I have already seen 1, if not 2, remakes of this classic story. So unfortunately I already had a pretty good idea of what to expect. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy reading the story though. The remakes that I saw were modernized and made to be much more thrilling than the original, which happens with most stories-turned-movies.

I wrote a paper in High School about dissociative identity disorder, and it seems like a particularly scary and uncontrollable issue. Where-as in this story Dr. Jekyll is able to control his transformations to a degree using a potion. I’ve always been curious how the legal justice system treats murder cases involving attackers claiming to suffer from dissociative identity disorder. I’d assume that they would test their sincerity as much as possible, and potentially place them in a mental facility.

I also found it hard to believe that Utterson was able to hold off from curiosity and wait until after Jekyll’s death to read the letter than was given to him by Lanyon. Also, while I understand that Lanyon was likely terrified watching a physical transformation take place in front of his eyes, it seems like dying of shock and terror is an exaggerated response…

I’m looking forward to more deeply investigating the story with our class, and I definitely enjoyed having this book on the reading list.

After having some issues understanding some of Nietzsche’s ideas that he introduces in the book, I finished reading it and definitely found his ideas intriguing. I understand that the words “good” and “bad” can have very different meanings to different people, and I’m sure there’s more to the argument that maybe I just didn’t fully understand, but I felt like that was a pretty simple concept in itself…

I was also interested by Nietzsche’s idea that maybe it would be incorrect for a lamb to blame a bird of prey for attempting to eat them, because that is basically all a bird of prey does. By looking at simple grammar, it is made clear that birds of prey are called as such for a reason. Just like how lightning cannot exist without the flash, a bird of prey cannot exist without preying.

I found plenty of points in this book interesting, but there are also definitely parts where I need some clarification. For example, I don’t have a great grasp on the transition from master morality to slave morality, and a few other ideas brought up. I definitely enjoy these types of readings more than I like reading the fiction novels, because in the fiction novels I feel like they are very straight-forward, and don’t really need much clarification or discussion. But with books like these, talking about the ideas presented in the book with people after you read is crucial to fully understanding what Nietzsche meant to get across. Looking forward to hearing other people’s thoughts and also getting my own questions cleared up!

Before having read this story, my only mental image of Frankenstein was a green monster who yelled unintelligibly and chased people around. But clearly the story has more much to it. It is interesting to look at this book and attempt to identify who the true monster in the story really is. The “monster” could be classified as a monster because he killed people, or because he is an outcast from society. But is he really the monster? Or is Victor the monster for creating such a creature? Victor decided to play the role of the creator, and made a beastly-looking animal without thinking about the potential consequences. Victor neglected to realize that any humanly thing, no matter how grotesque, will benefit from or even need some sort of companionship.

Victor created this monster and practically abandoned it out of fear. Between being cast off by society and also finding Victor’s notes about his disapproval of his existence, the monster felt isolated and lonely in the world. In my opinion, Victor Frankenstein could be classified as even more of a monster than the “monster” himself. He went against the rules of nature and created his own human, and then allowed the creature to roam free and kill people that he cared about. And was also too afraid of being labelled as a lunatic to fess up and tell people what he had done, even allowing someone else to be executed for a murder that he had an indirect hand in.

I found it interesting that the monster was able to pick up on the human’s language so quickly, and seemed to actually be a moralled person who later regretted his monstrous ways. I found the story as a whole very interesting.

I really enjoyed reading Rousseau’s thoughts on the origin of inequality, and the way that his ideas differed with those presented by Hobbes. Though I didn’t find the discourse particularly easy to read or even fully comprehend, Rousseau made it clear that he did not believe that political and social inequality was in human’s nature. He believed that physical inequality is natural, which eventually led to some people collecting more resources than those physically weaker than themselves. In order to protect their possessions, those with the most ‘stuff’ created laws to protect their resources from those who are not as well off, which marked the creation of political and social inequality. Until our minds began to grow and advance, social inequality was not in our nature. After social stratification began, humans tried to legitimize inequality by creating laws and sectioning off property.

Hobbes felt that in nature, humans were violent savages, whereas Rousseau believes that we became more savage as we progressed and grew as a race. I’d say that I was more compelled by Rousseau’s ideas. I thought it was interesting when he explained his feelings on laws. He was convinced that laws helped create certain evil passions, and that if humans in nature could be good without laws, then maybe it is laws themselves that make people bad.

Though I know that many people in the class have been arguing for books written by authors from more diverse areas or periods of time, or more books written by women, I’ve found all of our readings to be pretty interesting and mind-opening. After never really reading about philosophy, coming into this class and learning about people’s differing opinions on society has been a very interesting experience. I look forward to starting up class again and I am excited for the second semester to begin.