"Derby spoke movingly of the American form of government, with freedom and justice and opportunities and fair play for all. He said there wasn't a man there who wouldn't gladly fie for those ideals." pg 164 Vonnegut
I've got to say this book wasn't that bad. It was fairly easy to read and moved along quite quickly. It also made an interesting social commentary about the harsh realities of war. But overall I was left underwhelmed. There was no big climax or exciting scene. Even Vonnegut admitted that the closest moment to one was when poor old Edgar Derby stood up and defended America and its values. The author could have added some description of the bombing or some more interesting stuff about his alien encounters. Instead he chose to focus on the moments in a person's life and how they were effected by war. I understand he did this so as not to glamorize war by describing big action scenes and focusing on the despair of the people, but it was kind of boring. Maybe I'm just not deep enough to enjoy the social commentary, but I just didn't like it. Maybe I'm not supposed to like it though, because people aren't supposed to like war. Just maybe that was the point all along.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Slaughterhouse Five Anti-War
"I take it you find war a very comical thing... Did you expect us to laugh?" pg. 151 surgeon
So this book makes it very apparent just how terrible war is. It highlights all the awful deaths and bombings. It forces people to look at the harsh realities of war. But does this mean war should be done? And if there is never any war then what is the solution? World peace would be ideal but that probably will never happen. In fact, as sad as it is, I feel like war is inevitable. However I think that people cannot be so quick to jump to bloody, violent wars every time they have a dispute about something. If people would stop being so aggressive and focus more on finding peaceful solutions instead of focusing on making war machines then maybe a solution could come about. There will always be war but war doesn't always have to be going on. This book wants to force people to see how bad war is in hopes that people will be less likely to resort to war.
So this book makes it very apparent just how terrible war is. It highlights all the awful deaths and bombings. It forces people to look at the harsh realities of war. But does this mean war should be done? And if there is never any war then what is the solution? World peace would be ideal but that probably will never happen. In fact, as sad as it is, I feel like war is inevitable. However I think that people cannot be so quick to jump to bloody, violent wars every time they have a dispute about something. If people would stop being so aggressive and focus more on finding peaceful solutions instead of focusing on making war machines then maybe a solution could come about. There will always be war but war doesn't always have to be going on. This book wants to force people to see how bad war is in hopes that people will be less likely to resort to war.
Slaughterhouse Five Characterization
"There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now." pg. 164 Vonnegut
Even Vonnegut admits in this book that there is not a lot of characterization. He says this is because in the war everyone is so sick, tired, hungry, and worn out to be characters. However some do stand out that he focuses on. These include Billy Pilgrim of course, Lazarro, and Poor Old Edgar Derby. Billy Pilgrim represents all the soldiers that are driven mad because of the war. They lose their minds, and though they try to re-enter society they find that because of what they experience they can't. Lazzaro represents all the soldiers who are angry because of the war. Their hearts are full of anger and hate which is the source of the war. Edgar Derby represents the ideal soldier who does not want to fight, but steps up to protect freedom and the citizens of America. I believe that all those soldiers that aren't characterized actually stand for something as well. They represent the millions of soldiers everyone tries to forget about when they think about war. They become nameless casualties who no one wants to believe died so horribly. If society was forced to recognize their names and their life stories they would realize how terrible war is and wouldn't be so quick to resort to it.
Even Vonnegut admits in this book that there is not a lot of characterization. He says this is because in the war everyone is so sick, tired, hungry, and worn out to be characters. However some do stand out that he focuses on. These include Billy Pilgrim of course, Lazarro, and Poor Old Edgar Derby. Billy Pilgrim represents all the soldiers that are driven mad because of the war. They lose their minds, and though they try to re-enter society they find that because of what they experience they can't. Lazzaro represents all the soldiers who are angry because of the war. Their hearts are full of anger and hate which is the source of the war. Edgar Derby represents the ideal soldier who does not want to fight, but steps up to protect freedom and the citizens of America. I believe that all those soldiers that aren't characterized actually stand for something as well. They represent the millions of soldiers everyone tries to forget about when they think about war. They become nameless casualties who no one wants to believe died so horribly. If society was forced to recognize their names and their life stories they would realize how terrible war is and wouldn't be so quick to resort to it.
Slaughterhouse Five Tone
"There were hundreds of corpse mines operating by and by. They didn't smell bad at first, were wax museums. But then the bodies rotted and liquefied, and the stink was like roses and mustard gas. So it goes." pg. 214 Vonnegut
The tone of this book is very understated and almost sarcastic. Vonnegut always downplays the significant and horrific deaths of people in the book. He does this through the use of phrases like "so it goes". He also moves on quickly after bringing something up. It kind of seems like he doesn't even care or he's bored. However, there is an undertone of sympathy that shows up in the book. For instance Vonnegut calls a character "Poor Old Edgar Derby" and references the soldiers' shriveled stomachs. Though these tones may seem conflicting they actually compliment the meaning of the book. The book is trying to force people to see how awful war is, but it also wants people to understand how so many people think of war nonchalantly and how wrong that is. His regular tone throughout the book represents how most people glaze over the bad things in war. However the more sympathetic parts of the book highlight how he truly feels war should be looked at. My using these two varying themes he instills a sense of sympathy and guilt in people who condone war.
The tone of this book is very understated and almost sarcastic. Vonnegut always downplays the significant and horrific deaths of people in the book. He does this through the use of phrases like "so it goes". He also moves on quickly after bringing something up. It kind of seems like he doesn't even care or he's bored. However, there is an undertone of sympathy that shows up in the book. For instance Vonnegut calls a character "Poor Old Edgar Derby" and references the soldiers' shriveled stomachs. Though these tones may seem conflicting they actually compliment the meaning of the book. The book is trying to force people to see how awful war is, but it also wants people to understand how so many people think of war nonchalantly and how wrong that is. His regular tone throughout the book represents how most people glaze over the bad things in war. However the more sympathetic parts of the book highlight how he truly feels war should be looked at. My using these two varying themes he instills a sense of sympathy and guilt in people who condone war.
Slaughterhouse Five Setting
"You lads are leaving this afternoon for Dresden-- a beautiful city, I'm told." pg 146 an englishman
There are several settings in this book but most of them are either in Illium, Germany, and Tralfamadore. Illium represents what most people view as real life. It is your average American town where people have average jobs such as optomitrists. However, this life doesn't show the real cruelty of humans and the harsh reality of life. Dresden and the other parts of Germany represent that true reality. It shows all the death and despair humans are capable of inflicting on one another. This is a place far from home and unfamiliar. No one is clean or happy, and they are all on edge. These circumstances represent the truth about life in war and the truth about terrible reality. Tralfamadore is obviously not real, but it represents one of the most realistic aspects of life. Tralfamadore represents life as a whole and its overall value instead of what we see in each part of it. It also introduces life as everlasting. Even though they say they aren't very interested in Jesus Christ their ideas about life most resemble that of the Christian faith. All of these settings show a different aspect of life and how it's viewed in different situations. All have elements of realism, but also offer a different prospective of it.
There are several settings in this book but most of them are either in Illium, Germany, and Tralfamadore. Illium represents what most people view as real life. It is your average American town where people have average jobs such as optomitrists. However, this life doesn't show the real cruelty of humans and the harsh reality of life. Dresden and the other parts of Germany represent that true reality. It shows all the death and despair humans are capable of inflicting on one another. This is a place far from home and unfamiliar. No one is clean or happy, and they are all on edge. These circumstances represent the truth about life in war and the truth about terrible reality. Tralfamadore is obviously not real, but it represents one of the most realistic aspects of life. Tralfamadore represents life as a whole and its overall value instead of what we see in each part of it. It also introduces life as everlasting. Even though they say they aren't very interested in Jesus Christ their ideas about life most resemble that of the Christian faith. All of these settings show a different aspect of life and how it's viewed in different situations. All have elements of realism, but also offer a different prospective of it.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Slaughterhouse Five: Connection Between Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Pilgrim
"Billy answered. There was a drunk on the other end. Billy could almost smell his breath—mustard gas and roses. It was a wrong number. Billy hung up." Kurt Vonnegut Pg. 73
I've heard a lot of theories about just how Kurt Vonnegut as a narrator and Billy Pilgrim connect. Some people think that Billy and Kurt know each other somehow and he's telling Billy's story that Billy told him. Other people think that Billy is famous for being the crazy nut and that Kurt just wrote down the stories he heard. Then other people suggest a much more far out theory. Some people think that Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut are actually the same person. I highly doubt that though because there are certain times in the book where Kurt will mention that he was at the same place where Billy was. They can't really be at the same place doing different things if they are the same person. Even if they aren't the same person they must be connected somehow, but how? Why does Vonnegut feel the need to tell Billy's story? Clearly it's important to him but why? Hopefully it will be revealed later in the book, but I know I can at least rule out that they are the same person.
I've heard a lot of theories about just how Kurt Vonnegut as a narrator and Billy Pilgrim connect. Some people think that Billy and Kurt know each other somehow and he's telling Billy's story that Billy told him. Other people think that Billy is famous for being the crazy nut and that Kurt just wrote down the stories he heard. Then other people suggest a much more far out theory. Some people think that Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut are actually the same person. I highly doubt that though because there are certain times in the book where Kurt will mention that he was at the same place where Billy was. They can't really be at the same place doing different things if they are the same person. Even if they aren't the same person they must be connected somehow, but how? Why does Vonnegut feel the need to tell Billy's story? Clearly it's important to him but why? Hopefully it will be revealed later in the book, but I know I can at least rule out that they are the same person.
Slaughterhouse Five: How Crazy Is He?
"I am a Tralfamadorian, seeing all time as you might see a stretch of the Rocky Mountains. All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is." Tralfamadorian Pg. 85-86
This is the story of a man named Billy who believes he becomes "unstuck" from time and travels to different parts of his life including when he is abducted by aliens. I'm not going to lie, if somebody told me this happened to them I would think they need to be committed. But Billy doesn't necessarily come off as crazy in the story, more like misunderstood. Or maybe the war has driven him to be crazy. It wouldn't be the first time a soldier goes insane, and the book does talk about how unstable Billy is. This sounds like a pretty solid combination to make a man think that he's been abducted by aliens and all his life is flashing before his life, hence the time traveling. Or just maybe he really is time traveling and maybe he really was abducted by space creatures. Maybe... To me it just feels like a stretch which is weird because I like to read books about wizards and hunger games and never once did I question the sanity of these characters. I think because this story is so intertwined with such a realistic event it's harder to think of this story as make believe. Because the story seems so real it's hard to think of time travel and abductions as real. Right now I think he's crazy but only time will tell.
This is the story of a man named Billy who believes he becomes "unstuck" from time and travels to different parts of his life including when he is abducted by aliens. I'm not going to lie, if somebody told me this happened to them I would think they need to be committed. But Billy doesn't necessarily come off as crazy in the story, more like misunderstood. Or maybe the war has driven him to be crazy. It wouldn't be the first time a soldier goes insane, and the book does talk about how unstable Billy is. This sounds like a pretty solid combination to make a man think that he's been abducted by aliens and all his life is flashing before his life, hence the time traveling. Or just maybe he really is time traveling and maybe he really was abducted by space creatures. Maybe... To me it just feels like a stretch which is weird because I like to read books about wizards and hunger games and never once did I question the sanity of these characters. I think because this story is so intertwined with such a realistic event it's harder to think of this story as make believe. Because the story seems so real it's hard to think of time travel and abductions as real. Right now I think he's crazy but only time will tell.
Slaughterhouse Five: Not So Chronological Order
"He is in a constant state of stage fright, he says, because he never knows what part of his life he is going to have to act in next." Kurt Vonnegut
At first this story starts with Kurt writing a book after the war. Then it jumps to him talking about Billy's life in the war. From there everything goes kind of haywire. It jumps from his life in war to his life as a child, to his career, then back to the war, then to his daughter's wedding, etc... Sometimes it can be a little hard to follow but he does a pretty good job of describing which part of his life he jumps to. What I wonder is what is the significance of each of these scenes in his life. Clearly the author wouldn't have Billy jump to random parts in his life that have no significance, but there are some stories I don't understand the significance. For instance when he jumps to infancy he doesn't do anything significant; he just acts like a baby. I'm hoping that as the book goes on I'll understand why he tells these stories. Also why does he jump to these stories in this order? Is there significance in that? Then there's the creepy aliens who don't explain anything, but have a very interesting theory about time. They don't see any time in chronological order, or any order for that matter. They see all moments at one time and take all things in at once. I like this idea because there is no right or wrong timing. There is only the significance of each moment. By not putting the events in the right order I think the author is trying to do the same thing.
At first this story starts with Kurt writing a book after the war. Then it jumps to him talking about Billy's life in the war. From there everything goes kind of haywire. It jumps from his life in war to his life as a child, to his career, then back to the war, then to his daughter's wedding, etc... Sometimes it can be a little hard to follow but he does a pretty good job of describing which part of his life he jumps to. What I wonder is what is the significance of each of these scenes in his life. Clearly the author wouldn't have Billy jump to random parts in his life that have no significance, but there are some stories I don't understand the significance. For instance when he jumps to infancy he doesn't do anything significant; he just acts like a baby. I'm hoping that as the book goes on I'll understand why he tells these stories. Also why does he jump to these stories in this order? Is there significance in that? Then there's the creepy aliens who don't explain anything, but have a very interesting theory about time. They don't see any time in chronological order, or any order for that matter. They see all moments at one time and take all things in at once. I like this idea because there is no right or wrong timing. There is only the significance of each moment. By not putting the events in the right order I think the author is trying to do the same thing.
Slaughterhouse Five: motif
"So it goes." Kurt
The phrase "so it goes" only shows up on every page of the book. He'll tell a particularly horrifying story, then just throw it at the end and move on. The phrase seems to be his way of downplaying all the awful parts of war he's talking about. I think this is weird considering the whole novel is supposed to be an anti-war story. I would think if you were trying to convince people war was bad that you would talk about all the terrible parts of war to convince people how it should never happen again. But then if you think about actual war veterans, they never really like to talk about it because war scars them and brings up awful memories. I feel like this phrase is his way of deflecting all these awful things, but then again why is he writing a book about it if it's so hard to think about? On the other hand I wonder if this mantra is a statement about the way society views war. Everyone thinks war is inevitable but they don't want to think about all the death and despair so they downplay it and ignore the parts they don't want to think about. That's what this phrase kind of does. It might be a little bit of both, but either way I'm kind of sick of it coming up so often.
The phrase "so it goes" only shows up on every page of the book. He'll tell a particularly horrifying story, then just throw it at the end and move on. The phrase seems to be his way of downplaying all the awful parts of war he's talking about. I think this is weird considering the whole novel is supposed to be an anti-war story. I would think if you were trying to convince people war was bad that you would talk about all the terrible parts of war to convince people how it should never happen again. But then if you think about actual war veterans, they never really like to talk about it because war scars them and brings up awful memories. I feel like this phrase is his way of deflecting all these awful things, but then again why is he writing a book about it if it's so hard to think about? On the other hand I wonder if this mantra is a statement about the way society views war. Everyone thinks war is inevitable but they don't want to think about all the death and despair so they downplay it and ignore the parts they don't want to think about. That's what this phrase kind of does. It might be a little bit of both, but either way I'm kind of sick of it coming up so often.
Slaughterhouse Five: Frame Story/ Speaker
"Billy says that he first came unstuck in time in 1944, long before his trip to Tralfamadore. The Tralfamadorians didn't have anything to do with his coming unstuck. They were simply able to give him insights into what was really going on" Kurt Vonnegut pg. 30
In this book there is only one story teller but he's telling two stories. At first he talks about the book he's writing about Dresden and old war buddies and what not. But then he moves into talking about this man named Billy who is an optometrist/ soldier/ time traveler/ alien abductee. Every so often he shows when there stories collide in the war, but mostly he discusses Billy's life. By telling it in this way the reader still gets to know the speaker but also hears the story of Billy's life. However, sometimes I feel like I don't feel that much sympathy for Billy because unlike Frankenstein, Billy isn't the one telling his own story. This makes me wonder how Kurt knows so much about Billy. The way he tells Billy's story sounds like Billy himself told it to Kurt because Kurt doesn't seem to know everything about the situations. But because Billy isn't the one telling the story his story doesn't sound as crazy. Kurt has a very good way of downplaying how insane this story could sound so it seems more believable and is more readable. I may not feel bad or sympathetic for Billy but as of right now, I don't think he's completely bonkers.
In this book there is only one story teller but he's telling two stories. At first he talks about the book he's writing about Dresden and old war buddies and what not. But then he moves into talking about this man named Billy who is an optometrist/ soldier/ time traveler/ alien abductee. Every so often he shows when there stories collide in the war, but mostly he discusses Billy's life. By telling it in this way the reader still gets to know the speaker but also hears the story of Billy's life. However, sometimes I feel like I don't feel that much sympathy for Billy because unlike Frankenstein, Billy isn't the one telling his own story. This makes me wonder how Kurt knows so much about Billy. The way he tells Billy's story sounds like Billy himself told it to Kurt because Kurt doesn't seem to know everything about the situations. But because Billy isn't the one telling the story his story doesn't sound as crazy. Kurt has a very good way of downplaying how insane this story could sound so it seems more believable and is more readable. I may not feel bad or sympathetic for Billy but as of right now, I don't think he's completely bonkers.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
The Final Verdict
"Fear not that I shall be the instrument of future mischief. My work is nearly complete." pg. 165
Overall this book was nothing like I expected. There was no green stupid monster or creepy side kick named Igor. However there was a lot of conflict and interesting commentaries about how society perceives things based on appearance. There were certain parts of the book I found very interesting such as the plot line or these commentaries about society. However I felt like a great deal of the book was spent describing really insignificant details. I got really sick of reading about all the nature scenes and the travels. Victor spent several pages describing his childhood, but there were only two describing how the creature was created. I felt like it dwelled on topics that the movie version obviously cut out for good reason. Still the story has underlying messages of how judgements and obsession can ruin people. So all and all the book wasn't my favorite. It dragged on a little too much. However, I think that I've read worse and it definitely made me think about society more deeply which was probably the point. So in that case I guess it could be considered a success. I still think the creature deserves a name though.
Overall this book was nothing like I expected. There was no green stupid monster or creepy side kick named Igor. However there was a lot of conflict and interesting commentaries about how society perceives things based on appearance. There were certain parts of the book I found very interesting such as the plot line or these commentaries about society. However I felt like a great deal of the book was spent describing really insignificant details. I got really sick of reading about all the nature scenes and the travels. Victor spent several pages describing his childhood, but there were only two describing how the creature was created. I felt like it dwelled on topics that the movie version obviously cut out for good reason. Still the story has underlying messages of how judgements and obsession can ruin people. So all and all the book wasn't my favorite. It dragged on a little too much. However, I think that I've read worse and it definitely made me think about society more deeply which was probably the point. So in that case I guess it could be considered a success. I still think the creature deserves a name though.
Is The Creature Truly Evil Or Just Misunderstood?
"I had learned how to work mischief." the creature pg 103
So I guess I'm just confused as to whether or not the creature is an evil, killing machine or if he's just a misunderstood, gentle giant. When the creature was telling his side of the story I couldn't imagine how Victor could think he was so evil. He seemed to be caring and considerate of others. He committed selfless acts for others and only wanted to be loved by people. Sure he was ugly, but that didn't make him such a bad guy right? But then toward the end of the story I was torn. After all how good of a person can you be if you kill people. He killed an innocent child, a kind, gentle man, and a caring woman who never did anything to hurt others. All these people did nothing wrong. They were only unfortunate enough to be the ones Victor cared about so much. I understand the desire for vengeance is strong, but I don't see how you could ever justify killing such innocent people. So now I don't know how to feel about the creature. Maybe he was driven to this point by the way he was treated, but murders are not released simply because someone did them wrong in their life. I understand where the creature was coming from, but I still think it was wrong. In some ways I think the creature personifies people because we all have good and evil in us. It is our choice which side we will allow to move us and which side we will act upon. I think the creature acted on the good inside him in the beginning, but as time went on he allowed the darkness and evil to overcome him. Much like Adam allowed the devil to convince him to sin... hmmm so many connections!
So I guess I'm just confused as to whether or not the creature is an evil, killing machine or if he's just a misunderstood, gentle giant. When the creature was telling his side of the story I couldn't imagine how Victor could think he was so evil. He seemed to be caring and considerate of others. He committed selfless acts for others and only wanted to be loved by people. Sure he was ugly, but that didn't make him such a bad guy right? But then toward the end of the story I was torn. After all how good of a person can you be if you kill people. He killed an innocent child, a kind, gentle man, and a caring woman who never did anything to hurt others. All these people did nothing wrong. They were only unfortunate enough to be the ones Victor cared about so much. I understand the desire for vengeance is strong, but I don't see how you could ever justify killing such innocent people. So now I don't know how to feel about the creature. Maybe he was driven to this point by the way he was treated, but murders are not released simply because someone did them wrong in their life. I understand where the creature was coming from, but I still think it was wrong. In some ways I think the creature personifies people because we all have good and evil in us. It is our choice which side we will allow to move us and which side we will act upon. I think the creature acted on the good inside him in the beginning, but as time went on he allowed the darkness and evil to overcome him. Much like Adam allowed the devil to convince him to sin... hmmm so many connections!
You Drive Me Crazy: Motivation of the Creature to Kill
"Frankenstein! you belong then to my enemy - to him towards whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim." The creature pg. 102
Throughout the novel the idea of nature vs nurture is a prominent theme. The creature believes that he was not born either. Rather he thinks that the way people have treated him in life has made him turn to his dark side. Sure the way all humans react to his hideous appearance could make him cynical about the human race, but people in general are not what drive him to become a murderous monster. There is one specific person that has been the catalyst for all his wrong deeds. The motivation behind all his bad behavior is seeking revenge on his creator, Victor. The creature was frustrated with William when he was appalled by his looks, but he only killed him because he realized he was related to Victor. Then he kills his best friend Henry to get back at Victor for deserting them. Then when Victor refuses to make him another female creature for him, he gets the worst revenge of killing his true love, Elizabeth. However, if the creature simply wanted to get back at Victor he could have just killed Victor right away and saved himself a lot of time and trouble. The creature was not only trying to make Victor feel the pain of the loneliness he felt, but I also believe he was trying to get Victor's attention. The creature is like a child who acts out in order to get their parents' attention. I believe this need for his creators acceptance or at least attention are what motivates the creature to go on this horrible killing spree.
Throughout the novel the idea of nature vs nurture is a prominent theme. The creature believes that he was not born either. Rather he thinks that the way people have treated him in life has made him turn to his dark side. Sure the way all humans react to his hideous appearance could make him cynical about the human race, but people in general are not what drive him to become a murderous monster. There is one specific person that has been the catalyst for all his wrong deeds. The motivation behind all his bad behavior is seeking revenge on his creator, Victor. The creature was frustrated with William when he was appalled by his looks, but he only killed him because he realized he was related to Victor. Then he kills his best friend Henry to get back at Victor for deserting them. Then when Victor refuses to make him another female creature for him, he gets the worst revenge of killing his true love, Elizabeth. However, if the creature simply wanted to get back at Victor he could have just killed Victor right away and saved himself a lot of time and trouble. The creature was not only trying to make Victor feel the pain of the loneliness he felt, but I also believe he was trying to get Victor's attention. The creature is like a child who acts out in order to get their parents' attention. I believe this need for his creators acceptance or at least attention are what motivates the creature to go on this horrible killing spree.
Victor and The Creature: Foil Characters or Mirrors?letissssopeyppmi
"What I ask of you is reasonable and moderate; I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself; the gratification is small, but it is all that I can receive, and it shall content me." the creature pg 107
Throughout most of the story it's pretty apparent that Victor and the creature don't always have the best relationship. Victor makes the creature only to see how hideous it is and automatically assumes it is evil. The creature is hurt that his creator would shun and judge him like this, and he can't even understand why Victor would create him. To get vengeance on Victor, the creature proceeds to kill off all the people he loves like his brother, best friend, and the love of his life. This finally pushes Victor to pursue the creature to try to kill him. Clearly these men appear to be sworn enemies. However, they may have more in common than they believe. First they are both very bright and are quick learners. Victor talks about how quickly he was able to learn about philosophers and even created life from nothing in his dorm room. The creature also picks things up quickly such as the language of people and all the other basics of life. He does this all in a matter of the first two years of his life. Also both of them live a life of great solitude. Victor becomes so involved in his work or his emotions that he often shuts himself off from all other people. When he is trying to get over the death of his brother he takes his journey into nature alone. The creature is also very lonely. All people reject him so he is forced to lurk around and live a life of solitude. Even though they appear to be completely opposite, they are actually quite similar.
Throughout most of the story it's pretty apparent that Victor and the creature don't always have the best relationship. Victor makes the creature only to see how hideous it is and automatically assumes it is evil. The creature is hurt that his creator would shun and judge him like this, and he can't even understand why Victor would create him. To get vengeance on Victor, the creature proceeds to kill off all the people he loves like his brother, best friend, and the love of his life. This finally pushes Victor to pursue the creature to try to kill him. Clearly these men appear to be sworn enemies. However, they may have more in common than they believe. First they are both very bright and are quick learners. Victor talks about how quickly he was able to learn about philosophers and even created life from nothing in his dorm room. The creature also picks things up quickly such as the language of people and all the other basics of life. He does this all in a matter of the first two years of his life. Also both of them live a life of great solitude. Victor becomes so involved in his work or his emotions that he often shuts himself off from all other people. When he is trying to get over the death of his brother he takes his journey into nature alone. The creature is also very lonely. All people reject him so he is forced to lurk around and live a life of solitude. Even though they appear to be completely opposite, they are actually quite similar.
Curiosity Killed The Cat... Or The Scientist: Theme
"Yet I fear such will be my fate; the men, unsupported by ideas of glory and honour, can never willingly continue to endure their present hardships." pg. 160
The story of Frankenstein is a tangled web of frame stories and perspectives that follows the journey of three beings: Walton, Victor, and the Creature. These men have embarked on strange and difficult journeys that have worn them down both physically and mentally. However, this whole story would have never happened if these men did not go on a pursuit for knowledge, more specifically to use science to be greater than nature. Walton was on his journey to discover new paths and the secret of the magnet. On this journey he came across Victor who was making him journey to find the creature he created. He created the creature to overcome death and to bring life from nothing. The creature is running from his wrong doings which he committed to avenge the way humans treated him. His attempts to learn about the humans and be accepted as one of their own led people to be frightened of him or reject him. If none of these men had been pursuing greater knowledge so obsessively they would have never gotten themselves into this mess. Therefore I think it could be stated that a theme of this novel could be that Pursuing knowledge obsessively can end up hurting people more than helping them. Victor tells the story of the creature in order to warn Walton from ending up making the same mistakes he did. Victor's story is the epitome of this theme.
The story of Frankenstein is a tangled web of frame stories and perspectives that follows the journey of three beings: Walton, Victor, and the Creature. These men have embarked on strange and difficult journeys that have worn them down both physically and mentally. However, this whole story would have never happened if these men did not go on a pursuit for knowledge, more specifically to use science to be greater than nature. Walton was on his journey to discover new paths and the secret of the magnet. On this journey he came across Victor who was making him journey to find the creature he created. He created the creature to overcome death and to bring life from nothing. The creature is running from his wrong doings which he committed to avenge the way humans treated him. His attempts to learn about the humans and be accepted as one of their own led people to be frightened of him or reject him. If none of these men had been pursuing greater knowledge so obsessively they would have never gotten themselves into this mess. Therefore I think it could be stated that a theme of this novel could be that Pursuing knowledge obsessively can end up hurting people more than helping them. Victor tells the story of the creature in order to warn Walton from ending up making the same mistakes he did. Victor's story is the epitome of this theme.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
From Eloquent Creature to The Monster Mash: Where did it come from?
"If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me?" the creature Pg. 69
So far this book is nothing like I thought it would be like. I knew going into it that the book would be different from the common idea of Frankenstein but I didn't expect this much difference. First of all Frank is the creator, not the monster which is weird to think about. Also the mental image I had of the creature was this green idiot monster with black plugs for ears. However, after reading the book now I picture the decomposing, sensitive, articulate monster. So where did all these misconceptions come from? How did his image get so morphed that he's become a goofy Halloween costume? There are definitely ties to the original but I feel like the main points the author was trying to make have kind of disappeared. This story has big themes of nature and discovery but the stories now are more about the horror. Much like the people who flee from the monster, today's society is more focused on appearances than on the deeper meaning.
Nature vs. Nurture
"I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend." the creature Pg. 69
It's quite apparent that Nature vs. Nurture is one of the big themes of this story. Victor whole heartedly believes that the creature is evil by nature and is therefore destined to commit horrible crimes. However, from what the creature has said thus far it seems like he has always been kind and selfless. However there is mention of him being involved in some pretty shady business. In fact Victor is convinced that the creature was the one that murdered his little brother. At first I thought that was a rash judgement but then with this new evidence I'm starting to wonder if maybe the creature does have a little evil in him. I think though that he was born good but everyone's constant rejection could lead him to do bad things. It has to hurt when the person that created you abandons you at your birth and thinks your hideous. I think Dr. Phil would call that bad parenting which has been known to cause kids to act out. Now to be fair most kids aren't eight feet tall and made from various previously dead body parts. But as the creature pointed out looks shouldn't be the only thing you're judged on. I think that if so many people tell you you're bad you could start to believe it after awhile. If the creature does end up being evil I think it's because of nurture, not nature.
It's quite apparent that Nature vs. Nurture is one of the big themes of this story. Victor whole heartedly believes that the creature is evil by nature and is therefore destined to commit horrible crimes. However, from what the creature has said thus far it seems like he has always been kind and selfless. However there is mention of him being involved in some pretty shady business. In fact Victor is convinced that the creature was the one that murdered his little brother. At first I thought that was a rash judgement but then with this new evidence I'm starting to wonder if maybe the creature does have a little evil in him. I think though that he was born good but everyone's constant rejection could lead him to do bad things. It has to hurt when the person that created you abandons you at your birth and thinks your hideous. I think Dr. Phil would call that bad parenting which has been known to cause kids to act out. Now to be fair most kids aren't eight feet tall and made from various previously dead body parts. But as the creature pointed out looks shouldn't be the only thing you're judged on. I think that if so many people tell you you're bad you could start to believe it after awhile. If the creature does end up being evil I think it's because of nurture, not nature.
What Have You Been Reading? Allusions
"It was as the ass and the lap-dog, yet surely the gentle ass whose intentions were affectionate, although his manners were rude, dserved better treatment than blows and execration." the creature Pg. 81
It seems to me that the shed isn't the only place the creature has been hiding out in. With all the allusions he makes you'd think he'd spent his first two years of life in a library. There is no doubt that he is an incredibly fast learner; I mean look at how much he's learned in just two years! He learns all about the basics of life such as fire, darkness, rain, etc... but he also manages to pick up the english language by simply listening to the family talk. In fact he probably has a better vocabulary than I do. Still I can't seem to figure out how it is he learned about the bible or the folk tale about a donkey and a dog. Either the family he's listening to tells a very wide variety of stories that he was able to pick up the meanings of extremely well or well I don't know? His allusions do make very good points though. His allusion to Adam conveys the idea that Victor is not so much a father as he is a god to the creature. Also the donkey and the dog makes a good point about how people can judge more on appearance than on actions.
It seems to me that the shed isn't the only place the creature has been hiding out in. With all the allusions he makes you'd think he'd spent his first two years of life in a library. There is no doubt that he is an incredibly fast learner; I mean look at how much he's learned in just two years! He learns all about the basics of life such as fire, darkness, rain, etc... but he also manages to pick up the english language by simply listening to the family talk. In fact he probably has a better vocabulary than I do. Still I can't seem to figure out how it is he learned about the bible or the folk tale about a donkey and a dog. Either the family he's listening to tells a very wide variety of stories that he was able to pick up the meanings of extremely well or well I don't know? His allusions do make very good points though. His allusion to Adam conveys the idea that Victor is not so much a father as he is a god to the creature. Also the donkey and the dog makes a good point about how people can judge more on appearance than on actions.
Think Outside the Box: A Frame Story
"Unhappy man! Do you share my madness? Have you drunk also of the intoxicating draught? Hear me, - let me reveal my tale, and you will dash the cup from your lips!" Victor Pg. 12
Though the main focus of this story is on Frankenstein's tale it's important to remember that this is a story inside another story. Because this is a frame story it is told from Victor's prospective. This means that any element of this story could be skewed because he has his own biases and memories. For instance Victor calls the creature horribly ugly and evil. The creature admits he is ugly but nothing about his personality is. This was simply Victor's rash judgement based on seeing him for about two minutes after bringing him to life. Also the idea of the frame story is important because Victor's tale acts as a warning or a sign of caution. Victor admits that through his whole life he was tempted by the idea of discovering more about nature and science. He obsessed over it and spent his whole adolescence chasing this pursuit of knowledge. He claims it was this drive that caused him to make the creature which he believes was a huge mistake. He sees that Walton has this same fascination and obsession with science and hopes that this horrible tale will keep him from making the same mistake. Even though it doesn't really seem like Walton is a super important character now he provided the motivation for the whole story and it reminds the reader of the importance of prospective.
Though the main focus of this story is on Frankenstein's tale it's important to remember that this is a story inside another story. Because this is a frame story it is told from Victor's prospective. This means that any element of this story could be skewed because he has his own biases and memories. For instance Victor calls the creature horribly ugly and evil. The creature admits he is ugly but nothing about his personality is. This was simply Victor's rash judgement based on seeing him for about two minutes after bringing him to life. Also the idea of the frame story is important because Victor's tale acts as a warning or a sign of caution. Victor admits that through his whole life he was tempted by the idea of discovering more about nature and science. He obsessed over it and spent his whole adolescence chasing this pursuit of knowledge. He claims it was this drive that caused him to make the creature which he believes was a huge mistake. He sees that Walton has this same fascination and obsession with science and hopes that this horrible tale will keep him from making the same mistake. Even though it doesn't really seem like Walton is a super important character now he provided the motivation for the whole story and it reminds the reader of the importance of prospective.
Gentle Giant, Ironic Monster
"The gentle manners and beauty of the cottagers greatly endeared them to me: when they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathised in their joys." the creature Pg 79
Is it just me or does this horrible, evil being seem to be more of a very helpful peeping Tom whose in need of a makeover? Everyone is so quick to judge the creature based on his appearance. Even his creator thinks he is awful when he's never even taken the chance to get to know him. Everything we've heard from the creature seems to convey the exact opposite. He is selfless in his actions and emotions. When he sees this family suffering he cuts them firewood and shovels the snow for them. He does more than just their chores. He talks about how when the family was upset he was distraught and when they were happy he felt great joy. Is a creature that is supposedly dark and evil truly capable of such selfless emotions/ actions? The irony is is that everyone judges him on his appearance. Even he admits that he is hideous, but that is the exact opposite of his personality. If all these people took the time to get to know him or witnessed all his good deeds, they would realize he really isn't that bad. In fact I think people would grow to love him and respect him. But people, including Victor, never took the time to get to know him because of his looks. Ironic....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)