So…I had a nice conspiracy theory blog that I was just about to upload, then my laptop went and crashed on me, resulting in the complete loss of said blog, and rather than rewrite the damn thing, I decided to take a book analysis I did in high school (for this book, of course) and post it here instead. The whole thing is quite long though, so I just put in the more interesting bits, some of which is similar to my forever lost blog. So…here you go.

Although I consider the climax to occur at the time of the monster’s final speech, research into other sources points instead to the death of Elizabeth as the climax, with the final speech a part of the falling action. Despite this information, however, I firmly maintain my position that the climax does indeed occur at the end of the novel. My reasoning for this is that while the death of Elizabeth does mark the final nail on the coffin for the fate of Victor, the death of Victor and the monster’s vow of suicide marks the final nail on the coffin for the fate of anyone who undergoes the enterprise that Victor has pursued. It finalizes the cautionary theme of the entire novel, and is thus in my opinion the true climax of the story.

In general, the characterization in the novel is the weakest aspect of Mary’s writing. Though the characters themselves are round and moderately believable (probably more so in the time period this was written in), the problem is that virtually every person in the novel possesses the exact same character – in other words, they all have the same personality, but with varying circumstances that may illuminate one or more different aspects but still in the end derive off of the same archetype. This was a somewhat annoying deterrent to my enjoyment of this novel, though it wasn’t a major turn-off as the story focuses more on philosophical concepts than personal relations. In hindsight, I’ve considered the possibility that the reason for this severe lack of character variety is the resultant of a technique that Shelley utilized in order to highlight the fact that everyone possesses the potential to become like Frankenstein and his monster. If this is true, then I applaud her; I honestly doubt that it is though.

“Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect…Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (110).

After finishing the novel, I have come to this conclusion with regards to this allusion: Frankenstein’s monster is Adam, while Frankenstein himself is Satan. My reasoning for this is thus:

Frankenstein, in his creation of the monster, “polluted” the natural form of life. The knowledge of good and evil was forced onto the neutral existence, thus creating the unnatural monster – this is an allusion to Eve being tricked into eating the fruit by Satan. Upon seeing the hideous monster, Frankenstein, the rest of humanity, and eventually the monster itself abhors its appearance – this is an allusion to Adam and Eve wearing clothes because they did not want to be naked. After this point, however, the allusion becomes loose for one reason.

There is no parallel to God.

Because of this, the events themselves play out differently than in the biblical sequence (I may be wrong as I have not actually read the bible). It is not God that punishes Frankenstein/Satan for his misdeed, but rather his own knowledge and corruption that destroys his “Eden” of Geneva. The monster/Adam, having no God to guide it, is gradually tainted by the world and ultimately becomes evil even though it wishes to be virtuous. The tragedy of the story plays out when, at the end, having mutually destroyed each others’ happiness, Frankenstein/Satan dies in the cold hell of the arctic while the monster/Adam resolves to die in a hell of fire.

Being someone who does not believe in objective morality, I viewed Frankenstein and his monster as equal existences while I read the story. In my opinion, Frankenstein’s fatal mistake was not in creating the monster, but in his immediate rejection of it thereafter, which was the trigger that would eventually lead to the tragic conclusion. I consider the monster to be more justified than Frankenstein in his demands, but recognize Frankenstein’s reasoning in refusing to create another monster that he has by then designated as the source of his misfortune. It is here that this story becomes a true tragedy rather than a conflict of “good” and “evil.” Both characters are simply existences that are trying to gain happiness in their lives, who through unfortunate circumstances and misguided actions cause the unhappiness of all.

Reading something I wrote roughly a year ago makes me feel like my writing quality has degraded…oh well. Hopefully, my computer won’t crash next time.

Out of all the books that we’ve read so far in Arts One, and perhaps including the books that we have yet to read, Frankenstein is my favourite. I liked it for both personal and academic reasons. We’ve encountered various monsters throughout the various texts we’ve trudged through, but I think the creation in Frankenstein is the ultimate monster that dominates and eclipses the rest. He’s not the type of evil, seductive monster one would encounter in The Odyssey, or the raging feminist Medea, or the type of “good” monster that unites human beings together in Leviathan. In some ways the creation in Frankenstein is the stereotypical monster. We once agreed, as a seminar class, that the definition of a monster is an individual that is socially isolated, misunderstood by society, want to be accepted, yet use the wrong methods. I’d say Frankenstein fits this very definition, or stereotype, of monsters that exists in the educated mind (the less educated would say a monster is one of those boogeyman who hides in one’s closet, then jumps out at night).
Some people could arguably say that the Frankenstein’s creation is the monster in the novel, but I honestly never thought of it that way. I think Frankenstein himself is more the monster, but I’ll explain why later. Initially, I thought the name “Frankenstein” referred to the creation itself, and not the creator. Various cartoon series I used to watch when I was little made me think that way. In reality, “Frankenstein” was the creator. The novel never gives the creation any name, let alone call it “Frankenstein.” This somewhat influenced me to think that perhaps the creator, Frankenstein, is the monster- although, I admit, I have associated the word “Frankenstein” so much with a monstrous individual that my thoughts may be biased. Maybe there were no monsters! But to me, Frankenstein is the obvious monster.
Frankenstein, in some ways, represents society. We agreed in our seminar discussions that society’s expectations and norms give birth to monsters, who don’t quite fit into these regulations. Frankenstein was expecting a creation that resembled a human physically. What he failed to realize was that he had created a human emotionally, but that the creation was encaged in the physical body of a “monster.” Frankenstein only saw the physical side to his creation, and that was enough to repulse him. The creation itself represents the kind of social misfit who can’t fit in anywhere, and turns to destructive means. Many serial killers and notorious criminals could probably relate to Frankenstein’s creation, as well as those responsible for school shootings.
Another reason why I thought the creation outshined other monsters we’ve read about in Arts One was because while the other monsters showed some human characteristics, this monster was almost entirely human except in physical features. In other words, this was the most human monster we’ve encountered to date. I can use one word to describe this monster: haunting. Even more hauntingly beautiful than Caliban’s speeches in The Tempest. I think the last image the novel leaves us with has imprinted on my memory for indefinable reasons. There’s something so human about this monster that I can’t describe it, and something so pitiful and admirable that no words can express it. He’s human because he was born good, he wanted acceptance and couldn’t get it. He had a much purer and innocent heart to begin with than many humans I know nowadays, but because of his deformed features, he was doomed to be forever alone. Most people in such situations would probably go off on a murder spree without feeling an ounce of remorse, but this monster actually had a conscience. He lamented the death of Frankenstein when I probably would’ve celebrated the event. Frankenstein gave him nothing but a cursed existence, but the creation felt responsible for the death of his creator and offered to kill himself as compensation. It’s his love for humans and need for acceptance (a human trait) that ultimately killed the creation in the end.

The first notable aspect I found about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality is that it essentially conceptually counters Hobbes’ ideas about the power of society. In Leviathan, Hobbes’ concepts of natural right, states of nature in which life is nasty, brutal and short, and that the strong have complete power over the weak but that society exists as a way to remedy this. However in Discourse, Rousseau argues that it is society and social relations that spawn inequality, essentially turning Hobbes’ concept on its head. Rousseau states later that society teaches us to be self-aware and reflective, and whilst this can lead to improvement and advancements in technology , it also leads to pride and our realization of strength and weakness.

The argument he sets forth in Discourse is that modern moral inequality, which is spawned by agreement between men, is unnatural and dissimilar to the real nature of man. Throwing Biblical reference out of the picture, Rousseau attempts at guessing what a state of nature for man would look like. He finds very few discrepancies between man and animal, seeing as they are motivated by two key principles: self-preservation and pity. The one thing that does separate man from animal, however, is perfectibility.

It is one thing to have natural abilities in the state of nature; it is another to be aware of them; and it is another to be aware that others are aware of them and that you can use them for mutual assistance or personal gain.

By the end of the discourse, I felt a little disapointed by the fact that the essay didn’t even get into the discussion of inequality until the second part. Mind you, not too big of an issue since I intended on talking more on the conceptions of the body (which is more relevant in the first part). It is unfortunate that Rousseau was a few generations older than Hobbs; after reading both these (Leviathan and Discourse) I would have loved to see some rebuttle of ideas.

If anyone here watches NBC’s Community I think it’d be worth re-watching the “Debate 109” episode after reading both these texts, as the subject of the episode has to do with man being fundamentally good versus evil. Personally, I am more inclined to believe that society does more good than it does evil, but I disagree with Hobbes on our monstrosity in natural state and tend to side with Rousseau’s ideas of being perfectly self-preservable in our natural state. What are your thoughts?

Although I found Rousseau to be a bit confusing and not entirely a clear read (since I did have to re-read some lines more than once), it was a good read. However, I’m not going to say that I fully agreed of even understood all the points that he raised. To be quite honest here, Rousseau’s views somewhat mind boggled me from time to time. I found that upon reading certain parts of his argument, it was hard for me to fully and entirely comprehend what he was trying to convey/ persuade us to believe. Though with that being said, I do still think he raised some very valid and thought provoking points and questions.

As I previously stated above, Rousseau’s argument did indeed confuse me here and there, but in the very beginning, he proposes the question: “How can we know the source of inequality among men if we do not first have knowledge of men themselves?” By clearly outlining the question that he is trying to answer, I think that Rousseau’s thoughts were better laid out for me to understand. This simple question was particularly thought provoking for me and intrigued me greatly.

A Discourse on Inequality clearly demonstrates Rousseau’s belief that the growth of a society corrupts man entirely. He believes that as society continues to further develop and evolve, us as human beings only suffer from this change. That man’s natural happiness and freedom are severed by artificial inequality. Rousseau essentially conveys throughout his claim, that the introduction of private property, is what catalyzed the decline in society as a whole. Rousseau brings up quite a valid point in my opinion, when he asks, “How many crimes, wars, murders; how much misery horror the human race would have been spared if someone had pulled up the stakes and filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: ‘Beware of listening to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itself belongs to no one!”

Imagine a place where everything was shared and selfishness, or amour propre did not exist. A place without pride, or immense self-indulgence. Rousseau clearly comprehends throughout a Discourse on Inequality, his belief that society has taken a turn for the worse. That nascent society was the peak of civilization before modernity and artificial matters took over the simplicity and innocence of the state of nature.

Thus, with that being said, I think that Rousseau raised some great questions. Do I think that they are entirely true? To a certain extent, yes. But in spite of my opinion regarding the way he views civilization and society, Rousseau’s persuasive way of conveying his thoughts made this read quite enjoyable; more enjoyable than I expected really.

While I do not like reading political and philosophical books Rousseau’s A Discourse on Inequality was strangely enough an interesting read. Rousseau’s book is an easier read than many of the other books related to politics and philosophy which we read over the semester and yet it is the easiest one to read out of all of them. Rousseau uses interesting and diverse imagery in order to emphasize the points he is making and those images help to highlight his own character and personal traits such as the idea of the cows which cry when they are about to go to the slaughter house and other animal comparisons (such as when he compares the rich people to wolves) showing the importance that animals played in his mind and his writing. Rousseau also mentions ancient Greece and Rome when he compares how Nature treats them to how the Law of Sparta “treated the children of its citizens”; he also mentions Ceres and the festival “Thesmophoria” which is festival in honor of Ceres (or Demeter in Ancient Greece) I learned about in a Greek/Roman myth class and it strange that he mentions this particular festival because it is an all female ritual which was held near the seat of male power in Athens. Since Rousseau does not really mention women throughout his essay it is interesting to note that one of the only times that he does reference them (in any way) he talks about a ritual which showed a strong female character in a patriarchal society being worshiped so near the male seat of power.

Another facet of Rousseau’s essay I found particularly interesting was the idea of the tree being pictured in the mind. Rousseau points out that the second imagination enters all general ideas become “particular” – then they are no longer one out of a large number, instead they become unique. Upon further htought it is almost impossible for two people to imagine the same tree (although now it is less impossible because of media and films, if I were to mention the White Tree of Gondor I’m sure almost everyone could imagine the same tree, but even then it would be dependent on how you remembered the same tree) with exceptions and yet even if the trees were almost the same something or the other would be different because of perspective and the person imagining the tree. Rousseau’s idea that imagination changes things is fascinating and something I feel like we all live with and forget to really think about on a daily basis. How unique our imagination really is.

Rousseau sets out on a task to explain the most fundamental questions we ask ourselves. That oh so familiar phrase, “why do bad things happen to good people?” this questioning of fairness and equality is tackled philosophically by Rousseau. While I do think that the ideas he conveys are very original and intriguing  I cannot say that I am convinced. Rousseau appears to create and utilize conjecture as his basis for the book. As one who attempts to interpret everything through a scientific perspective, I have some issues with what he states. I will say that he is ahead of his time scientifically speaking, however, he does not base any of his claims on evidence of any sort. He bases his many points and arguments around what he seems to believe and what could be possible. This, although interesting, disconnects me from his argument as this mere idea is proven wrong in today’s scientific knowledge.

Rousseau also appears to make a distinction between humans of his day and humans that reside in a natural habitat. This idea is that man would be naked, removed of all of his tools, weapons, and clothing. I strongly believe, however, that by removing items such as clothing, weapons, shelter, etc, you no longer present humans in a natural light. This is the exact opposite of natural; it is the perversion of humanity. By dictating what humans may have, it eliminates the purity that accompanies nature.

Consider a bee hive for example. One would be fully inclined to consider this as part of nature (I assume that Rousseau would agree with this statement as well). However, this bee hive is similar to a city, highly populated with humans. This is to show that a city is quite similar to a bee hive, the only difference is the complexity. A bee hive has structure and function similar to a city, but lacks in the complexity that human brains can create. This shows that there is no severing from the natural world, the natural world is everything around us, humans have simply learned to manipulate nature, not destroy it. It would appear as though Rousseau is guilty of the gripes of human emotion in his distinction of what nature is.