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

Justice for Elizabeth

A compelling event that occurs in the novel is when Victor’s wedding day is about to commence and the reader is waiting with baited breath for the monster to appear. Victor leaves his newlywed wife alone while he wanders all over the church. He knows danger is coming and leaves his wife unprotected and alone for he thinks that the monster will come after him. I never understood this because the monster explains to him that after he was rejected by his creator and figured out how truly alone he was he wanted nothing more than for his creator to feel the same way. Of course the monster was going after elizabeth, but why couldn’t Victor see that? An interesting point that was brought up was that maybe Victor wanted his wife to be murdered. I couldn’t get this out of my head for the past two days, and the more I thought about it the more I could see how oppressive this novel was towards women. There are many instances where if we read closely we may begin to see how truly misogynistic this novel can get. From a broad perspective we see that there is a major lack in female characters, and the ones that do show up appear to have minor roles and influences except for Safie. But even with the introduction of Safie we learn of her tragic background and how her entire life she has struggled to be free from the standards that are expected of women in Turkey and most of the eastern countries. After this theme is presented, we can begin to see it reoccur for the rest of the novel (and even in the beginning of the noel if we go back and close read with this theme in mind). One question that I ask is why did the monster’s companion have to be female? We still aren’t one hundred percent sure of the monster’s gender, so perhaps through his second hand learning of watching these strangers he learns that the female role is one of companionship. I doubt that he wanted a female companion for reproductive purposes.  Coming back to the death of Elizabeth, its not that much of a stretch to assume that victor purposefully let her die. The entire novel he postponed the marriage and even refused to write her back with some lame excuses such as he was sick or his mind was somewhere else. I know if my boyfriend tried to pull that sh*t I’d be all over his butt. He treats this woman, who clearly loves and cares for him, like she’s not a priority. Probably because to him she isn’t. 

~Mikayla Degn

A Monstrous Education: the Embedded Narratives of Frankenstein

In the fifth chapter of volume two , in my edition of Frankenstein, the monster learns everything from the history of empire to means of mercantile distribution, such as the “division of property, [the] immense wealth and squalor of povery,” and the societal social stratification along lines of “rank, descent, and noble blood” (122). In the second volume, the story of Frankenstein’s monster, narrated by the monster itself, can be conceived as an embedded text, which Mieke Bal describes as “a complete story with an elaborate fabula,” a fabula being “a series of logically and chronologically related events that are cause or experienced by actors” (Bal 5, 57).

This embedded text within Frankenstein works as a counter narrative to Victor Frankenstein’s narrative of apathetic science, which shows how logic displaced from social or historical empathy has disastrous consequences. Whereas Victor is concerned with the “new and almost unlimited powers” to be acquired by scientific thought, the monster engages with Milton’s Paradise Lost, marveling at the “different and far deeper emotions” that it excited” (Shelly 57, 132). This is not to say that the monster’s narrative is without problematic elements, as the monster describes its education relating to the “slothful Asiatics,” compared to “the stupendous genius and mental activity of the Grecians” (122).

However, as a precocious observer of society in modernity, the monster narrative provides a realistic picture of humanity’s ethical dualism: noting how man “appeared at one time a mere scion of the evil principle, and at another as all that can be conceived as noble and godlike” (122). As the monstrous narrator understands himself as an outsider, it acts as a physically disfigured tabula rasa, noting how “sorrow only increased with knowledge” (123). In the monster’s narrative, the knowledge found within books leads to a comprehensive enlightenment, an enlightenment that must attest to the wealth of human truths: both divine and depraved.

Peace

—Nathaniel Schwass

Sources:

Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. University of Toronto Press, 2009.

“Wonderful Narrations”

In volume II chapters 6 and 7, how is Victor Frankenstein’s creature affected by the “godlike science” of language, particularly by the books Felix uses to teach Safie about Western civilization?  Does his indirect education through philosophy, history, and fiction lead to enlightenment?

To answer this question, please focus on a specific textual passage for close reading.  I’ve listed below five guidelines for close reading:

1. Identify narrative voice, style, and form.
2. Look for irony, paradox, ambiguity, and tension.
3. Note those words or phrases that seem odd or out- of-place.
4. Note any important symbols, motifs, and themes.
5. Is there anything missing from the text that should be there?

The blog post is due by next Thursday (11/9) 11:00am.  Please categorize it under “Frankenstein’s Godlike Science” and don’t forget to creative specific and relevant tags.  Please write your full name. Here’s something to think about as you prepare your post.  I’ve included below the first illustration of the creature, which appeared as the frontispiece to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein:

 

The Royal Society and Numerical Precision: A Satire of Rational Enlightenment

Brad’s post, “Narratorial Valuation of Numerical Representations by Dafoe and Swift,” focuses on the numerical precision of the monetary value and mechanical creations of the Lilliputians. In his post, he argues that Swift’s satire, found in these precise passages, ultimately shows that “the European man who is civilized and mathematically-minded will stay collected and reasonable in the face of savagery,” that this picture of Swift “serve[s] to caricature the Enlightenment man.”

To further develop on this “caricature” of the enlightened man, Gulliver’s voyage to Laputa lodges a scathing satire against the Royal Society, the bastion of the mathematically, scientifically enlightened man. Visiting the college responsible for the experimental developments in the town of Lagado, Gulliver comes across a Projector, the name given to the chief experimenters of the university. This Projector decided to identify “an Operation to reduce human Excrement to its original Food, by separating the several Parts, removing the Tincture which it receives from the Gall, making the Odour exhale, and scumming off the Saliva” (Swift 168).

The ludicrous and farcical nature of the Projector’s task speaks directly to the endeavor of the Royal Society: the use of experiment and science to better society. Swift lodges a skeptical critique of mathematical precision and experiment by equating the task of the Royal Society—such as dissecting an flea under a microscope—to picking apart shit for its nutrients.

After seeing more hilarious, futile experiments, Gulliver comes across another projector who desires to “show Land with Chaff, wherein [the Projector] affirmed the true seminal Virtue to be obtained” (170). The footnote to the text describes ‘seminal Virtue’ as “scientific jargon meaning the power of procreation” (287). This means that the scientist desires to use the dry waste of food products to encourage soil fertility, another exercise in experimental futility. Undoubtedly perplexed and confused by the carnivalesque spectacle being made of experimental philosophy, Gulliver remarks that he “was not skillful enough to comprehend” (170).

In these section of the novel, Swift makes a caricature of the Royal Society, scoffing at the scientific method and experimental philosophy. The passages above show a science which is both complex and unhelpful to the common good. Gulliver’s description makes the scientific endeavors of Lagado seem esoteric, pointless, and needlessly confusing: clearly, a satirical reflection of the abstract Royal Society.

Peace

—Nathaniel Schwass

I’m different, Yeah, I’m Different

The more I read Pope’s An essay on Man the less I understand the hate that Pope receives from other writers of his time. Strictly looking at his ideas presented in his writings, such as “Say first, of God above, or man below/ What can we reason,but from what we know?” Pope is questioning the basis of our idea of God, which is what many thinkers and writers from this time were doing. So why did Pope get so much backlash as compared to these others who were starting to question and alter our ideals of God and “The Creator”? All Pope did was have the audacity to say what everyone was thinking, is there actually a God. And he presented multiple well thought out points to back him up and get his audience thinking such as “Is the great chain, that draws all to agree/ and drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?” or “all ar but parts of one stupendous whole/ whose body, nature is, and God the soul;” which is him questioning the best way to represent and worship this “God.” Yet even when he follows the path of all great thinkers of his time, Pope still receives so much backlash. Perhaps it was because he was more forward in his writings when it came to sensitive topics. Another thing to take into account was how different Pope was and remember how people tend to reject things that are different from themselves. He was Roman Catholic and had a major physical deformity which was cause for those around him to openly detest him, and had anyone defended him they would open themselves up to ridicule just as great as Pope himself had received. So even if people actually agreed with his beliefs and ideas, none would admit it.

 

~Mikayla Degn

Why So Mean?

Alexander Pope’s negative reputation was unjustified. He was outcast due to his physical impairment and his religion instead of criticizing his work, there was more critiques on his physical appearance and religious background. He had a set of ideas and beliefs and wanted to share those beliefs and ideas to people that he thought would listen. Instead of scholars of listening to his figurative poetry and taking into consideration his set of ideas, Pope was publicly humiliated and hated among the scientific community. I can clearly understand as to why people outcast individuals that they consider different, but living in this day and age, where there are more people that are accepting, I sometimes wonder why people couldn’t be more accepting of other individuals and their ideas and beliefs.

In Johnson’s critique on Pope’s An Essay on Man, there is more of a critique on Pope’s philosophical ideas and poetic language rather than a critique on his religion and physical appearance. Although in the beginning, Johnson did state that, “The Essay on Man was a work of great labor and long consideration, but certainly not the happiest of Pope’s performance” (pg. 2939), which may seem that he was not going to critique Pope too harshly, he did mentions how the subject was not the proper subject to be used in a poetic sense and does state that Pope was not in the right position to discuss this subject due to his little knowledge on “metaphysical morality”. Johnson also believes that the use of Poetry was of bad use. The reason for this is due to Johnson believing that the subject is too complex to be described in poetry. People may believe that they comprehend the literately work however, it is much more difficult to explain. Johnson states that, “Surely a man of no very comprehensive search may venture to say that he has heard all of this before, but it was never till now recommended by such a blaze of embellishment or such sweetness of melody. The vigorous contraction of some thoughts, the luxuriant amplification of others, the incidental illustrations and sometimes the dignity, sometimes the softness of the verse, enchain philosophy, suspend criticism and oppress judgment by overpowering pleasure” (2940). In other words, he states that poetry makes the subject and his philosophical ideas seem as exaggeration. I found this to be interesting due to believing that poetry, although sometimes too exaggerated, can communicate better to individuals when it comes to certain ideas and thought. That is why Poetry now is widely appreciated and enjoyed.

~ Jessica Calderon

Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder

As a fan of poetry, I found this poem to sink into my mind and allow me to really try to understand what Pope is trying to say. He tries to connect God to nature but as well as science. In his era, there are those who can think whatever they want, without having a judging eye being bat at them. However, he is Roman Catholic and has a disability, making part of one of the targeted as we talked about in class. He beautifully uses words to give the audience a taste of what ignorance is. Being catholic in this era is something so disgusting to others that I feel Johnson attacks Pope based on him as a person and not as a literary scholar. When one finds someone to be distasteful, everyone goes along as the sheep. I would want to see Johnson criticizing someone who has the same political views, of same class and of similar “appearance” on their take on a controversial poem.

However, it is also the time of Enlightenment where people, science and religion want both but some sides want just one. Pope does acknowledge in the verse where man was not meant to have a microscopic eye. This was meant to be, mainly because we are not those flies. We are a civilization that should seek something bigger than the eye itself. That being, something that could maybe not be visible at all. Pope says that we were given a fine eye to inspect a mite but not mankind?  This era, is trying to move away from religion and more towards the sciences to become more educated.

So, to conclude my little opinion on Johnson on Pope, is that Johnson does not want others to be “infected” by what Pope says about nature, God, and science as one. It is not so much that he dislikes Pope because of his ideas (in my opinion), he dislikes the idea of a foreigner, a unique individual to have influence on others with what could be just the start of the enlightenment.

Entry by: Norma Briseno

Pope Would Rather Die than to Try

Johnson is critical of Pope, for the most part. He is also critical of his philosophy, which lacks reasoning. I do not see that Johnson has any issues with poetry as a literary device. His issue is with Pope. Johnson says, “The subject is perhaps not very proper for poetry, and the poet is was not sufficiently master of his subject…”  What he does heavily criticize is Pope’s reasoning. Johnson says that Pope says of man-kind, “…that evil is sometimes balanced by good; that human advantages are unstable and fallacious…”  Johnson says, it is Pope who is full of fallacies.

Johnson attacks Pope by stating he is only presenting an argument that every man knows, accusing Pope of unoriginality, but not denying that what Pope is saying is true. Johnson says, “Having exalted himself into the chair of wisdom he tells us much that every man knows, and much that he does not know himself; that we see but little, and that the order of the universe is beyond our comprehension, and opinion not very uncommon; and that there is a chain of subordinate beings…” Here, Johnson has admitted our ignorance as humans. But he denounces Pope’s lack of effort to understand these unknown and ordered things. Johnson says, “The reader feels his mind full, though he learns nothing…”

When Pope states in his essay, “Hope humbly then; with trembling pinions soar; Wait the great teacher death, and God adore! What future bliss, he gives not thee to know, But gives that hope to be they blessing now,” he is showing his lack of reasoning. Seeking new knowledge about the universe does not make one proud. Seeking how the universe works is what will create humbleness, whether seeing how perfect things are, or admitting to not knowing the answers. One does not have to die to be taught anything, but Pope claims we have to wait until this finishing moment to learn the greatest of life’s mysteries. At this time, new scientific discoveries and new questions arise that challenged views of the world; quite literally too, with the magnifying glass, which Pope references in his essay. To say that death is the ultimate teacher is questionable, especially when man is making discoveries on its own and teaching others about them. He states that not knowing the future is a blessing, but this can be contested as well. Pope tells the reader to do nothing; to be like sheep in the pasture, following the master; oblivious to the slaughter.

I think that as Johnson read this, he thought of such arguments that could be brought up against Pope’s philosophy of helplessness and complacency. Johnson is unimpressed and disgusted. I don’t see any criticism of Pope being Catholic, disabled, no criticism of poetry, but criticism of a man who tries too much to present his thoughts as original, but are really just common sense and archaic. To say that there is no use in trying to learn about the universe and God is probably the biggest fallacy that Johnson found most upsetting.
By: Santana Juache

 

Shoes are a girl’s best friend: so, what’s wrong with heels?

As I read Cavendish I found myself amused by some the ideas that she presented because to an audience in the 21^st century this dislike for science is just plain odd. These days in our daily lives we make use of technology and speak among ourselves about scientific discovery over dinner. We don’t see science as a waste of time or a group of men playing with their toys, well not as much as before anyway. That being said though while I was amused by Cavendish I did understand the point she was trying to make with her shoe analogy.  Because to her microscopes were the wrong pairs of shoes to go along with the outfit so to speak. In this case more valuable pursuits were a functional durable pair of shoes and more trivial pursuits were heels and these men were wearing heels. Men were not using their time to focus on what she considered to be more valuable pursuits like “better and commodious contrivances in the art of architecture to build us houses” or “for the better increase of vegetables and brute animals to nourish our bodies” (pg.2204). Instead men were focusing their time on microscopes and trying to understand things from a micro perspective, one of which hadn’t existed until then, and was a novel approach to science.

Her understanding of science was firmly based on nature and the way things present themselves to us without any alteration. She says, “the best optic is a perfect natural eye, and a regular sensitive perception…but not deluding arts.” (pg. 2205). So, to Cavendish the only way to see beauty was to see it the way nature intended it: with the naked eye and not through some distorted glass. In a sense, this breakthrough for the scientific community to her went against nature and that made it wrong. She did not see how microscopes improved our knowledge of the world around us because she was fixated on the fact that it was a different perspective from what is generally seen by the naked eye.

Going back to my own analogy of the wrong pair of shoes for the outfit I see Cavendish and the point that she endeavoring to make which was the heels were the wrong choice much in the same way using microscopes was a waste of the scientific community’s time. However, I also see that she was fixated on nature in a way that she believed to be enlightened but was perhaps in fact unenlightened. Instead of taking this new information and trying to build from it and grow on her own, she chose to tear it down and try to discredit it, which during her time gave the people around her even more reason to find her strange and not worth taking seriously. Because not only was she a woman trying to speak on science but she was also a woman trying to say that the scientific discoveries of the time were a waste of time and went against nature’s wishes. Something that would’ve especially irritated men like Thomas Sprat and Robert Hooke because to them the true beauty of nature was visible under a microscope, it was seen through all the things that up until then hadn’t been known.

Perhaps what Cavendish needed was a pair of sneakers not heels.

 

– Diana Lara