“Slavery at Sea” & Frankenstein Presentation by Dr. Sowandee Mustakee

Bradley Dexter Christian

Upon entering the Crescent Arch Room I was immediately triggered by Dr. Sowande Mustakee’s visiting-campus lecture in which she was arguing a case for authorial privilege, in being allowed to re-imagine the Frankenstein novel as an analogous slave-narrative, and achieved this particularly in embedding in her presentation with alternative media including the idiomatic “Netflix-and-chill” session and live performance viewing accompanied by her djembe-playing audience-member-bandmate. Her published work, Slavery at Sea employs vivid imagery about slave ship experience. I made a similar remark about the DMV, jokingly, that the accumulated bodies in the DMV building are metaphorically representative of Frankenstein’s monster; however, in Dr. Mustakee’s presentation, she emphatically represents Frankenstein in her postcolonial critique which concerns contemporary African American expression and museum narratives which are not organized to comprehensively represent the innovative industry which stemmed from the “black holocaust” practices in medicine and music.

The problem with her emphatic reading is that it distances readers from the text itself in requesting a sympathetic look and recontextualization of “suffering” as an African American experience; this is where I will insert a trigger warning in which in Dr. Mustakee’s presentation she summarizes a confrontation with a Jewish collegue who wants her to acknowledge “something nice” about black people, rather than employing an offensive interpretation. The problem of African Americans wanting to accumulate the same knowledge and wealth historically reserved for Jewish People involves a scopic economy of race which is apparent in Dr. Mustakee’s reinterpretation of Frankenstein, as she separates herself from the conventional publisher/scholar who wants her to tell a “nice story,” like Frankenstein when he describes leaving Geneva, “I provided myself with a sum of money, together with a few jewels which had belonged to my mother, and departed,” (Shelley XXIV 1). I think that Dr. Mustakee alluded to her Jewish colleague in order to make a provocative statement that emboldens, rather than victimizes, the story of Mary Shelley’s 18th century Enlightenment project, but I do believe the colleague’s statement is valid: that a postcolonial reading requires the shifting focus of Enlightenment literature to shed less light on the suffering of Africans and African Americans for stressing problems of canonicity and contemporary reception.

Frankenstein and Slavery

After my last class of the day I headed down to attend Dr. Gowande Mustakee’s lecture on Frankenstein and Slavery. By the time I got there she was performing with the drums and it was an impressive sight. The way she played on the different variety of instruments laid out was not only an impressive visually but also audibly. Every different piece seemed to tell a different story, that at the same time was also at the core consistent like the underlying beat of the drum. I could understand how the music shaped her thought processes when she not only researched and explored her topic but also began to write her book. Once she began the Q&A I finally got the explanation to the connection she made between Frankenstein and slavery. She explained that she wanted to come up with an analogy that would convey just how grotesque slavery was in a way that would be understood by a wider audience. Frankenstein’s creature is generally viewed as a monster made up different parts that all work together to create a creature. In her book Dr. Mustakee does not only talk about the slaves themselves but also the sailors involved in the movement of the slave trade. She wanted to focus on how the trade was made up different parts that all came together. This explanation clarified for me just how she was able to connect Frankenstein to slavery. It was truly an overall great experience.

 

-Diana Lara

Why is it Always Philosophy With Me?

Taking a look at my blog posts post-Gulliver’s Travels I realized that I also like to focus on the nature of characters and how it relates to human nature. I especially see that in my posts that I did for Frankenstein. Every time I went to answer the questions I found myself analyzing how the creature was attempting to become more human while keeping in mind what is generally seen as “human nature.” After all the discussion we’ve had in class I’ve come to understand that “human nature” is a far more complex subject that I want to learn more about. This concept involves philosophy more so than I was aware of and that’s something that also comes up in a lot of what I find interesting when I answer questions for this class. I always seem to take an approach that comes up in philosophy but because my knowledge on philosophy is so lacking I always find myself with more questions that I want answers to.

This theme of bringing up some ideas of philosophy has existed all semester but it has become more prevalent this second half of the semester. I feel that because I tend to read into readings in this direction I need to do some reading on philosophy so that I can understand the ideas I unintentionally touch upon when I’m looking at texts like the ones we read in class.

-Diana Lara

Therapy for the Blogs

This might just be because I am studying psychology but this time around I noticed a major influence of psychological factors at play in my blog posts. In the first two blog posts (I’m Like A Lawyer and BREAKING…) I noticed a theme of broken political systems or systems that are meant to help but are unjust and biased. When looking at my next two posts I noticed a theme of broken relationships and how these can contribute to social problems later on down the road. So when taking both of these themes into consideration I realized that a major theme I wrote about during the second half of the semester was how strained relationships can cause a lag in society when brought into a group context. Not every relationship is perfect, but if a relationship is toxic it can be poisonous and spread to other relationships. Think about a time when you and a friend were in a fight, you may talk to another friend about it and they empathize with you which may cause that anger you may be feeling to infect that other person too. So now both of you may have feelings of contempt towards this person. In the case of Jefferson, we know that there are deleted articles from the declaration of independence that were suppose to lead to the abolition of slavery, yet they were deleted. This could be because Jefferson’s feelings towards slavery weren’t strong enough or he was outnumbered by a group of men who’s combined feelings towards the subject were much stronger than Jefferson’s (or whoever else who may have agreed with him) feelings alone. If we have learned anything from history it’s that there are power in numbers. When speaking in the context of Victor and his monster’s relationship in Frankenstein, their entire relationship was nothing but toxic and led to the death of many. Despite the monster’s lack of a parental figure he was still able to figure out how to survive on his own. Yet even through possibly achieving enlightenment and growing into a well-versed somewhat human thing, he is still driven to murder because of his screwed up upbringing all those years ago. This broken relationship led the monster to live a life of hate and vengeance which was reflected onto all of those whom he killed.

These instances are only a few that describe the way society is structured and how delicately it can fall if it is not nourished correctly. If broken systems, broken relationships, continue to thrive then we are only harming ourselves. 

Emotion and Perspective: Second Summary

Much of what I have looked at in the novels, plays, and poems was that emotion is a huge driving force in them all. A lot of anger, sadness, and hatred is spilling from the texts of “The Beggar’s Opera,” Equiano’s Interesting Narrative, and Frankenstein. It all seemed to peak in Frankenstein, where the monster argues greatly from both a mix of reasoning and emotion. The reason built by the treatment he received from everyone. I find it amazing that the literature from this age would go from satire to emotion. “The Beggar’s Opera” had satire with emotion, but Equiano cut out satire from his slave narrative. The perspectives of each writer leaves us questioning how effective is our reasoning if we are prisoners of our emotions as well. Each writer had seen things that made them question the world around them. With Mary Shelley, the world had seen the ideas of the enlightenment be done in France, and it was there where the ideas caused so much tragedy.

— Jacob Brown

(Our)Self in Society

A major recurring theme I’ve noticed throughout my recent blog posts deals with the self and the surrounding conditions and contexts that one uses to define themselves against society. These boundaries and dichotomies are most easily observed through the weeks of discussion regarding Shelley’s Frankenstein. Additionally, The Beggar’s Opera offered some insights about self-image in terms of how as individuals we define ourselves in terms of morality.

Beginning with Frankenstein, the voyeuristic learning by the creature gives the first hints of a socialized constructed “self” that is manifested in Safie when she reveals her socialized upbringing of gender roles and class distinctions. Similarly, the unapologetic nature of the characters within  The Beggar’s Opera are indicative of the inner wickedness that lies within corrupt politicians and the difference between Peachum and say, Robert Walpole, is that one is praised for it and one is condemned. Here, morality is questioned to be not something essential to a character but rather, a matter of usefulness. What I mean by this, is the fact that these characters like Peachum, have no use for morality in their endeavors; it would only be a hindrance to his business. The significance of image and morality lies in the fact they’re tied into society. Essentially, it comes down to the overarching hegemony of the state or system one lives in that dictates the guidelines of morality. How one fits into these rules or doesn’t fit (Creature, Peachum), decides how they are perceived. Beyond the Enlightenment, the system of power we navigate through and grow up with is a key factor in the development in the self and how we define ourselves as a human being. Are we moral? Ethical? Good? Evil? All these questions are implicitly answered through the consumption of media, through the experience of binaries, and through perpetuated stereotypes that influence the self from the moment of birth. How we define ourselves has come back to the self-image we uphold in society and if one deviates from the perception of “goodness,” one is an outcast.

-Daniel Corral

Eating Babies is Reasonable and Bob is not a Monster: It’s All About How You Look at it

Once a fellow student, who thought I talked a little too much, found out I wanted to be a teacher told me, “well your classes will never be boring,” and though I am fairly certain that it was not meant as a compliment I certainly took it as one. No, should I become an English teacher, my classes will never be boring- crazy maybe, and off the wall, and certainly interesting but never boring. Within my writing a theme that always seems to be in the back of my mind, in both my academic writing and my creative writing, is the idea of perception. Perception not only in the obvious sense, like how I perceive Frankenstein’s creation (good old Bob) but also in how I look at texts in general.

When Frankenstein is read, most readers perceive Frankenstein as the most monstrous character rather than his poorly treated creation, yet, no one thinks twice about calling Bob a creature or a monster. His monstrosity is a given- in blogs, papers, and discussions- he is monster or creature even if the writer is challenging the idea of Bob as a monster he is still given negative connotations… What did poor Bob do to any of us, why is it an automatic reaction to perceive Bob through Frankenstein’s world view? Because it is Frankenstein who sees his creation as a monster and that perception is what shapes the whole book… but when you start calling him Bob it alters the way this character is seen… I mean how can you hate on a guy Bob?

In my creative writing I tend to play with perception, I like to flip the script. Like taking a fairy tale and changing the story or explaining it in an off the wall way. Like let’s say the three little pigs (who aren’t pigs at all) are just slob tenants and the big bad wolf (who was neither big nor bad, or for that matter a wolf) was just an  asthmatic landlord (who certainly huffed and puffed but did not blow the house down he just got better tenants). In my last blog reflection I spoke about the joys of satire, and now I am writing a paper about the limits of Satire. Don’t get me wrong I still love satire, in Gulliver’s Travels tiny people, giants, and wise horse people come alive and are more realistic than fantastical characters have a right to be. Swift is the kind of writer that can make eating babies sound reasonable. If you haven’t read “A Modest Proposal” you’re probably wondering  how in God’s name eating babies can ever be thought of as reasonable but Swift manages it, essentially (spoiler alert) people are hungry and there are too many poor people so the solution is eat babies- this means people get more food and there are less people (plus if your thrifty you can even use the skin to make gloves).

Now, however, I take satire with a grain of salt because satire does not always achieve the results that the author intended and being aware of the limits of satire changes the tone of the entire work. Perception changes how we look at a work and throughout my writing I am constantly trying to look at things from a different point of view. I may be an odd duck who finds aliens in texts and defends esoteric romantic poetry that defies understanding- but because I like to look at things from an odd angle- I am never boring.

-Katie Oswald

Just Go With The Flow

The act of writing itself and what it conveys is absolutely critical when giving voice to an idea or to a cause.  All of the writers we spoke about this semester have a common central argument that concerns reaching enlightenment -whether it be done through satire, poetry, mockery, and narrative.  By the time we got to Mary Shelley in Frankenstein, we see the evolution of writing techniques and rhetoric.  Thus, our experience as students in this class, from beginning to end of the semester, can too symbolize the act of enlightenment, even if you do not want to believe it or not.

Many of us, initially, came in knowing somewhat what enlightenment meant, but I do not believe we actually have ever immersed ourselves so deeply into reflecting this work unto ourselves.  Again, Mary Shelley’s form of writing seems to be one of the most interesting forms as the narrative, the voice(s), bring us as a reader back and forth, to and from, and up and down through out her written work because it takes us a while to distinguish who is who and for what purpose are these voices being used. The way she began the book, using Victor Frankensein’s voice, reminds me of one of the assignments we were given in class where we had to choose a writing mechanism to mock a potential conversation taking place between Olaudah Equiano and Thomas Jefferson, where the goal was so that Equiano could suggest to Jefferson what specific details he should add to the Declaration of Independence.  Similarly, Mary Shelley wrote pretend conversations taking place through journals and letters.  I can see now, based on my experience in having to pretend that Equiano’s message actually did reach Thomas Jefferson, how important such a publication like Shelley’s was.

Through Victor’s voice, in the first few chapters, when saying, “I have described myself as always having been embued with a fervent longing to penetrate the secrets of nature” we can see how Shelley carefully began placing clues, foreshadows, if you will, of the monster (pun intended) Victor Frankenstein will come to create just off of a simple curiosity. Through this book, we as a reader and potential future writers can learn so much.  We can learn about writing as an aesthetic, but we can also learn about it on an implicit level.

The experience of reading all of the texts throughout the semester, and picking up rhetoric ideals can, as a whole, represents our own enlightenment -whether we want it or not. I personally am more aware of so much when it comes to myself and the society that surrounds me.  I have learned that not much has changed when it comes to a clear and cut division between who sees themselves as the elite, and who are the Others.  And whether it was an elitist we read from or a writer giving voice to an group that is marginalized, writing is what illuminates the darkness that we can often find ourselves in when we just go with the flow with the status quo. (purposefully rhymed).

-Marcy Martinez

REFLECTION 2.0

Reviewing my blog posts, I find a certain air of ‘attempt at comedy’ that permeates around all of my posts. I feel that, if the reader is not thoroughly invested in the post, then they will have a harder time understanding. I use comedy as a way to enthrall the reader so that they feel more comfortable, and in turn, they are more likely to stay and finish (in my opinion). However, with the rampant use of comedy within my works, I start to come off as unprofessional and start to lose credibility, which is something that I hope I can improve upon in the future. Also within my blogs, especially within my earlier posts, I find myself trying to use more absurd concepts as a basis for my assignments. I thought, that by going over things that seem crude or unimportant, and coming up with interesting ideas would make me look like I was more intelligent; but in most cases, that backfired more or less in my face. I also feel that there is a sense of continuous thought while writing, like I make it up while I go. There is a sense that, when reading, I find myself reading one point that hops into a semi- to non-connecting point. This is on the fault of my own, since I usually write all my posts in one sitting; but I like the natural flow that occurs from this process, so I myself am fine with this not only within my writings, but others as well.

I stand by the choices I made; I feel that the themes I used throughout my posts are a reflection of who I am. With the choices I made in my style of writing, I think it makes my ideas a little easier to swallow, absurdity and all. You get the idea that it is a process, not a solid idea that can be contain and tamed in a way that makes it less of what the idea really is. And I believe that my posts are just as interesting as I am.

 

Alejandro Joseph Serrano

 

The Use of Dichotomies to Express Enlightenment Beliefs

Throughout the 18th century authors such as John Gay and Mary Shelley used dichotomies to express beliefs on enlightenment. Specifically Gay in The Beggar’s Opera    uses the dichotomy that exists between an innocent maiden in love and a “prostitute” to showcase his enlightenment belief that the construct of marriage is naught but a social pleasantry meant to allow the affluent a pleasant delusion to avoid “dishonor”.  Gay accomplishes this by the use of an innocent maiden in love in his play to critique the idea of marriage being the only option to preserve a woman’s honor. This dichotomy works to reach the audience as a woman in love was and is still seen as the quintessential image of purity, and as a pure individual cannot have ill intent in their heart, the idea that such a person could experience “dishonor” is ridiculed by comparing her to a prostitute. Similarly Shelly in Frankenstein uses the creatures initial conception of only dichotomies to critique the idea that enlightenment can only be reached through reading. This is done in order to establish the idea that non-holistic educations can only lead to enlightenment when supplemented with trials and tribulations in life to offset its early teachings that gave rise to a unrealistic view of the self and man. Shelly accomplishes this by first establishing that the creature can only envision beautiful creatures being of God’s image, and thus has no holistic concept of man’s varying forms and appearance while failing to address his own role in making himself a true monster. Then Shelley goes on to show that creature completed its non-holistic educations through the process of committing, analyzing and finally repenting for actions committed by using statements in Volume III where the creature never mentions its own physical appearance in its monologues, only commenting on its lack of beauty within as it states that it is a “wretch” not because of appearance but because of  actions committed. Thus Shelley uses the creatures dichotomistic beginning education to showcase that the lack of a holistic model leads to unenlightened ideals, and that only through confronting itself and supplementing its education can the creature reach enlightenment.

– Jonathan Delgado