Beloved: Motherhood

With slavery behaving as a common theme in Beloved's unraveling plot and having a female as the main character, the idea of motherhood becomes natural. One of the cruel parts of slavery is how it effects the bonds of love, particularly those between mother and child. Sethe continually expresses the pain of separation from her mother. In class on Thursday we took a quiz and I responded to question number one that addressed if you think Sethe is justified in killing her baby. Was it motherly? This is an intense idea to toy with, because of all the extenuating factors of oppression, slavery and danger. Some one brought up a really interesting question at the very tail end of class, "What is more free, slavery or death? Is it the mother's right to make that choice?"

That really got me thinking about the boundaries of motherhood. Naturally, the boundaries are changed due to slavery, because it is an entirely different institution. After the events the happened with Sethe killing her child, there is a lot of repressed feelings, "she [Sethe] was frightened by the thought of having a baby once more. Needing to be good enough, alert enough, strong enough, that caring - again. Having to stay alive just that much longer" (155). It is interesting to analyze Sethe's motive towards having children, after losing one. I could interpret her intentions as her being scared or her finding that being motherly with a child as a burden. I think it has to do with a little bit of both, but mostly because of her fear of losing another child.

I really wonder what Morrison meant by "having to stay alive just that much longer" Is she referring to Sethe staying alive or the child? I think it means that Sethe wants to die or is anticipating death. She does make reference to living is a reason to be a mother. Maybe, because Sethe's child is dead because of what she did to her..in her mind she has reversed the roles of life and death. That death is where she will be joined with her daughter and her life is where she will struggle. Sethe switches off between different mentalities when it comes to coping with the death of her child.

I took the side of not looking down on Sethe for killing her child. She chose to have her child not take the chance in growing up in slavery, but to hopefully die in peace. What is more worse, death or slavery? The child does not get the chance to answer that question, the mother chose. I think her intentions were in the right order, because she only wanted to provide the best that she could. I think she intended on dying too, but needed to take care of Denver after all was said and done.

It is a very stick subject when it comes to a solid conclusion about the justifications of Sethe's actions, but Morrison succeeds in providing a twisting, compelling plot for her readers to disect.

Final Paper Idea Continued

Woops! I posted my final paper idea last week, so I need to adjust it to meet the requirements. Here is a quote from Frankenstein to contextualize what I want my final critical analysis to be about. "I (the creature) perceived the words they (the family) spoke sometimes produced pleasure or pain, smiles or sadness, in the minds and countenances of the hearers. This was indeed a godlike science, and I ardently desired to become acquainted with it" (74-5).

I want to tie the idea of the creature discovering humans in nature to relate to how the narrator in Walden Pond reacts to nature. The narrators/character in both stories provide observations of their interactions between themselves and nature. I want to compare and contrast these two to tease out the controversy is if the creature's being. Can he become natural if brought into this world in an unnatural way? What holds higher, nature or nurture?

Final Paper Idea: Frankenstein

Earlier this semester, I wrote my paper on Frankenstein and how the theme of nature is prevalent throughout the novel. I wanted to extend my research on the novel Frankenstein , the creature and Thoreau's Walden Pond.

Walden Pond by Henry David Thoreau is a witty, refreshing book about a man at peace with the natural world around him. This is a bit in contrast with how the creature interacted in the natural world, he was not necessarily in peace with it, because he was rejected due to his "unnatural" creation.

Thoreau makes references to many varied subjects, and many different kinds of readers will find ways to relate to what he says. He refers to mythology, history, poetry, knowledge of plants and wildlife and carpentry, then comes full-circle and tells us what he is doing, but finally tells us that none of those things matter as much as living life in the present without pretense.

I find that there are correlations between the text of Walden Pond and Frankenstein through the theme of nature. The creature discovers nature on his own and learns from it as well by observing. This is the same for the narrator in Walden Pond. However, these two characters ultimately have different outcomes with their experience in nature, they do have similarities in learning to coincide with nature.

My plan is to use the content of Walden Pond to provide further analysis as to how the creature discovers himself and nature. I think Walden Pond will provide significant content in order to contextualize the theme of nature in Frankenstein.

What do you think? Any further ideas on where I could take this analysis?

Blood Relations

Candace Benefiel's critical analysis of the evolving idea of the vampire brings light to why Rice's novel is such a significant contribution to vampiric literature, "This breakthrough novel (Interview with the Vampire) focused not on vampire hunters, but on the vampires themselves - and what a different breed they are" (1). I find this conclusion to be true of Rice's work, because the main characters, Louis, Lestat and Claudia all have varying depths to their character. The reader really gets an opportunity to relate to the Vampire. For example, Louis's character provides a lot of room for analysis and interpretation, because so much content is provided on him. You learn a bit about him when he was mortal, how he learned to hunt and become a Vampire and through the structure of the novel (interview style) you learn his personal thoughts and reactions to the events that are unraveling.

I think another imortant Benefiel is making about Rice's work with the Vampire as a character is that focusing more personally on the Vampires has been tried before, but Rice was the first one to succeed, "they (Louis, Lestat and Claudia) may not have been the first sympathetic vampires, they were the first successful ones in their initial publication, and they have been followed by a host of others" (2). Rice paved the way for sympathy and Vampires to co-exist in a certain medium.

The idea of nuclear family among the Vampire characters is a theme that I recently dicussed in a previous blog and it has also been a topic of conversation in class. Benefiel also addresses this topic, "Rice, however, expanded on this considerably in Interview with the Vampire, making the nuclear family of vampires a major theme in her novel...The vampire family, incestuous and blurred as it is, presents a subversive alternative model to the nuclear family" (3). I agree with the idea of the vampire family being incestuous, because Lestat plays a dominant fatherly role, but he also played a nurturing mother role when raising both Louis and Claudia. Louis also intially harnesses a paternal role with Claudia, but then he develops a relationship that is romantic. I find that people's reaction to the sex and incest of vampires is not really questioned. It seems to me that these ideas can be safely teased out when addressed to the character of a vampire. I think this suggests that what is so captivating about vampires is they resemble a human (since they once were human) and are therefore capable of behaving in manners that, if we as humans behaved like would be revolting, but when a vampire does it - it is thrilling, exciting and fearful. I think they almost serve as outlet where forbidden human ideas can be exercised safely and constructively.

I think Benefiel also touches on this idea of the reader being able to act out irregular scenarios, "The family group of Interview with the Vampire, as well as subsequent iterations of the vampire family, allows the reader to explore issues of alternative family structures and incestuous attraction within the family, and to play out the consequences for good or ill of these imagined scenarios. The vampire, aloof from human considerations, nonetheless stands in for the reader" (10). Rice and other authors provide a world where the reader can experience such controversial, untouchable ideas in a safe, imaginative environment.

I found this essay to be extremely helpful in beginning to analyze and understand why vampires are so captivating for our culture; what it is about their role that attracts people to them. They have been a character that has evolved over the generations and is given other dynamics, but it is a character that never grows old (literally).

Interview with the Vampire: Slavery

The theme of slavery is an interesting theme in this novel. It exists in the human nature and translates to the vampires' lives as well. Who is master and who is the slave is interchangeable among the characters, whether they are vampire or mortal.

In the beginning of the novel, the slaves on the Pointe Du Lac property are referenced. The Vampires are the masters to the slaves and have them maintain the property. The slaves do rise against their masters, because they suspected danger, " 'The slaves, they know...you must go to the cabins and keep watch' "(53). This is soon after Louis killed the slave boy that came to check upon the house whom caught a glimpse of Lestat's vampiric teeth. Louis knew by the expressive reaction on the boy's face that he knew what they were. Louis played a master role by dominating the slave.

However, Louis is rarely master-like or dominant in this novel. I find that he mostly plays a slave to Lestat, his master that made him a vampire. Louis continually discusses his feelings that he desires to get away from Lestat, however, he never takes the initiation to do such a thing. He stays with Lestat, despite mostly disagreeing with Lestat's raw, gruesome nature. "I hadn't thought of it, dreamed of it in so long; I'd grown accustomed to him, as if he were a condition of life itself...I thought of what I always felt when I heard him coming, a vague anxiety, a vague need" (117). Claudia is a psuedo-master to Louis when she convinces him that they can run away from Lestat, that they can take back their freedom from him. But Louis does mention the "need" he felt for Lestat.

I think this idea of slavery also relates to what I wrote in my previous blog about family. Even though Lestat is a dominant, parent-like figure for Claudia and Louis, there is the idea of who is the master and who is the slave? Can ideas of family and slavery relate? Maybe they correlate together and tease out the idea of how dominance and hierarchy is contextualized in relatonships?

I definitely think the idea of "control" in relationships is addressed through the ideas of slavery and family in this novel. I think it is intriguing, because it makes you think why do you stay in a relationship even if you don't like it? Why do you defend those that may not treat you with kindness? How far does loyalty really travel in a relationship and how come? What justifies ceasing relations?

Interview with a Vampire: Family

The ideology of the nuclear family is an interesting theme when compared to Rice's backdrop in Interview with a Vampire. Family values vary across the characters. However, I find that Rice really sends a message about family through the Freniere family. The compassion that Louis bestows on this family does coincide with how Lestat is "raising" him.

Louis demonstrates sympathy and character when he takes notice of the boy of the Freniere household and Louis describes it as, "Their position was agonizing. And I felt for the boy...He knew full well if he fell under the rapier at 4 a.m. the next morning, his family would fall with him" (43). I think Louis is expressing genuine concern for family. Rice vicariously uses the leading Vampire characters to address family. Louis and Lestat have conflicting ideals, however, they both demonstrate compassion for family.

Lestat shows his compassion in more of an unforgiving "tough love" manner, because he cares for his old, dying father and takes good care of him. But Lestat is boastful, bold, mean and unforgiving towards his father. I still think unconditional love is expressed here for family, because even though Lestat resents his father, he provides for him. Also, Lestat makes sure he is not the one to kill his father when the time comes.

Louis goes on to attempt providing further protection for the Freniere family. He tells the sister Babette to take over the household and to not sell-out, "You must take this place. If you do not, the land is lost and the family is lost" (47). She does what Louis tells her and is rewarded with success and maintains her family. I think this demonstrates Louis care for the traditional nuclear family, he wishes for them to survive.

I do not find instances of Rice displaying poor imagery about families throughout this novel. Family seems to be portrayed as an innocent, sacred entity that is to be valued and not betrayed. Family is represented as unconditional and the exception when crossing the lines of relationships between vampires and humans.

Dracula: Stephen D. Arata

What I find interesting in Arata's analysis is the definition of "What is Gothic" is addressed in comparison to Dracula. The first couple chapters were rewritten to change the setting for Dracula's castle. Moving the castle from Styria to Transylvania. "By moving Castle Dracula there, Stoker gives distinctly political overtones to his Gothic narrative" (463). I remember the first couple days of class we defined what the Gothic is and where the setting is presents a huge staple for the rest of the novel. Stoker acknowledges the use of a creepy, vexed region should be used as Dracula's quarters to appeal to his audiences.

Arata's analysis of how Dracula views himself and vampires is, "there is hardly a foot of soil in all this region that has not been enriched by the blood of men, patriots or invaders" (33). His subsequent question is thus: "Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race?" (41). "The 'race' in which Dracula claims membership is left ambiguous here. He refers at once to his Szekely warrior past and to his vampiric present" (463). Which is Stoker trying to address? Is it being suggested that vampires or vampiric characteristics are in relation to warriors/soldiers?

That would be a pretty bold statement for the time that this novel was released. The dichotomy of European races was prevalent at the time. Perhaps Stoker was using Dracula to stand as a symbol of a warrior that has returned from war. That a part of someone has to die before they can return home. Dracula still continues his life with energy and routines much like the lives of humans, however, he is different due to his past and character state.

I think it would only be a minor characteristic of the novel if Stoker would be addressing Dracula as the role of a soldier. The idea of the Vampire has been appealing to the masses for years, but I do think perhaps Stoker tailored Dracula more to the demographic of what was occuring. For example, where a Vampire originates when portrayed now-a-days is not as relevant as it was in Stoker's time. Stoker wanted to instill the ambiguous nature of Dracula and he started it with the location of the Count's castle. The Vampire always represents what is estranged, different and fearful in humans. Throughout literature, I am sure the Vampire is tailored to represent different unsettling human events (i.e. war, politics, religion).

Dracula

Beginning this novel, I found the format as a difficult starting off point. Not knowing who the characters were provided some difficulty, but after sticking through it for a little bit, I was able to fall into the rhythm.

Dracula may be viewed as a novel about the struggle between tradition and modernity. The issue of technology throughout the novel interests me, especially with how it adapts to different characters. Dr. Seward provides a lot of observations and demonstrates a technical mindset, "I shall have to invent a new classification for him, and call him a zoohagous (life-eating) maniac" (71). These are observations taken from his notes on Renfield. He delves into creating a new scientific term to define Renfield and his actions. Overall, Seward's journals are obersvatons and noting changes/adaptations.

To extrapolate on Seward, I think he is a man that reserves himself from emotion and happiness, "If only I could have as strong a cause as my poor mad friend [Renfield] there, a good, unselfish cause to make me work that would be indeed happiness" (71). I think he envies the chaos and experience of Renfield. Can Seward not relate to others? Does he naturally reserve himself?

The idea of the typewriter and the phonograph illustrates the technological progression throughout the novel. For example, Seward's diary that is kept in the Phonograph is more up-to-date than Jonathan's shorthand or Mina's typewriter. The Phonograph functions as a nineteenth-century tape recorder. I find that Seward's observations are more credible, intelligent and intriguing, because of his adaptation to modern technology.

Van Helsing is also resonsible for citing scientific references, but he is not completely reserved from the fact that something supernatural could be the cause. He promotes blood transfusions, and discusses the ideas of psychology and hypnotism. At this time, these were borderline "magic" sciences.

However, science is an important theme in this novel, because not one character rejects the idea of science in favor of their beliefs or superstition.

Sandra M. Gilbert: Bible of Hell

I found this literary analysis interesting when comparing Shelley and Bronte. Information is provided that delves into their past to bring up the distinct commonality that they are both motherless, orphans. Gilbert brings up an intriguing concept,"motherless orphans like Mary Shelley and Emily Bronte almost see to seek literal answers to that question, so passionately do their novels enact distinctive female literary obsessions" (380). The female roles in Frankenstein in comparison to Wuthering Heights have similarities and differences. Given both author's similar backgrounds, they approach female characters in a different light. I personally think Shelley used women in her novel to represent lack of mother and upbringing. Perhaps she is suggesting or touching upon the fact that Victor or the creature succeed or survive, because the lack of a mother. In Bronte's Wuthering Heights, the female characters are more present in the story. A mother is still lacking, similar to that of Shelley's Frankenstein, but the female roles are incorporated with observations, thoughts, feels and conservations. I think there are more dynamics to the female in her novel, considering she has leading female characters. However, I do agree with Gilbert that Shelley and Bronte both demonstrate the theme of motherless/orphan in both literary works.

A few questions arose when reading about the heaven and hell in Wuthering Heights. I wasn't absolutely certain where Gilbert was going with this. Why was she dissecting the title? "Which of the two words of Wuthering Heights (if either) does Bronte mean to represent the truly 'fallen' world?" (382). Wuthering Heights is one place, why would it matter which word represents the "fallen"? In this criticism the word "Miltonic" keeps being brought up, what is that in reference to? Example: "And that the fall in Wuthering Heights has Miltonic overtones is no doubt culturally inevitable" (382).

Another aspect of Gilbert's work that interested me was the section that stretched from page 388-89. "From the outside, at least, the Lintons' elegant haven appears paradisaical. But once the children have experienced its Urizenic interior, they know that in their terms this heaven is hell" (389). This touches again on the theme of heaven is hell, hell heaven. I never really thought of that theme while reading the book, but now it makes me look more in-depth to how the characters developed and why they did in such a way. For example, Heathcliff left Wuthering Heights, which was hell for him and returned to Thruschcross Grange, a clean slate, a heaven. However, Heathcliff is still the same, but reserved. His outrageous impulses still exist, his Hell still transfers with him to "heaven".

A complete side thought on this heaven hell issue is that it makes me think of Paradise Lost. "make a Heaven of Hell/A Hell of Heaven". After just looking up that quote I was thinking of I answered my own question I had previously. John Milton wrote Paradise Lost and he is a significant point of reference for Gilbert describing her analysis of the heaven hell theme. That is what she means by "Miltonic".

I love the summary Gilbert gives towards the end, "Catherine and Heathcliff nevertheless linger still at the edge of the estate, as witch and goblin, Eve and Satan" (393). I think that brilliantly captures Cathering and Heathcliff's situation in relation to Paradise Lost, the Bible and other literary works that would have been a point of reference for Bronte.

Wuthering Heights: Heathcliff

Last Thursday, groups were assigned different characters to find quotes to identify their changes and developments from Wuthering Heights to Thrushcross Grange. Heathcliff was assigned to my group and I found it extremely interesting to follow his change between the two locations. I personally believe that his change is the most drastic among the characters in this novel.

There is a dialogue with Heathcliff at Wuthering Heights that I think depicts his personality well, " 'Why, how very black and cross you look! and how-how funny and grim!'...'Shake hands, Heathcliff'...'I shall not!'...'You needn't have touched me!'...'I shall be as dirty as I please, and I like to be dirty, and I will be dirty' "(42-3). He exercises a very stubborn behavior, but trying to understand why he acts like that delves a little deeper. Heathcliff is essentially adopted by this family and is automatically an outcast, because he was not inherited into their values, traditions and wealth. Heathcliff was not after their money or wealth by any means, he sought their attention. I think he sought their attention with his dirt and different demeanor just to make it a point that he knew he was different and state that he is going to remain different. I admire Heathcliff as a character, because he is very true to himself and follows his own rules.

Nelly provided a spectator opinon of Heathcliff as, "His abode at the Heights was an oppression past explaining. I felt that God had forsaken the stray sheep there to its own wicked wanderings, and an evil beast prowed between it and the fold, waiting his time to spring and destroy" (85). He is compared to that of a beast and I think that is an accurate depiction of how Bronte intentionally meant to portray Heathcliff. Wuthering Heights represented a dark, tulmotuous time for Heathcliff. It is when he leaves that he is given the chance to really submit to his will and freedom.

Upon his return to Thrushcross Grange, Heathcliff is mature, attractive and reserved. "behold the transformation of Heathcliff. He had grown a tall, athletic, well-formed man...his manner was even dignified, quite divested of roughness, though too stern for grace" (75). This 180 definitely changes everyone's opinion of him, but he is still true to himself. He is still the same passionate, impulsive boy that left Wuthering Heights. However, he has learn to control his impulses and he is more polite, sophisticated and reserved, "He retained a great deal of the reserve for which his boyhood was remarkable, and that served to repress all startling demonstrations of feeling" (79). This mysterious transformation definitely catches everyone's eye and the reader is captivated by Heathcliff.

Through Heathcliff's drastic change, his character is allowed to develop and his place in everyone elses lives changes, because he no longer represents what he used to. It is almost as if he gets to begin with a clean slate, however the same pre-dispositions still remain as a caution. His character has so many depths and dynamics that it makes him a tangible, memorable piece of literary work.

Wuthering Heights: Love

The section of the reading that I found particularly captivating was in Chapter 9 when Catherine finally expresses how she feels for Linton and Heathcliff (63-67). In the time building up to this point, I was unsure and vexed as to how she really felt. Linton and Heathcliff represent different characters of society. For example, Linton is the wealthy, handsome prince charming that is ideal to marry in a social status eye. Whereas, Heathcliff is run-down, not as wealthy, however he is captivating to Catherine. There is talk throughout the reading where Cathering and Heathcliff seprarately describe the others as two bodies sharing one soul.

I am really interested in Catherine's reaction and response to the two different loves that she is presented. The connection between Linton and Catherine vs. Catherine and Heathcliff is extremely different. Bronte provides a thorough description and analysis of how and why they are different. For me it really started to pick-up on page 63, when Bronte writes, "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome. Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same, and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning or frost from fire" (63).

Where I want to begin with that quote, which will be off par from the rest of my analysis is I am confused as to why Catherine describes marrying Heathcliff as degrading? Is it because of how Linton treated him? That marrying Linton would provide a future advantage for Heathcliff to gain wealth? That was ultimately the phrase that Heathcliff overheard and left the estate. I am confused as to what Catherine specifically meant by those words, because she describes her love and connection with Heathcliff as a very intense, spiritual connection. Catherine actively acknowledges the distance in connection between her and lipton, however, she still decides to marry him instead. Her head and heart are in two different places. I am sure Heathcliff's leaving the property gave her an extra push to continue with Linton. I find it an incredibly unfortunate, gothic instance in this novel that Heathcliff leaves under false pretenses and the rest of the novel unfolds as it does.

To continue comparing Catherine's feelings for Heathcliff vs. Linton, Bronte continues with, "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods. Time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees - my love for Heathcliff resembles the enternal rocks beneath - a source of little visible delight, but necessary" (64). Catherine's love for Linto is like the seasons, they come and go. Her love is not solid or consistent with Linton, it is changing and adapting. The reference to how winter changes the trees could also represent how their love is cold and barren. Her reference for the love she has for Heathcliff is much more in-depth and solid. She compares it to a rock, an eternal rock. She describes her love for Heathcliff as transcendent, deep, immovable, and everlasting.

While reading the variations of her feelings between these two men, you are left pondering the same questions as Catherine. What matters more? Status or love? Her choice is somewhat made for her when Heathcliff leaves, but the truth is prolonged for sometime, because of the previously mentioned unraveling of events. Catherine's marriage to Linton is purely characterized as materialistic, "if Heathcliff and I married, we should be beggars? whereas, if I marry Linton, I can aid Heathcliff to rise, and place him out of my brother's power" (64). Catherine's feelings for Linton are not pure and her decision to marry him still revolves around her feelings for Heathcliff. She would rather help Heathcliff improve financially and move up the social ladder then have them be together as beggars. Her mind seems to be very much focused on social views.

With that in mind, what does that say bout the dynamics in the rest of the novel? What is Bronte saying about money and social status vs. love? What background information outlines Bronte's purpose for writing this novel?

Frankenstein: Vol II

I recall from the first couple days of class we discussed "What is the Gothic?" and the topic of mirroring, alter egos and doubling was used to define the Gothic. I find in Frankenstein that the Being is a mirror of Victor. Victor spends a strenuous amount of time in creating the Being that he ultimately transfers his life into another being. Victor sacrifices his social life, family, and friends for the quest to find the secret of life. In doing so, he creates a life that is in search for the same quest, however, the Being gains insight on what Victor lost sight of.

When the Being and Victor are reunited, the Being begs to tell his story of what he saw. He begins the experience by saying "It was dark when I awoke; I felt cold also, and half-frightened as it were instinctively, finding myself so desolate...I sat down and wept" (68). The creature is welcomed into the world as a fearful existence, however, even though he is capable of automatically instilling fear by his presence, his presence in the world instills fear in himself. For example, when you witness an object that you are afraid of (i.e. a spider, snake, shark etc.) you respond in fear and do not process their potential fear of you as well. Also, the creature embraces and understands the woes of being lonely and expresses that through tears. He is capable of feeling loneliness and responding in tears, an emotion that is not normally attributed to fearful looking beings. Victor did not mind being desolate and lonely, unlike the creature. Victor chose to be alone and the creature does not have the choice, but to be alone. What Victor sacrificed, the Being seeks.

The creature's initial reactions with people are not welcoming. He rapidly learns to stay away from them for his own safety, especially since he is interacting in their world. However, he does find a way to safely observe and learn from a family living in a cottage in the woods he is staying. "What chiefly struck me was the gentle manners of these people; and I longed to join them, but dared not. I remembered too well the treatment I had suffered the night before from the barbarous villagers" (73). He chooses to quietly remain in his hovel to hopefully learn the motives behind their actions. In discovering and learning from others, he is learning of himself. The creature's ability to learn and gain composure as a being occurs through doing as others do.

The Being takes note of how beautiful, docile and delicate the cottage people are and he understands his looks are alarmingly different. "...how I was terrified, when I viewed myself in a transparent pool!...unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror...Alas!...I did not yet entirely know the fatal effects of this miserable deformity" (76). He understands the fear that other people see in him and this is fatal to him. He seeks comfort, society, warmth and interaction. Again, these are the qualities of life that Victor sacrificed and now the creature seeks to experience them.

I find it interesting that Victor's creation of life, the Being, results in deformity. What does that say about Victor's quest for life? Victor's quest for life created the creature, but the secret to life was not found, is the creature meant to finish Victor's endeavor?