Author: anonymous

In researching Mary Shelley, I came to the conclusion that she was most likely an unreligious person. After finishing Frankenstein, the counter religious attitude of Shelley seems to be present. It seems like Shelley is not simply ignoring religion and leaving it out, but instead arguing against it.
By the end of volume I, Frankenstein seems very similar to the creation story from Genesis. Just as Adam wishes for a companion, the creature wishes the same. And we think that just like God, Frankenstein will grant his creation’s wish. The creature “implores [Frankenstein’s] goodness and compassion,” yet Frankenstein ends up acting as a terrible father-figure (Shelley, 119). Frankenstein changes his mind and decides to deny the creatures wish. Thus, Frankenstein’s similarity to god and a father in general seems to diminish. What then is Shelley trying to say about the bible and religion? Is religion necessary for morally right decisions? The only way to answer this is to look at the similarities and difference between Shelley’s Frankenstein and the bible, and what Shelley does with them
I feel that each character has references to multiple biblical characters as the book progresses. There is no doubt that Frankenstein acts similar to God in the beginning of the book. However, his lack of respect for his “son” or creation seems to demote him to a father. This could almost be Shelley mocking the concept of a god, who supposedly creates you, and then just throws you out into the world to fend for yourself.

The decision Frankenstein makes to ignore the creatures wish seems to even label him as a bad father. Yet, interestingly the decision he makes whether to save humanity from a race of monsters, or save himself can be related to the decision Jesus made when he died on the cross. Jesus had the choice to save himself from extraordinary pain, or instead save humanity from sin. Yet Frankenstein’s decision is different from Jesus’ in one major way. What Frankenstein is saving the world from has the potential of being good, while sin is never good.

Although different characters in the story can be related to biblical figures, Frankenstein takes place in a world that seems to be lacking religion. Despite this at the conclusion of the story Frankenstein dies a morally sound man. For on his death beds, it was “my duty,” to act as a father (Shelley, 214). The creature leaves morally sound and forgiving as well. When the creature comes to ask forgiveness to Frankenstein he states “but it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless” (shelley 220). Frankenstein finally comes to the conclusion that he should have been a better father, while the monster regrets his actions. The fact that each of them reached these states without any evidence of religious beliefs seems as if Shelley is making a point. Moral decisions and people can be reached without religion. Thus, Shelley could be questioning the necessity of Christianity in general.

In most people’s mind today, there seems to be no question who the monster is in Frankenstein. It is the creature that Frankenstein has created, that has already murdered an innocent kid. However, looking beyond the outer appearance of the monster, it seems evident that what he began as was not a monster. Instead it was the extreme misconceptions of humans, resulting in extreme isolation of the creature, that caused him to become a monster. The creature had no “relation or friend upon earth,” hence he, in a way, is linked to humans (Shelley, 147). The health and survival of a human baby is dependent on social interactions. Likewise the creature that Frankenstein has created lives a torturous and depressing life without companionship. He strives for friends, yet his disturbing appearance causes him to fail and be shunned by humans.

In contrast, Victor Frankenstein seems to be quite content in isolation. His passion for his work causes him to revert to isolation. Frankenstein mentions that “no youth could have passed more happily than mine” (Shelley, 67). Furthermore, his parents emphasize to him that it will cause them great distress if he doesn’t stay in touch with them. Despite their pleading and past kindness to him, Frankenstein selfishly still chooses to remain isolated, despite the great pain he is causing in the ones he loves most. It is his choice to remain isolated that contributes to his monster-like attributes. In addition, Frankenstein even sees himself similar to a monster. He thinks to himself, “can you wonder, that sometimes a kind of insanity possessed me, or that I saw continually about me a multitude of filthy animals inflicting on me incessant torture, that often extorted screams and bitter groans” (Shelley, 160). It seems that in this instance, Frankenstein is seeing himself from the perspective of an isolated monster. For one, he refers to humans as a “multitude of filthy animals.” He also mentions “screams and bitter groans,” which could also relate to human’s perception of him as a monster. Frankenstein’s extreme ignorance towards fixing the problem he has created also contributes to his monster side. As shown by his actions and his thoughts, Frankenstein is often a hypocrite. For instance, Frankenstein asks himself “why does the man boast of sensibilities superior to those apparent in the brute”(Shelley, 116). Through this statement, Frankenstein seems to be asserting that humans are in fact equal to beasts, for there is a sense of equality that exists between the two. Yet despite this statement, in his interactions with the creature, he seems to show little respect for the creature’s very logical request. In the end of volume 2, Frankenstein decides to accept the offer, however with a great amount of regret and contempt.

Victor’s Frankenstein’s chosen isolation and his ignorance for those who care for him as well as his own creation make him the true monster. In contrast, the creatures wish to attain to achieve friends and social interactions almost make him more of a human, so far, than Victor Frankenstein.

It seems as if through the character of Frankenstein, Shelley could be hinting at the monster-like attributes that at times can plague the human race.

In Bellocq’s Ophelia, Trethewey uses a combination of photography and poetry to get her message across. The poetry can be found in the form of letters, diary entries and vignettes. Not only is there a connection between poetry and photography, but there is also a complementary relationship between the two evident in Bellocq’s photography, as well as Trethewey’s Bellocq’s Ophelia.

First off, poems, just like photographs, “accord value to their subjects”(Rindge and Leahy 2). Both can take the simplest and least meaningful subjects, and still manage to make them into something beautiful. Thus, both photographs and poems can also be manipulated, not only by the photographers, but also by the subject or object of the photograph, and made so that they hide the truth. For example a lingerie photo shoot of a woman smiling as if everything in her life was perfect would be a photo that could definitely be hiding something. Likewise, a poem describing this woman in the picture as beautiful and happy would definitely be missing a lot as well. What type of struggles did this woman really go through? It is this type of poetry and photography “by which the subjects [of the photographs] are held forever in silence,” for the truth is not revealed (Rindge and Leahy). I believe that Bellocq’s goal instead, was to make the hidden truth in his subject’s personalities and struggles obvious and present in each of his photographs. Trethewey chooses to latch on to this truth that Bellocq portrays in his photographs, and develop it. Trethewey not only develops the struggles faced by a prostitute Ophelia, but also the struggles caused by race. The ability of poetry to be manipulated in a beneficial way is shown when Trethewey brings her own past into the photograph highlighting the struggles caused by race in the 19th and 20th century. Ophelia attempts to run away from her race as “she walks the[se] streets/ a white woman” (Trethewey, 7). Thus, Bellocq, and ultimately Trethewey’s use of photographs and poetry provide an opportunity for “female voicing” and the voicing of race, rather than “silence” (Rindge and Leahy).

As Trethewey emphasizes, “the camera’s angle will be a wider-angle lens, and I’ll be able to include more” (369). It is here where the complementary relationship between the photographs and poetry is evident. What allows Trethewey to reach that “wider-angle lens” is her use of poetry. The poetry brings the photos to life. Just as the photographs are a moment preserved from history, Trethewey lets her poetry give a voice to this moment, and reveal the unseen. Trethewey further connects photography and poetry, by giving the visual structure of each poem significance. Many of the poems appear to resemble letters with dates, while others includes addresses that serve as additional hints. Furthermore, as Rindge and Leahy emphasize, the white spaces between couplets in many of Trethewey’s poems visually give Ophelia time to formulate her thoughts. As a result, each poem almost becomes a photograph within itself.

Although, as Mariah emphasizes, Natasha Tretheway definitely mentions the limitations of cameras, I feel that Tretheway also provides an equal amount of enthusiasm, for not only the contributions to society that the camera has made, but also its power as a medium of communication.

A camera, in reality has changed our world. Just like the phone connected us to distant lands, the invention of the camera and its product the photograph, have allowed us to connect to our past. Through the camera and photographs, in the future there is no doubt that we will feel much closer to our past. As we go forward, although we may never be able to travel back in time, the past will continue to grow closer and closer to us with the never ending advances in technology. Tretheway’s work is a perfect example of connecting to the past with something as simple yet at the same time as powerful as a photograph.

Despite this, the limitations that come with a photograph is definitely a theme in the novel, for as Ophelia states, “I look at what he can see through the lens, and what he cannot,” in reference to Bellocq as a photographer (43). The answers are not all there. Yet a photograph can also provide the slightest avenue into the unseen, such as a simple look in a woman’s eyes which became Tretheway’s inspiration for Bellocq’s Ophelia. Tretheway mentioned that in the past, photographers waited until the decisive moment to take the picture. This moment would occur when the person who was posing for the photograph mind drifted and they forgot why they were there. This definitely shows the power of the camera as a medium of communication, for although it may not be able to capture the entire unseen picture, it can capture a hint or clue at the unseen side which can then help us to unravel the puzzle concerning the mystery of their life.

Ophelia’s purchase of a camera and her marvel at the “camera’s way of capturing the sparkle of plain dust” also brings up a very interesting perspective (Tretheway, 27). It seems that Tretheway is in fact trying to show us two sides of the camera. The first side is that of the unseen, the fact that Ophelia may look like a pretty lady on the outside, but what is really going on inside may not be obvious, except through minute details. The second side is almost the opposite. It is that the camera can capture something as insignificant as “plain dust,” and make it into something beautiful that “sparkles” (27). It seems that Ophelia could be hoping that the concept of learning could transform her, a girl that is supposed to be someone simpleminded who does not use sophisticated language, into something beautiful, despite her circumstances. The camera is not limiting in this way either, for it does not limit the simple people to be simple. Instead Ophelia’s transformations and her self-discovery are obvious as the story progresses

After watching a Charlie Chaplin film, it becomes evident that there really is something different about it; something that in reality cannot be put into words, for words would take away from the overall message of the film. When words are spoken in a movie, we are forced to interpret what the producer has created in a very specific way. However, when a film all of a sudden has very few words, it can now be looked at from a multitude of different angles. A person’s actions in a film mean so much more. For instance, Chaplin trying to tighten people’s buttons with his wrench takes on a whole new meaning. There are some topics that are so powerful and have affected an enormous amount of people in so many ways that words do not do them justice. The industrial revolution, in combination with the great depression, are without question, examples of such topics. Hence Chaplin’s portrayal is quite appropriate.
Interestingly, Chaplin’s use of silent films, almost in a contrasting way, can be connected to both Fetterley’s analysis of Life in the Iron Mills and Weyler’s literary analysis of The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tarturus of Maids. Both Davis and Melville seem to indicate in their works that limitations of language do exist. Davis makes this point directly when she states “I dare not put this secret into words” and “I dare make my meaning no clearer” (2764). Melville makes such a point evident in the misunderstanding that Cupid and the narrator seem to be constantly having. Cupid never seems to quite understand what the narrator is asking and is unable to realize how confused the narrator is, while the narrator seems unable to put into words what he really wants to ask. This is shown when the narrator asks Cupid, “you make only blank paper, no printing of any sort I suppose?” (329) Cupid responds “Certainly, what else should a paper factory make?” (329). Language has definitely resulted in considerable misunderstanding between the two.
To make up for their general assumption that limitations of the language exist, both authors use a narrator that seems to constantly pressure us to realign our values. As Fetterley states, “the narrator’s task is to make her readers see what is currently invisible to them” (310). The narrators from each story definitely do this for they not only guide the reader, but also state their own positions. Thus, just as Chaplin uses silence and excellent acting to make for the failure of language, both authors instead use narrators to make up for the limitations that language poses.

In Melville’s “The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tarturus Maids,” an interesting contrast is shown between two extremely different social classes: that of the extravagant bachelors, and the hardworking maids. The bachelor’s live an enjoyable and relaxing life, with no worries on their mind. The narrator provides an in depth description as the band of bachelors indulge themselves in a feast consisting of roast beef, chicken pot pie, and “endless other savory things” (Melville, 1262). Ironically, the bachelors seem to have “tender concern for each other’s health,” yet seem to care little about the people who are in the greatest need (Melville, 1262). The second short story paints a gripping picture of the lives of these less fortunate, described by Melville as the “Tarturous Maids.” Melville’s perspective is made obvious by the naming of landmarks as “Mad Maid’s Bellows’-pipe” and the “Devil’s Dungeon Paper Mill” (Melville, 1266, 1267). The girls are constantly described as “sheet white” with blank white expressions (Melville, 1274). Rather than making their live easier, the technology has instead enslaved them. The author’s addition of Cupid into the story also provides an interesting perspective. The name could definitely be an attempt to link the bachelors to Cupid’s ignorance. Melville tries to make the point that in reality the bachelors are no different than this happy, red faced fellow, who witnesses atrocities in the mill every day, yet pays no attention to them.

One parallel that can be drawn between Davis’ “Life in the Iron Mills,” and Melville’s short story are the existing religious motifs. In Melville’s story, the two contrasting ways of life represent such opposite ends of the spectrum that he directly characterizes them as the heaven or paradise of Bachelors, and the “Devil’s Dungeon Paper Mill,” or hell. However, in Davis’ work a distinction definitely remains, yet it is not as direct and obvious. Davis similarly describes the lives of the iron mill workers as hell, something they are often asking themselves if they can be saved from by religion, or anything at all. Yet rather than providing an obvious contrasting description like the story of the bachelors, heaven seems to be the only contrast between the iron mill hell they live in.
The combination of ignorance and religion by both authors also provides a very interesting perspective. In our world, as well as throughout the past, these things seemed to have gone hand in hand. Numerous examples could be provided ranging from the crusades to the present terrorist attacks. It seems like both authors could be trying to make a point. Dont combine ignorance and religion, just like you cant combine ignorance and technology

In contrast to Gibson’s Neuromancer and our society today, where nobody seems care from where, how and at what cost our products reach us, Life in the iron mills, paints a picture of the harsh reality that defined a 19th century factory worker’s life, and where the technology really originated. The life of a factory worker, described by Davis, “is a Drunken test, a joke-horrible to angels perhaps, to them, commonplace enough” (Davis, 2764). The Iron Mills are “a reality of soul starvation,” for all who work in them. Although each man living in this world longs for just glimpse of beauty, there is none to be found. This is shown in the plot as Deborah even mentions that Hugh is sickened by her deformity, despite her extreme kindness, longs for something beautiful. In Davis’ mind, the only beauty that can be found in this day age is what lies ahead in the future. As Davis states, “no perfume-dawn will be so fair with promise of the day that shall surely come” (Davis 2764). Davis emphasizes that this was a necessary time, one with great sorrow and countless lives wasted, yet one that would change the course of our countries history forever. The industrial revolution almost acted as a springboard, for technology to exponentially bound off of. Without it, who knows where we would be today.

It is through these types of literature that the past is also trying to warn us about the cost of technology. But even in this day age, we still seem to forget that. When you purchase some item, you are rarely thinking about the child labor, or the bad conditions overseas that play into making this item cheap and available for you. As is shown from this excerpt, “Man cannot live with work alone” (2766). When work consumes your life as it did for the mill workers, you no longer live. It also seems like the author poses an additional warning about the future here. Finally, the authors true purpose is once again highlighted when she describes the “mill-woman cut in korl” (2788). There are characteristics about it, that hint at a “Master plan,” one that will set the stage for a world full of “nebulous crimson” and uncertainty, yet at the same time hope. Thus was this description of life in the iron mills really the end? According to Davis, it is only the beginning of a better world.

One implication of technology that seems to be a reoccurring theme in many of the blog posts this week is the creation of an emotionless robotic society completely consumed by technology and cyberspace. In many ways I feel like this concept is flawed. The main issue is that we are all looking at this point from the wrong perspective. This book does not describe the general population, which in our minds would typically compose “society,” but instead focuses on a tiny, isolated sector of society. That is the criminal underworld.

In today’s world, the criminal underworld is comparable or even worse than what is described in Neuromancer. There is no question that many present day criminals could resemble some of the characters described in the book in their seemingly robotic nature. Does that mean that an increase in technology in the last 20 or so years is the cause of such nature? The answer is most definitely no. It is the nature of criminal activity. As I see it, it would be difficult to be a visibly emotional person and at the same time be an active criminal. You are constantly facing life and death situations, seeing people you know disappear in the blink of an eye and even having to kill people yourself, depending on the crime.  Thus the same could be said about the life Molly and Case are living.  They are criminals, involving themselves in criminal activity and risking their lives and the lives of others every day. There is no time to visibly show emotion.

An additional point brought up was the addiction of society, in Neuromancer, to technology, and cyberspace in particular. First off, it seems as if an elite and very select group of people are actually able to use cyberspace. This group mainly consists of the military, and criminals. Secondly, they are using it to break into major company headquarters. This is not the general population logging on to cyberspace. In our world, many technological inventions first start out in the military and then spread to the general  population, one example being the internet. Another example from today could be the CIA’s use of a memory stick containing a virus to shut down Iran’s nuclear facilities. This seems very similar to what they are doing in Neuromancer. Yet us, the general population, knew very little about this. The same is probably true of the general population in Neuromancer; they most likely know little of what Case is doing.  Hence, maybe instead of attempting to set a limit on the expansion of technology, Gibson is trying to show that technological change moves in cycles, starting with the government (most funding), then the criminal underworld and finally the general public. Once an advancement reaches the general public, a new advancement is already underway. As a result technological progression never ends.

Lastly, there seems to be somewhat of a debate as to whether technology has “betrayed mankind” (Leo). As Professor Croxall stated, humans are inherently a technological species. If you look at evolution, our whole goal has been to constantly improve ourselves, and make everyday tasks easier. Isn’t that similar to what technology has done? Humans and technology in a way seem to be intertwined, so there is no need to place the blame for flaws in society on technology. We have as humans and will always be intertwined with technology.

Could Gibson be making a point with his detailed description and emphasis on the fact that case lives in a coffin? First off the author chooses the setting of Japan because of its perception as an extremely technologically advanced society. This plays perfectly into the futuristic, or so it seems, theme of the book. “He never slept in the Cheap Hotel, he slept in cheaper places(Gibson 19).” Thus he slept in coffins. It is almost as if the idea of a coffin resembles the society Case is living in. A society with so much technology that it seems as if human nature, rather than continually moving forward just like the technology, is instead shifting backwards towards its animalistic origins. “Night City was like a deranged experiment in Social darwinism” move too slowly or too quickly and you “were gone without a trace,” definitely highlights the animalistic side of the world they live in(7). “Scalpel blades slid from beneath the… nails,” further emphasizes such cruel nature. In addition, death is portrayed as something extremely commonplace, and is barely even acknowledged as bad (25).   “Night city wasn’t there for its inhabitants but as a deliberately unsupervised playground for technology” makes the technology in Neuromancer seem similar to a monster, consuming the past, along with emotions and many human principles (11).

The phrase “Lifeless neon” used to describe a sign provides a perfect illustration as to what technology has done to the society they live in (47). Humans now seem to be dull and dehumanized. Despite all the technology and medical advancements that surround him, there is no doubt that Case is living a very rough life. Sure people can live 135 years with ridiculous genetic alterations, but the technology is taking away the human inside them. The people living in this time seem to be becoming increasingly robotic as well. “Ratz held the gun in his claw (22).” The fact that they are taking an enormous amount of drugs only contributes to their robotic yet at the same time animalistic nature.