord Byron's poem of Don Juan. Don Juan is portrayed in a romantic sense, but one of those senses is far more sexual, and somewhat describes a sexual frustration for a first love, in the first couple of stanzas.

John Clare's Don Juan: In Your Face

I found John Clare's Don Juan very abrasive.  What really came through was Clare's cynicism.  It's overwhelming.  I've never felt a negative emotion come through so strongly in a poem.  Women are portrayed as overly sexual and untrustworthy.  One excerpt I wanted to focus on:

"Children are fond of sucking sugar candy

& maids of sausages—larger the better

Shopmen are fond of good sigars & brandy

& I of blunt— & if you change the letter—

To C or K it would quite as handy

& throw the next away—but I'm your debtor

For modesty— yet wishing nought between us

I'd hawl close to a she as vulcan did to venus"

This is a great example of Clare's abrasiveness.  Clare simplifies the desire for a woman to simply the desire for "cunt."  I had to reread this several times to make sure I was interpreting it correctly.  I was not sure if that word was even in use at the time, but a little research confirmed my suspicions.

If that wasn't offensive enough, there is an obvious sexualization of the maids shopmen... with the most disturbing sexualization being that of the children "sucking sugar candy."  John Clare seems like he's trying to point out that sex is everywhere.  Something about the format...the way he presents it, maybe, reminds me of John Wilmot, 2nd Early of Rochester as he was portrayed by Johnny Depp in The Libertine: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfTPS-TFQ_c

It's the wit and the animalistic sexuality mixed with cynicism.  It's upsetting, but in an almost entertaining way.

Negative View of Women in Clare's Don Juan

What I found particularly interesting in John Clare's Don Juan A Poem is the negative view of women throughout the work. In lines 15-16, Clare writes "Wherever mischief is til womans brewing Created from manself--to be mans ruin." Without knowing his past or relationship history, I would guess that he had been heartbroken by a woman or have ill will toward women.
During this time period I know it was common to view women as closer to nature and "hysterical." I also know that women were blamed for the fall of man because Eve ate the apple in the biblical story of how mankind succumbed to sin. I wonder if Clare felt that women were to blame for his misery and thus is "mischief" is about, it is most defintely "womans brewing."(line 16)
This also makes me wonder if Clare viewed woman as wholly more sinful than men, and if so, who does he blame his own sin on? Does he believe that his sin is a result of something that a woman did to him?

Byron the Sass Master

Lord Byron's snarky opinions make Don Juan an amusing read, in part because of his criticism on the literary market of the time. In stanza 178, for example, he says that tact keeps "a lady distant from the fact" when "pushed by questions rather tough (1421-1422). While this of course is a direct reference to his own scandalous lifestyle and the rumors spread because of it, and the fame that both he and Don Juan received as a result, it also raises an interesting commentary on the truthfulness of literature. It is almost as if he is asking if politeness and "tact" are of higher value than candid, honest writing. He is critical of flowery, pastoral writing, calling Wordsworth's writings "unintelligible" (720). He seems to mock writers who "find materials for their books" "within the leafy nooks" of nature (717, 715). By using a snarky tone to criticize other writers and styles, Byron seems to be defending the candid nature of his works, and suggesting that truthfulness is more important than style.

I want a hero: an uncommon want

The first stanza “I want a hero” is about how he wants someone to stand up and be that figure, someone that inspires and encourages others to be better and how that is uncommon to want. It also talks about how there have been so many people that have showed up over the years, that have claimed they were a hero or tried to fill this role of hero but they have all ended up being false heroes. The second stanza lists many political figures each different in their own way. Some good, some not, some military, others royalty but each a person who tried to stand as a hero of some kind. These two stanza tells us that Byron’s chosen genre is the epic, which has three elements. One it must be a trilogy or longer, two is that the time span must encompass years or more and three it must contain a large back story or universe setting in which the story takes place. More well-known works that are considered epics are J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Thousand and One Nights, where the stories Aladdin, Ali Baba and Sinbad the Sailor come from. These two stanzas and Byron’s choice in genre tell us the he is trying to influence the people. He is trying to teach a way of thought that could convince the people to take a stand and control their own futures. He wants them to see that the heroes of the past that have all failed were part of the aristocracy and that they should try and shape their own lives.

Reaching for More or Humanity is "Never" Satisfied

In the spirit of Kubla Khan is a poem about reaching for something beyond yourself and basicly not getting it. The problem with the narrator in I Am by John Clare is that they want to be closer to "god" or a godlike being because they feel they have nothing left so being something other than what they are is appealing. The need that people have to want something beyond all sanity is frightening in and of itself because we recognize that theirs a limit to when we just have to stop, but obsession can of course drive people to do insane things, such as bringing a dead person back to life when you "know" a person is suppoused to stay dead in Frankenstein. Humanities struggle to keep going even when your not sure where your going too is something that in the narration of the poem is explored where the narrator simply wishes to return to something or be reborn into a life where they aren't in pain or suffering from depression since the tone of the poem seems to lean that way.

Clare's Madness

After reading John Clare’s first I Am it seemed to me that he thought of himself as an eternal spirit that was not shackled by time or by body. This would explain how he thought he was Byron. Yet Clare’s Don Juan A Poem, seems to not be similar to the portion we read of Byron’s Don Juan. Both poems contain spite yet Clare’s poem seems to be more pointed and hateful. The poem seems to shift focus frequently. Whatever Clare's focus falls upon could either be praised or lambasted seemingly on a whim. Clare's second I Am seems as if it were written with a clearer head.  A man plagued by illness is locked away and abandoned by his friends and family. He longs for peace with God like the peace he knew in childhood. The selection of Clare's work is a very interesting representation of his disease. The work displays the anger, hubris, and vulnerability of a troubled mind in a way that is totally unique to me.

Vulgarity at its Finest

While reading Don Juan by Clare, my jaw was completely dropped. However, the vulgarity of the subject matter was a very clever strategy to use. His very vibrant choice words and visuals invoke a tavern or pub feel. The questionably stated subject matter engages the reader in a personal conversation with many personal opinions expressed freely. This method of audience engagement really draws in the reader while using vulgar expressions to create a level of humor over serious political views (Queen Victoria and the Prime Minister for example). Overall I found his method of getting his point across in an almost drunken manner to be effective. It was entertaining. And if anyone takes what he says offensively it can be disregarded by means of the sloppy drunk friend we all know who behaves inappropriately after hours.

Byronically Brilliant

While reading the poem, I thought it was so intriguing that he would use two people who were so recognized in the literary community, Southey and Coledridge. It almost seemed as if he was making a satire out of Coleridge’s, and by extension, Bob Southey’s beliefs. For you see, these two had plans for a political uptopia where everyone would work for the common good of the community. Byron apparently did not agree with this thus resulting in his lovely wordy elaborate poem Don Juan. Glorious and very well played Lord Byron because not only did he use two important literary figures who already had a connection with each other, the poet laureate and the founder of Romantic Movement, but he also used the connection that they had against them, showing first off Southey as a hero for his venture to try to establish “with all the lakers” (the Lake Poets) his perfect society and his position as a poet laureate in the very first stanza. As poet laureate, he is seen as some kind of a hero, a hero with his words if you must. However, Byron draws on the fact that the society which Southey wanted to establish was crumbling because Coleridge (a Lake Poet) did not agree with him on the location for it for even the perfect hero of literature (if pushed into that position of Poet Laureate as was the case for Southey) can crumble himself.

The direct tie into the second stanza is with the mention of Coleridge, using the metaphor of “too has lately taken wing, but like a hawk encumbered with his food” for though they both didn’t agree on a place, Coleridge still spread his idealogy to the people, telling them of the tales of this perfect society of how this would happen. You see, Byron establishes the very skeleton of a Byronic hero simply in these two stanzas. Broken, beaten, trying for the better good – these characteristics of the Byronic hero are established in the knowledge of these poets, and Byron uses it to show that even the best of the literary heroes will fall, but their ideas will never die, not while the word still lives. Perhaps that is the true political sense of it, that ideas that have the potential to change society will never die. The trick is that someone must understand it which Byron shows that many people can’t by the words “I wish he would explain his explanation.” They may be literary Byronic heroes pushing for their own political views, but Byron uses that to his advantage, using their acts and position as such to show his own political view. He makes a satire out of them in order to show his audience what he thinks which if you ask me is Byronically brilliant.

Morality versus Nature

Don Juan seems to have a problem throughout Canto I with being unable to rein in his passions and act on logic something that gets him and Julia into a lot of trouble when they begin an affair and get caught. This problem with not being able to control there passions and act completely on instinct seems to be a way for Byron to explore whether man is ruled by his base instincts first and learns morality later or has personal morals that are instilled at birth. This question was something that was being studied at the time and looking at this question through the eyes of a character so obviously portraying his own morality rather than what is expected is a good idea.

The fact that Don Juan is 16 at the time was a odd choice though in that by him being so young it casts a reckless light to this character making his actions more primal in that as teenagers were more in tune with our baser emotions and allow them to rule us, not that Don Juan being a teenager excuses his actions but it does cast them in a more realistic light. The fact that this question of whether people are ruled by logic or instinct is a fundamental question for the nature of this story but there's no true way to tell whether people are born with morality or learn it.