Comparing Age of Innocence and "A Doll's House"

The the play "A Doll's House" and the novel Age of Innocence both depict the state of society of the current time with its rigid and patriarchal social structures.  In their respective works, Ibsen and Wharton both highlight the transformation of characters to illustrate the values of society.  While Nora and Archer both undergo journeys towards to a transformation, Nora's rebirth frees her from the rigid shackles of the metaphorical doll's house, while Archer's experience returns him to his expected role in society, revealing that individual progression can only be achieved through personal willingness and desire to break away from the accepted social values

Throughout the play "A Doll's House", Nora undergo small changes that ultimately lead to her decision to leave Torvald and the children.  Nora's transformation was driven by her own desire.  With her realization of Torvald's shallowness and inability to see past the set rules that dictate the required appearance of a family unit pushes her away from the picture-perfect family that she thought she had.  Nora concludes that she is now too far away from the idealistic appearance of the doll's house and choose to sever her ties with it instead of forcing herself back into the closed sphere of womanhood.  This destruction of their relationship and the metaphorical doll house, however, opens a path towards progress and change for both Nora and Torvald.  The winter season that the play sets in creates contrast between the harsh, cold environment outside and the safety and warmth of the doll house.  The Christmas holiday also symbolizes both the birth of Jesus Christ as well as the destruction and death of winter that allow the season of growth and fertility to follow.  This metaphysical rebirth of her surroundings mark the period of change that Nora experiences that ultimately allows her to herself change and evolve as a character.

In Age of Innocence, Archer also undergo a journey that leads him to stray away from his societal values.  While Nora's frustration with society stemmed from her denial of the facade that Torvald wanted to maintain, Archer's resentment for Old New York came from Ellen.  To Archer, Ellen was a symbol of rebellion against the qualities of his society that he deemed negative, including closed-mindedness, hypocrisy, and lack of creativity.  Even though throughout most of the novel, Archer thought he, like Ellen, was also free from these qualities, his judgement of Ellen and her past actions as well as his pity for Ned Winsett show that he embodies the hypocrisy that he so hated.  What Archer thought was honest, personal hatred of society was instead only his desire to rebel, which he then latched to Ellen as a symbol for his rebellion.  Unlike Nora, whose purpose for leaving came from her own dissatisfaction with her life, Archer embraces the values and believes of someone else.  As Ellen leaves for Europe, Archer is left without a purpose and is once again unwilling to abandon his society, which ultimately causes him to regress back to his marriage, a symbol for his imprisonment in society.

Comparison of Nora and May

The character Nora of "Doll House" and May of The Age of Innocence both embody the values of their society in the beginning of their respective work.  Both characters transform as their respective stories progress but the conclusion of their stories are different.  Both characters symbolize the extreme off innocence while simultaneously showing signs of experience that defines them.  The contrast between the facade that both characters puts up and their actual actions shows the duplicity of women in their roles in society.

Both characters appear to be innocent as we are introduced to them.  Nora, a typical housewife, seems to be the definition of cookie-cutter wife as she is playful and flirty with her husband while being totally submissive to his every whim.  In the opening act of "Doll House", Nora appears to be almost a doll that Torvald plays with as he controls every aspect of her life, including what she buys,what she eats, and how she dresses.  He also makes multiple remarks against her as a woman that she completely agrees with since as a woman, she is born with natural faults.  May was also the same when she was first introduced.  Archer points out that May is completely shaped by her up bringing and is incredibly closed minded.  Although he seemed frustrated with her naivete, Archer shows interest in taking her under his wing to teach her about the world.  Both women appear to be products of their society and innocent.  This innocence portrays the society that they live in as well as allows us to see the traditional roles of women during the time period.

Even though both characters show their innocent and naive sides in the start of their stories, it is later revealed that they are more mischievous than they appear.  In Act 2 of "Doll House", it is revealed that it is not Torvald, but rather Nora, that holds the balance of their entire fabricated reality.  She deviously goes behind Torvald's back to ensure his safety and protect the appearance of the doll house while simultaneously allows Torvald to think he is the sole defender of the house.  In later sections of The Age of Innocence, May also reveals some of her devious qualities.  It is hinted that she is aware of Archer's relationship with Ellen, which contrasts with her innocence and helplessness.  Also, May actively shields Archer away from sources of knowledge or experience that would pull Archer away from her Old New York society.  She prevents him from meeting the French tutor while the two honeymooned in Europe.  She also disclosed her pregnancy to Ellen behind Archer's back, causing Ellen to leave to Europe.  The sly and cunning sides of these two women illustrates the duplicity of women and their roles in society.  While it is socially accepted that women were part of the sphere and are helpless creatures, these two characters show that women at the period were responsible for just as much, or sometimes even more, as the men for keeping up the family appearance.

"Infant Joy", "Infant Sorrow", and Grendel

The juxtaposition of innocence and experience in William Blake’s poems “Infant Joy” and “Infant Sorrow” shows the same conflict that Grendel has in the novel Grendel.  The balance that Grendel desperately tries to find in the novel is depicted by the two poems, with each representing a different extreme.

In the poem “Infant Joy”, Blake depicts the joy that can be found in innocence.  The child in the poem, new to the world, knows nothing about its complexity.  With his lack of understanding, the infant is in a state of blissful ignorance.  Through the child’s eyes, the world is incredibly simple.  This can be seen in the repetition of words as well as the simple diction used in the poem, as opposed to “Infant Sorrow”.  In this simplicity, however, there is only “sweet joy” and “smile[s]”.

In Grendel, this blissful ignorance is represented by the human’s way of seeing the world, with the Shaper as their guide.  Man sees the world as an idealistic series of events that happen for reasons ordained by a higher power.  When looking at treachery, man sees only glory and godliness that the Shaper uses to veil the truth.  This clouded view of reality keeps man trapped in a world made of illusions but is also what causes man to continue to thrive.

On the other hand, the poem “Infant Sorrow” shows the reality of the situation.  In this poem, reality is looked upon as “the dangerous world” and the child is a “helpless, naked” creature in this dangerous world.  The idea of entrapment within and struggle against the society can be seen in the second stanza when the baby is “struggling” and “striving” against the restraints put upon him.  The hands of the father and the “swaddling bands”, things that usually represent safety and protection for a child, instead are looked upon as chains that hold the child down.  With knowledge of the world, safety is seen as restraint while life is a constant struggle between individuals and society.  

In Grendel, this idea is given to Grendel by the Dragon.  With his knowledge of the world and reality, Grendel sees the men as children chained by their ideology.  With his knowledge, Grendel is dissatisfied with his existence and sees that within their false reality, the men have happiness, something he cannot achieve.  This creates Grendel’s inner conflict as he searches for balance.  

The poems represent the two extremes that Grendel is between.  They show the effects of the lack of balance that plagues Grendel.  The ongoing inner conflict within Grendel remains unresolved at the end of the novel where Grendel’s imbalance ultimately destroys him.

"I felt a Funeral, in my Brain" Analysis

"I felt a Funeral, in my Brain"
by Emily Dickinson


I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,
And Mourners to and fro
Kept treading - treading - till it seemed
That Sense was breaking through -

And when they all were seated,
A Service, like a Drum -
Kept beating - beating - till I thought
My mind was going numb -

And then I heard them lift a Box
And creak across my Soul
With those same Boots of Lead, again,
Then Space - began to toll,

As all the Heavens were a Bell,
And Being, but an Ear,
And I, and Silence, some strange Race,
Wrecked, solitary, here -

And then a Plank in Reason, broke,
And I dropped down, and down -
And hit a World, at every plunge,
And Finished knowing - then -

In the poem "I felt a Funeral, in my Brain", Emily Dickinson depicts the experience of one's descent into insanity as the grasp on one's mind becomes looser and looser. She uses the image of a funeral service and a physical death to describe the death of the mind.  Through this connection between the loss of life and the loss of mind, Dickinson characterizes insanity as a death that, even though not physical, kills the part of a person that makes him or her human.

Dickinson begins the poem by describing the first stage insanity.  At the funeral in the person's mind, the mourners went "to and fro" and "kept treading - treading".  This back and forth and constant motion shows the last few moments of sanity as the mind tries to hold on to what is left of its grasp of reality.  The repeated, circular motion represents the confusion and disoriented state that the mourners and the person is experiencing.  This confusion continued until "Sense was breaking through".  The capitalized "Sense" is the being that is the human mind.  As "Sense" broke through the thin ice, the barrier that separates sanity and insanity, the mind begins its descent into nothingness.

The poem then focuses on the disorientation that now pervades the mind.  The drums of the service "Kept beaintg - beating - till I thought / My mind was going numb-".  These drums and their incessant  beating represent the overwhelming number of thoughts and feelings that bombards the unprotected mind.  These thoughts inevitably overwhelm the mind as overtime, it becomes "numb" to thoughts.  After the "numbness", silence settles in.  As the mind is now unable to process the world that surrounds it, it becomes disconnected from reality and is left with "Wrecked, solitary, here - "

After it loses its connection with the outside world, the mind begins to lose itself.  The "Plank in Reason" that breaks represents the start of the frail infrastructure of the mind itself crumbling down.  As reason and logic begin to crumble, the mind itself ends.  The last line of the poem states that the person "Finished knowing - then".  In this line, the word "knowing" means the most simple of mental functions, the ability to be aware and to perceive.  Without the ability to know, the person is no longer human and is now a hollow shell of what once was a thinking creature.

In this poem, Dickinson depicts the horrifying experience of losing ones mind.  As the world crumbles around and on top of consciousness,  both feelings of being overwhelmed and isolated begin to spread throughout the mind.  These feelings are then followed by a nothingness that marks the end of the human mind.

Allegory of the Cave and the Monomyth

Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" depicted a story of a man born in darkness who is allowed to ascend to light and must then venture back into the dark in order to raise his fellow men with him.  The allegory of the enlightened men and his journey follows Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey almost exactly.

In the allegory, the men are born in a dark cave and, having been there all their lives, have a skewed view of reality.  Because it is all they know, however, to them, this view is not merely a view of reality, but reality itself.  In their reality, the shadows that they see are not representations of the object but the objects themselves.  The hero of the allegory, the man that eventually escapes the darkness, is also born in the dark cave.

The man's first realization occurs when he is allowed to turn his head and see that the shadows were, like their namesake, nothing more than shadows of wooden carvings cast upon the wall by a blazing fire behind them.  In this moment, the man realizes that his entire perception of reality as well as his fellow men's entire perception of reality has been completely fabricated.  In their reality, the shadows were all there was, but his knowledge of the fire proofs to him that the shadows were a skewed perception of reality that he has accepted all of his life.  This realization is similar to the hero's realization that the hero's mundo world is a poor representaiton of the real world.  This revelation is the hero's call to action as he must now embark on  a journey to reveal the truth.

After he realized that his old reality was fake, the man ascends the steps of the cave into the outside world.  His ascends into the light, leaving the cave and his fellow prisoners.  The man leaves all that he'd ever known to explore the greater truth outside of his cave.  This ascent is the transition the hero must make from the mundane world to the supernatural world.  In this journey, the hero must travel through uncertainty and leave behind and escape his own subconciousness and ideas of truth inorder to explore the truth of the outside world.  As he comes closer to the light, he crosses the threshold between his world and the extraordinary world where all of his knowledge is proven useless.

Up on the surface, however, the man begins to truly see for the first time.  The light of the sun allows him to wholly see the world.  The man slowly captures the essence of the world that now surrounds him.  From the shadows to the reflections to the objects themselves, he grows accustomed to the upper world.  After a while, he gazes upon the sun and through his knowledge of the sun, he now understands the truths of the world.  In the allegory, the sun represents the source of knowledge and the ultimate prize that the hero is rewarded with as he completes his journey.  It is this treasure that the hero must now bring back to the mundane world to better it as a whole.

In the closing scene of the allegory, however, the man returns to the cave and is now an outcast.  Because of his vision of the light and knowledge of the world, he is not longer able to see the shadows clearly.  The prisoners, because of their limited view of reality, considers the man's enlightenment a burden and that he is now blind to their reality.  This is similar to the situation where the gold or treasure the hero brings back turns into ashes.  This means the treasure or knowledge the hero achieved is worthless in the mundane world as the people of the mundane world lack understanding.  The allegory concludes that it is the enlightened one's responsibility to, despite of the possiblity of death, help his fellow men see the light and raise them from the cave in which they are trapped.

Prufrock and Winesburg

T.S. Eliot's poem "The Love Song of  J. Alfred Prufrock" and Sherwood Anderson 's novel Winesburg, Ohio share many common themes including feelings of inadequacy and inability to communicate.  Eliot communicates these ideas through the Prufrock's seemingly somber and depressed depiction of himself and his inadequacy while Anderson communicates the themes through the depiction of the grotesques.

One of the largest feelings that Prufrock repeats is the feeling of his own inadequacy in the eye society.  He talks about how "In the room the women com and go/Talking of Michelangelo" (Eliot 13).  The title of the poem suggests that Prufrock's purpose is to gain the interest of women, but in this line the women are instead paying attention to Michelangelo.  The name Michelangelo can be accredited to the famous Italian painter, sculptor, architect, and poet of the Renaissance.  One of Michelangelo's most famous artwork is the Statue of David with which Michelangelo, out of stone, depicts a man with toned, hardened muscles and alabaster skin that represents the epitome of perfection in a man.  Prufrock, on the other hand, worries about his inadequacies when he self-consciously points out "...How his hair is growing thin" (Eliot 41) and "...how his arms and legs are thin" (Eliot 44).  This feeling of inadequacy is also seen in Winesburg, Ohio among many of the grotesques when in "Sophistication", George Willard worries if he will seem childish and impotent to Helen White compared to the college professor or in "Loneliness" when Enoch tries to proof himself to the woman by lecturing her about his understanding of the world.

The debilitation effect of inability to communicate, on of the largest themes in Winesburg, Ohio is also seen in "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock".  In the poem, Prufrock is unable to find a way to communicate his thoughts as he wonders "...how should I begin/To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?/And how should I presume" (Eliot 59).  We also see Prufrock's regret after he talks when he says "That is not it at all,/That is not what I meant, at all" (Eliot 109).  This inability to communicate in something as personal and revealing as a love song shows how Prufrock is disconnected from society and how meaningless his frustration and planning was.  The inability to communicate in Winesburg, Ohio appears throughout the novel with many of the grotesques.  In "Hands", Wing Biddlebaum's inability to express himself with after the incident leaves him feeling entrapped in his own body.  In "Loneliness", Enoch Robinson struggles to communicate his understanding and then eventually forcing his understanding out makes him grotesque.  Like Prufrock, the societal pressure forces Enoch to try to express himself but it is the expression that leads to regret.

Both works deal with the pressure society has on individuals through society's judgement.  The feelings of inadequacy and inability to communicate in both works show the possible stagnation of an individual under the crushing pressure of society.

I think George Willard is the old writer.

There are many different interpretations of the future of George Willard and his overall role in Winesburg, Ohio.  One of these theories is that Anderson meant to imply that George Willard, after leaving Winesburg to go to the city, grow old to become the old writer in "The Book of the Grotesque" who introduced us to the grotesques.  The two characters seem to serve a similar purpose and many of the experiences George Willard had in the novel seem to logically point him in the direction of the old writer.

The largest similarity between George and the old writer is their experience with the grotesque.  In the "Book of the Grotesque", the old writer speaks of the countless of grotesques he sees and how to him some of them were beautiful.  Throughout the story, George Willard speaks with many different grotesques in Winesburg and serve as almost of the record keeper of the stories of the grotesques as he writes the Winesburg newspaper.

Both George and the old writer have a deeper understanding of the grotesques than other members of society.   The old writer appears to have the same deep understanding of the grotesque as George.  In George's story, a number of characters seek him for understanding as they tell him the story of their grotesqueness.  For example, in Loneliness, Enoch Robinson demanded a conversation with George Willard so that he could tell George the story of his past and how he has become the shell of what he once was.  Also, George's conversation with Kate Swift in which she tells him to look into people and truly understand them perfectly captures what the old writer is able to do with the grotesques in the book he wrote but never published.

Unlike the grotesques of the novel, George and the old writer have within them a certain sense of sophistication and maturity as well as youth that preserves them from grotesqueness.  In the stories of the grotesques, a sudden transformation from youthful innocence to forced maturity through betrayal or misfortune is almost ubiquitous.  It is this sudden loss of youth that transforms the grotesque into their current state and that is what separates both George and the old writer from them.  In "Sophistication", George undergoes a transformation process that resembles maturity but not fully.  In their acceptance of mature life, George and Helen retain a part of their youthfulness, which makes them successful in avoiding grotesqueness.

The old writer, in "The Book of the Grotesque", is said to have in him a youth  in the form of a young woman in a coat of mail that saves him from grotesqueness.  The young woman in mail inside of the old man represents the caring and understanding but strong being that was once  inside of him, mirroring the thing that is inside of George in the end of the novel.  It is this young thing inside of George that saved him from the wretched soul-sucking effect the city seem to have on other Winesburg residents as he leaves Winesburg to begin the next phase of his life.

Reponse to "We Real Cool"

"We Real Cool"
by Gwendolyn Brooks

THE POOL PLAYERS. 

SEVEN AT THE GOLDEN SHOVEL.

 We real cool. We 

Left school. We

 Lurk late. We

 Strike straight. We 

Sing sin. We 

Thin gin. We 

Jazz June. We 

Die soon. 

                      

The poem "We Real Cool" by Gwendolyn Brooks captures the sense of rebellious and fun-loving spirit of youth.  The poem begins with two lines that are separate from the poem and set the scene and introduces the speaker and subject of the poem.  Playing pool gives the speaker and his friends a sense of cool and mysteriousness  that traditionally follows the activity.  The number seven is considered one of the holiest and luckiest numbers as it has many biblical references while the word "golden" connotes prosperity and fortune.  Both suggest that the speaker and his friends are fortunate and will find success; however, the word "shovel" contrasts with the positive connotations.  The word "shovel" is connected to death and despair, which is once again touched on later in the poem.  

While reading this poem, I couldn't help but notice the unusual line separations and how it could be read. While read sentence by sentence, the poem has a simple rhyme scheme as well as rhythm as every adjacent line rhymes with each other and every line has 3 syllables.  If read as written with "We" at the end of each line, however, the poem has a certain rhythm to it.  This  rhythm focuses on the "We" of the poem and has less emphasis on the actions.  It gives the speaker and the people he or she is speaking for a sense of mysterious conceitedness, as if they thought they were above the rules they were breaking.  The alliterations and broken rhymes of the poem makes the speaker sound almost playfully indifferent about the rules being broken.

After the introduction, the poem is a series of actions, all alluding to the rebelliousness.  It feels like Brooks is trying to capture how the rebellious youths feel about themselves.  The first stanza of the poem mentions how the speaker feels about breaking the rules by skipping school.   The idea of going against authority and rebellion repeats many times throughout the poem with the actions like "Lurk[ing] Late", "Sing[ing] sin", and "Thin[ing] gin".  During the time of Brooks, Jazz music belonged to the black community and was considered immoral outside of the black community as it was music infused with a unique passion that was interpreted as sexual.  The mention of Jazz also adds to the unruliness of the pool players.  The word "cool" that the speaker uses to describe his friends and himself denotes superiority in a sense that they are above authority and all of their peers who are subject to authority.  

The poem's last line concludes the work in such a drastic shift in meaning that it almost seemed like there wasn't enough time to shift to the tone of the poem to a more somber tone that better suits the topic of death. This sudden change makes the speaker sound detached from the issue of impending death, giving death a sense of inevitability.  This inevitability is Brooks' commentary on the futility and  foolishness of youthful rebellion.  The speaker and his friends feel like they are somehow making a difference with their actions but in reality, their acts of rebellion are meaningless.

Response to Respectability

"Respectability" tells the story of Wash Williams and his grotesqueness.  The chapter begins with the description of a caged beast.  The beast is hulking, dirty, and ugly and its ugliness instills emotions of wonderment and disgust in people as they pass by.  Wash Williams is then said to resemble the beast.  This description of Wash serves as the initial characteristics that make him grotesque.  Unlike other residents of Winesburg, Wash is  strongly described as being incredibly grotesque in the physical  sense of the word, which affirms his grotesqueness.  Although physical foulness covers his entire body, his hands are described as "sensitive and shapely".  George Willard also often talks about how he imagines Wash, during their  conversation, as a "comely young man".  This description of his hands as well as George's imaginative description shows the pure thing inside of Wash that still exists under the hard, ugly cover that is his body.  Even the man's name alludes to this, as the word "wash" implies cleanliness and purity.  I think Anderson created this dichotomy between the man's real, physical appearance and the appearance of his hands and George's description to remind the readers that the grotesques, although they are damaged people, were once full of hope and dreams that still reside deep inside of them.  

One of the most prominent characteristic of Wash Williams is his absolute hatred of women.  His description of women is the polar opposite of Wash's character.  It is interesting how Anderson points out that "the sight of a woman sickens" Wash even though he notices their outer beauty, while the sight of Wash sickens others.  He describes them as "trick in Nature", saying how their beauty and "soft hands and blue eyes" were only to veil their inner wretchedness. 

His hatred for women at first seems like unwarranted misogyny but is then later explained with his story.  In his conversation with George Willard, which only happened because Wash pities George, like he does all woman-loving men, Wash told George the story of his marriage.  He talks about his naivety in loving a woman.  His love for his wife and his virginal status gives us a completely different look at Wash as he was before becoming grotesque.  Wash's "religious fervor" to remain a virgin until his marriage as well as the image of Wash planting seeds that his wife gave him in the garden shows the hope that Wash had for his marriage.  His abstinence shows how dedicated Wash was to the pursuit of the correct partner while the seeds show how Wash hoped that his wife and he would grow old together.  His wife handing him the seeds represented a promise that she made to him, assuring him both about the fertility of the seeds as well as the marriage.  It was in a moment of intimacy and lust that he finds out that her promises were empty, and the seeds with which their marriage was planted were destined for failure.  

His final encounter with his wife was what made Wash grotesque.  Like it was for many other characters in the book, it was a moment of sexual confusion that changed Wash.  Wash came to his wife's mother's house with a sliver of hope still left in him.  He wanted his wife to come into the room and somehow convince him to forgive her.  He "ached to forgive and forget" and he wanted the pain that she caused him to disappear.  Instead however, his wife was pushed by her mother to enter the room naked.  Her mother hoped that the sight of her naked daughter and Wash's  primal lust was enough to convince Wash to forgive his wife.  Up to this point, Wash still wanted to reconcile with his wife, but her naked form being presented to him like an offering enraged him  as he tried to kill the mother.

Shelley's use of Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey"

In her most famous work Frankenstein, Mary Shelley directly quoted Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey", a poem depicting the changing effects that nature has on Wordsworth and how Wordsworth himself changes.  Wordsworth begins by describing his first experience with nature.  He talks about the overwhelming joy that he felt being with nature in his youth and how the physical beauty of nature gave him that joy.  He then transitions from this state of overwhelming emotion and talks about his time away from nature, and how from time to time, the memory of nature and the  feelings nature gave him gives him comfort and allows him to understand nature in a deeper sense.  When he returns to nature, he knows that he will never again experience the joy that characterized his youthful days but he appreciates his new found understanding and looks hopefully to his sister to, when he is gone, experience the same joy and enlightenment he did and remembers him through it.

 Shelley included lines from the poem while telling the story of Victor's and Clerval's travels in Europe when they themselves were heavily impacted by nature.  Shelley alluded to Wordsworth's poem here because at this point in the story, the state of mind of both Victor and Clerval can be perfectly described by the multiple selves of Wordsworth in Tintern Abbey.  In the poem, Wordsworth first describes his first encounters with nature in his "boyish days" and how the encounter is almost emotionally overwhelming.  The ecstasy instilled into Wordsworth's first 'self' by nature can also be seen in Clerval as the duo travel through Europe.  Before she quoted the poem, Shelley described Clerval's state of mind: "His soul overflowed with ardent affects, and his friendship was of that devoted and wondrous nature that the worldly minded teach us to look for only in imagination" (Shelley 139).  Like Wordsworth was during his first encounter with nature, Clerval is overwhelmed with joy as he allows his emotions to run wild and free, unlike Victor.

The reason Victor accompanies Clerval on his journey is promise to create, for the creature, a female companion.  Victor needs to escape from society to begin his work.  Throughout the entire trip, while Clerval is left to freely enjoy the scenery and landscape, Victor has the weight of his conscience on his shoulder.  The effects nature has on Victor differs greatly from its effects on Clerval.  While Clerval "observed the scenery with an eye of feeling and delight" (138) in his journal, Victor is "haunted by a curse that shut up ever avenue to enjoyment".  Victor seems to be more disconnected from nature than Clerval is as instead of engrossing himself in all the beauties of nature, he worries about the task at hand.  Like Wordsworth's more transcended self, however, Victor does not dismiss the beauties that are in front of him.  While he knows that he himself will never enjoy nature the same way Clerval does, Victor looks onto Clerval with hope, just as Wordsworth did to his sister. 

The Hero's Journey of Kal-El

I used to think that "the hero's journey" was an antiquated method of telling a heroic story, but with the recent influx of superhero movies from both the DC and Marvel Universe, I now see that every hero story, with minor deviations, follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth.  I recently saw the new Superman reboot Man of Steel, and, besides its mediocrity in telling the story of Superman, it did refresh my memory on the lore of our comic book caped crusader.  And no surprise, his story fits Campbell's monomyth almost exactly.

While his story begins in the planet Krypton, he was only and infant and had no recollection of his home, so I will skip this part of the story to help prove my point.  We are introduced to Kal-El, or Clark, as a young boy living in an ordinary farmhouse with his two, ordinary parents.  Clark grows up knowing that he was special, but must stifle his own abilities as the ordinary world he lives in is not ready for him.  One day, as Clark is struggling with his inability to fit in with the other kids, his adopted father counsels him and shows him the spaceship in which Clark was sent to earth, revealing to Clark his true origin and telling Clark that he was meant to do something great in this world.

At first, Clark refuses  his call to adventure.  He floats from job to job, avoids making friends, and keeps his powers a secret.  Unexpected circumstances happen, however, and Clark is forced to use his powers to save dozens of lives from an exploding oil rig.  After the incident, he continues to be a drifter, trying to find a place where he belongs with little success until he stumbles upon the frozen Kryptonian spaceship.

And as the monomyth suggests, Clark now meets with his mentor.  In the movie, the Mentor comes in the form of his father's digitally fabricated consciousness.  This consciousness talks to Clark about the story of the destruction of Krypton and fills Clark with a purpose to protect the people on Earth from Zod.  Clark crosses the threshold by donning the skin-tight suit and cape and walks through the spaceship door into the world as a new man.  Clark, now filled with confidence and purpose, begins to test his abilities.  Clark experiments with his Kryptonian strength and abilities as well as befriending Lois Lane, an ally in whom he can trust.

The approach and ordeal is Clark's confrontation with Zod's henchmen and the terraforming machine.  He succeeds in defeating his foes as well as destroying the terraforming machine, saving Earth.  It is assumed that the conflict is over but as Clark assesses the destruction of  Metropolis, he finds that General Zod is still alive.  Zod's resurrection serves as the final test for Clark as he is forced to choose between his  own race and the people of Earth.  Clark makes his decision and kills Zod, proving his loyalty to Earth.  With this, Clark assumes the role of Earth's protector and guardian and finds his place in the "ordinary world" in which he lives.

Shelley and Moffat

One of the major themes throughout Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is isolation and loneliness and what it does to someone.  Reassessing this theme got me thinking about one of my favorite tv shows, Doctor Who.  In the show, a human-like, well-dressed alien with a British accent, calling himself "The Doctor", travels through all of time and space discovering the universe.  The basic plot of the show is that this suave yet quirky alien, throughout his travels, will acquire human companions to accompany him.

Each season of the show follows the adventures The Doctor has with his companion or companions until they are inevitably replaced by new humans as the current companions and The Doctor, for some unforeseeable circumstance such as a memory loss or a time lock or a death, must part ways.  Although the show, for the most part, is joyful and full of adventure, there are moments where the human side of The Doctor is revealed.  We eventually learn that The Doctor is of a species called "Time Lords", and that during the Time Lord's attempt to destroy Earth, The Doctor protected Earth while simultaneously destroying his entire species.  The Doctor now roam the galaxy as the last living Time Lord, and it is this loneliness that causes him to constantly recruit new human companions.  Because of Time Lords' naturally much longer life span, however, the Doctor knows that he will eventually again be alone as he outlives all of his companions.

Like Frankenstein's creature, the Doctor also seeks companionship.  However, although at first slightly reluctant, the people the Doctor invite to join him on his journey almost always agree.  The monster faced a different fate.  The monster was shunned by every human it met and was exiled to be alone in the wilderness.  What was the difference between these two lonely beings that made the Doctor a desirable companion?  While it is easy to say that their outward appearance is a major major factor, their appearance cannot be the only factor, as the Doctor has had companions of different intergalactic species who are revolted by the sight of Time Lords.

This brings us to one of the themes that is ubiquitous in Doctor Who but is no where to be seen in Frankenstein, acceptance.  Throughout the series, the theme of acceptance is constantly being reiterated.  The writer of the shows seem to highlight the kind nature of human beings that, throughout human history, has been increasingly widespread as more and more groups of people are welcomed in the societal and global community.  Shelley, however, disagreed with this notion and in Frankenstein, highlighted more of the social ostracism of some people that was more prevalent in her time.

I think the comparison of these two fictions, one written with the values of a writer in the 1800s, one written with the outlook of writers of current time, show a paradigm shift in what we, as a society, consider to be human nature.  Shelley's Frankenstein highlights the evil and wretchedness of society, while Moffat's Doctor Who focuses on the growth of society and mankind as a whole, and the possibilities of what that growth can accomplish in the future. 

I Like Commercial Fiction and I'm not Ashamed!

Over the summer, I was introduced to the A Song of Ice and Fire series by my dad and shortly after lost half of my summer engulfed in the wonderful, cruel, fictional world George R. R. Martin created.  Being introduced to the book series knowing that a television series adapted to it exists, I expected a cookie-cutter TV medieval fantasy where the good guys triumph and learn an important lesson on the way or the  misunderstood bad guys learn the true meaning of Christmas and promise to never rape and pillage again.  I was wrong.

The first book of the series A Game of Thrones began with our introduction to the Stark family.  The beginning of the story had an underlying tone of hope as we are introduced to the young members of the Stark family.  So far characterized as a good ol' fashion family of morally decent human beings and led by Eddard Stark, the traditional fearsome, courageous warrior who is now a father that teaches his children to be brave and righteous, the Starks seem to be the implied heroes of the story who will triumph in the end.   That'll change eventually.  The narrative is told in a somewhat chronological manner, with each chapter being told from the perspective of a different main character.  As the book progresses and Eddard embarks on his 'hero's journey', we are introduced to more characters, each devious and somewhat power hungry, many of whom's eyes we later see the story through.  The Starks find themselves separated and  further entangled into the plots of the villains around them and the tone of the book slowly changes.  The novel ends with Eddard Stark, unarguably the most traditional 'heroic' character in the story being publicly beheaded while his entire family is marked as enemies of the state, barring his oldest daughter, who is expected to marry the boy-king who gave the order to behead him.  

What I loved about A Game of Thrones is that not only does George R. R. Martin creates characters with real human vices who seem to jump out of the pages, he creates a world around them that feels strangely real.  In this world, none of the characters are safe, no matter how heroic or righteous.  Eddard Stark, the implied protagonist of the book, was honorable and knightly to the point of being two-dimensional.  And he died.  We are given an insight to what these characters are thinking as they interact with the world they live in through the way Martin chose to write the book.  Each chapter being through perspective of a different character allowed us to have a very human connection to the characters as we see the choices they make, good or bad, for righteousness or evil.  To be able to see a conversation through both perspectives allows us to see the overall story in a deeper sense that makes the misfortunes that occurs to the main characters almost bearable.  Almost.  One of the few reasons I've refrained from watching too many episodes of the adapted television series is that I do not know if I could cope with seeing the death of my most beloved characters being reenacted in high-definition as sad violin music plays in the background.


Semi-related:
There was a joke I saw on the internet while surfing through the forums of grieving ASoIaF fans:

George R. R. Martin walks into a bar.
...
Everyone you've ever loved dies.