Frankenstein: Hatred vs. Compassion

                I personally believe that one of the most intriguing concepts and themes to consider when reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the constant battle between hatred and compassion in the character’s actions. The book is largely focused on the detrimental impact which hatred had on each of the characters and the specific influence that this had on their actions. For example, the creature began as an inherently good-natured being; he felt no natural inclination towards murder or even the infliction of harm upon others; rather, he was kind, gentle, and merely desirous of companionship. However, when the only responses that the creature received in response to his kind intentions were horrified rejection, he was driven to the point of rage and malignancy. The two most potent examples of this lie in his rejection by the cottagers, whom he loved dearly, and the man who shot the creature in the woods after the creature saved his companion. After experiences numerous acts of hatred such as these, the concept of nature vs. nurture came into play as the creature’s good-natured demeanor transformed into that of anger and a hunger for revenge. Therefore, within the first half of the novel, Shelley seems to encourage the idea that hatred is much more prevalent a response among all members of mankind; regardless of race, gender, or nationality, Shelley appears to imply that rejection in the face of fear or difference is the natural tendency of all people.

                However, while the first half of the book (and essentially the entire novel for that matter) is highly saturated with acts of hatred, she also appears to suggest within the second half of the novel that compassion and love are much more powerful entities that hatred. When requesting of Victor that he create for him a woman of the same species, the creature states that, “If any being felt emotions of benevolence towards me, I should return them an hundred and an hundredfold; for that one creature’s sake, I would make peace with the whole kind” (Shelley, 105)! With this statement, the creature proves that, despite the innumerable instances in which he faced hatred, he would readily forsake all inclination toward anger and hatred if he could simply be shown love by just one individual. In fact, he supports that the compassion and acceptance of just one human being would outweigh hatred from hundreds of others. He also implies by saying that he would return the benevolence a hundredfold that he would much prefer to love than hate. Therefore, Shelley brings the struggle between hatred and compassion full circle in the second half of the novel by juxtaposing the two entities and comparing their prevalence and strength within mankind.

Frankenstein: Round Characters

                One of the most remarkable qualities of Mary Shelley’s writing style in Frankenstein is her ability to create such complex characters with intricate personalities and circumstances which makes labeling or stereotyping them quite a challenge for the reader. In fact, Shelley’s development of the round characters of Victor Frankenstein and the creature are perhaps the most compelling aspect of the entire novel. To begin with, Victor Frankenstein is certainly a round character due to the fact that his intentions and actions seem to contradict one another. On one hand, Victor can be seen as the protagonist, for he began work on the creature with nothing but good intentions; furthermore, he certainly never intended for the product of his experimentations to lead to the death and destruction of so many lives. In reality, the reader is likely to feel a great deal of sympathy for Victor’s character. After all, he worked obsessively for two years to create something which he was passionate about and hoped would induce wonderful discoveries in the scientific field which would prevent death; ultimately, however, he detested his creation from the moment of its first breath, and the life of his creation eventually led to the destruction of his own. On the other hand, however, Victor can be seen as an antagonist in the sense that many of his passive and indifferent actions actually led to the demise of his family and friends. While Victor never directly intended for any of his family or friends to die, he certainly could have taken more proactive measures to ensure their health and safety. For example, rather than fleeing from his creation after his initial repulsion to it, Victor should have remained to care for his creature. In such circumstances, the creature would have been much more likely to have maintained his inherently good nature and not reverted to evil and malicious actions.  When considering all these facts, determining whether Victor is a purely good or somewhat irresponsible character is nearly impossible, thus making him a multidimensional, round character.

                The creature’s thoughts and actions make him an even more complex and round character than Victor Frankenstein is. Upon hearing of the first two years of the creature’s life, in which he was rejected by every single human he came into contact with, including the cottagers whom he loved so dearly, the reader is sure to feel a great deal of sympathy for the creature. After all, he initially displayed nothing but a good-natured and generous demeanor throughout the entirety of his life and wanted nothing more than companionship. However, the creature also fostered an uncontrollable rage which overtook his good intentions and drove him to the point of murdering a number of innocent individuals in an act of revenge. The fact that the creature often expressed joy and pleasure in these murders makes his character repulsive and presumably evil. However, at the conclusion of the novel, after he has effectively watched Victor and every single one of his family members and friends die (with the exception of Ernest), the creature then expresses genuine remorse to Robert Walton, causing the reader to again feel a certain amount of sympathy for the creature. He tells Walton, “But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless… you hate me; but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself” (Shelley, 165). Thus, Shelley clearly mastered the manipulation of round characters in her novel.

Frankenstein: Irony

                After reading the conclusion of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, I have come to realize the various types of irony which Shelley utilizes in her novel, as well as the purpose the contribute to the novel’s plotline. To begin with, numerous examples of situational irony are present throughout the second half of the novel. For example, Victor’s relationship with the creature in and of itself is an example of situational irony. Frankenstein worked so vigorously and passionately for two years to create his being that the reader would expect him to have an inherent adoration of its life and accomplishments; contrary to what would be appropriate and suspected, however, Victor fears and loathes his creation form the moment it comes to life. In fact, Victor’s detestation of the creature becomes so complete by the end of the novel that he ultimately dies in the effort to kill that which we worked so tirelessly to produce. Additionally, the fact that the creature goes to great lengths to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on his creator would cause the reader to belief that he took pleasure in seeking this revenge. Despite this, the creature confesses at the end of the novel that, “For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires” (Shelley, 165) and ultimately resolves to end his own life. This, therefore, is also an example of situational irony. Victor’s inclination towards solitude is a third representation of this situational irony, for the fact that Victor’s creation was largely for the purpose of finding a way to potentially end death. In creating the creature, Victor entertained the possibility of prolonging the lives of his loved ones; unfortunately, however, the life of his creation is ultimately what led to the deaths of his loved ones. Evidently, Shelley keenly manipulated situational irony throughout the second half of the novel in order to contribute to the progression of the plotline and highlight the intricate relationship between Victor and his creature.

                Dramatic irony is also present in one particularly significant place in the second of half of the novel when Victor misinterprets the creatures promise that he would be with Victor his wedding night. Victor immediately made a false assumption in believing that “That then was the period fixed for the fulfillment of my destiny. In that hour I should die, and at once satisfy and extinguish his malice” (Shelley, 123). While Victor interpreted the creature’s warning in this way, however, the reader understands that the creature is in reality referring to his intent to murder Elizabeth on their wedding night. The reader’s understanding of this warning in contrast to Victor’s misunderstanding therefore builds suspense which contributes to the plotline of the novel. Such use of irony is a vital component of Shelley’s writing style.

Frankenstein: Internal Conflict

          

Mary Shelley certainly seems to enjoy playing with the reader’s sympathies as they read Frankenstein. On one hand, the reader pities the miserable and lonely creature and criticizes Victor’s heartless rejection of his own creation; on the other hand, the reader sympathizes with Victor as he gradually loses every family member and friend in his life and loathes the horrendous acts committed by the creature himself. However, while pitying Victor’s miserable life is certainly not a challenge, one must consider how many of Victor’s misfortunes are entirely because of his own doing. While it may be true that Victor may have never foreseen his experimentations with the production of life taking the form of such a hideous and capable creature, his actions towards the creature after its creation were certainly potent factors in bringing about his own unhappiness. From the creature’s experiences in the first two years of his life, the reader can clearly ascertain that he originated as an inherently good being. Rather than displaying rage, malignancy, and violent tendencies, the creature was instead kind, generous, and merely desirous of companionship. Had Victor not fled in horror from his initial encounter with the creature, he may have quickly learned this about his creation and have been able to produce a happy life for the being. Furthermore, had Victor shown more kindness, acceptance, or even civility to the creature when they met atop of the mountain in chapter 10, the creature may have reverted back to his kind nature and never have come to the point of murdering Henry or Elizabeth. Despite this, Victor’s instinctual rejection of his creation and refusal to comply with any of his requests, as well as his tendency to flee from his problems, is certainly what I believe to be the largest factor in determining his miserable fate. Because his own actions remain largely responsible for his misfortune, I find it somewhat difficult to feel great amounts of pity or sympathy for Victor.

                On the other hand, the reader must consider the morality of Victor’s actions and the internal conflict which took place in his heart during chapters 17 and 20 as Victor pondered whether or not to create a female being for Victor. On one hand, Victor felt compelled to create the horrendous being so as to forever terminate his interactions with the creature and banish him to a remote island where he could no longer disturb mankind. On the other hand, Victor rationalized that the results of the creation of a second creature were highly unpredictable and could in fact effect even more destruction than the creation of the first creature had. In reflecting on the fact that the woman creature could possibly be even more evil and commit treacherous acts purely out of enjoyment, Victor admitted that, “…for the first time, the wickedness of my promise burst upon me; I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race” (Shelley, 121). While Victor’s actions in destroying the woman creature ultimately led to the deaths of Henry, Elizabeth, and his father, he certainly never intended for this to be the case; on the contrary, he was actually attempting to save society as a whole from the potential wrath of his creations. Therefore, Shelley utilizes the internal conflict taking place within Victor’s heart as a tool for creating both sympathy and resentment for Victor’s actions.

Frankenstein: Isolation

                As Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein progresses, Victor seems to willingly isolate himself from all others more and more, leading me question what motivation lies in his desire for solitude. I admit that, at times, his wish to be alone is actually reasonable, such as when he began to undertake the task of creating a female companion for the creature. Victor explains that conducting the assembly a woman creature in the confines of his house would become extremely dangerous, for the possibility of his family’s discovery of his disturbing work would greatly increase. Victor possessed a great aversion to his family ascertaining the products of his work, for they may be overcome with fear or disgust. He also did not want them to be troubled by the sickly and morose mood he would be likely to foster while working on the project. Therefore, in circumstances such as these, Victor’s longing for solitude is certainly understandable; however, I cannot help but notice his tendency to seek solitude even in times of loss and sorrow when most people would tend to seek the company of their friends and family even more often than usual.

Perhaps the most potent example of Victor’s tendency towards isolation is the fact that, even after Clerval is murdered and Victor is wrongly detained in prison for a number of months, he still detests the company of others even in his freedom. In determining why Victor is so hesitant to place himself in the presence of others, one must consider the circumstances of the past few years of his life. Perhaps the fact that Victor’s actions in creating the creature has already led to a number of murders has traumatized him to such an extent that the sight of man merely reminds him of the horrendous results of his work. This notion is supported by Victor’s comment while in Paris that, “I abhorred the face of man. Oh, not abhorred! They were my brethren, my fellow being, and I felt attracted even to the most repulsive among them… but I felt that I had no right to share their intercourse” (Shelley, 136). While this justification certainly sounds plausible, however, Victor’s reaction still seems somewhat strange to me. I find it ironic that he was so obsessed with the idea of producing life and preventing death that he passionately pursued the creation of life for two years, yet this creation ultimately separated him emotionally from all mankind for the rest of his life. In creating one life, Victor destroyed his own , and in manufacturing a companion, he inadvertently isolated himself from everyone he knew. Unlike the creature’s forced solitude, however, Victor’s was essentially by choice. This causes the reader to consider the diverse causes of isolation and the impact of this critical theme in Frankenstein on the characters of the novel.

Frankenstein Blog 5

While reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, I have come to discover the important role that Shelley’s characterization of both Victor Frankenstein and his creation have played in contributing to the thematic topic of solitude and companionship. One on hand, Victor’s character embodies one who accepts and even desires solitude as a way of life, whereas the creature represents those who are forced into solitude as a result of the rejection of society. While Victor may not be a hermit, he certainly expresses little desire or need for companionship throughout his life. In reality, his fervent passion for intellect and discovery and his conviction to create life in inanimate objects took precedence over all the relationships in his life. Frankenstein neglected all communications with his family and loved ones despite their constant entreaties for even the shortest of letters, and he locked himself up within the confines of his small living quarters for days on end in order to dedicate himself more fully to the work of his creation of life. In other words, while Victor may not necessarily reject or dislike companionship, he apparently never deemed it an essential aspect of his life nor expressed a strong desire for relationships. In fact, after being plagued by the intense guilt of the deaths of William Frankenstein and Justine Moritz, Victor even expressed that solitude was often the only form of solace he could seek. He lamented, “Thus not the tenderness of friendship… could redeem my soul from woe. The very accents of love were ineffectual” (Shelley, 64). Despite the fact that his family and loved ones constantly implored Victor to have a greater presence in their lives and communicate with them more frequently, Victor often favored a life of solitude.

In direct contrast to this, Victor’s creation seems to express a strong desire for human companionship; unfortunately, the sheer repulsiveness of his deformities and nature of existence prevent him from obtaining this. Because the creature is a very frightening sight to behold, all humans that he has had direct contact with thus far have actively rejected him. For example, Victor fled him immediately, the shepherd inside his small hut escaped the creature in terror, and the village into which the creature stumbled harmed and terrorized him. Because the creature learned through such experiences that he was unlikely to be blessed with any warm receptions from the human race, he was left with no choice but to live in solitude in the hovel of a poor family and observe them from afar. Despite this, the creature greatly desired to develop a healthy relationship with the family, admitting, “I imagined that they would be disgusted, until, by my gentle demeanor and conciliating words, I should first win their favor, and afterwards their love” (Shelley, 81). Therefore, I believe that through the characterization of both Frankenstein and his creature, Shelley cleverly presents the two realities of solitude: solitude by choice, which is the case of Frankenstein, or undesired solitude as a result of rejection, which is the case of the creature.

Frankenstein Blog 4

                Because Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is essentially told from the point of view of Victor Frankenstein himself, the reader is swayed to believe up to this point in the story that Victor’s creation is a loathsome monster with nothing but cruel and selfish motives. However, I believe Shelley may actually be utilizing this limited point of view to mislead the reader; while I am actually unfamiliar with the story of Frankenstein and cannot remember exactly how it ends, I have a strong feeling the story will ultimately portray Victor’s creation as a decent being and humankind as the savage entity. Although Frankenstein has portrayed his creation as vicious and vile thus far, little evidence has actually been proven to substantiate this claim up until this point. After creating such an ugly being and fearing it, Frankenstein himself was the one who rejected and fled his creation. While he awoke from slumber to find his creation at his bedside reaching out “seeming to detain me” (Shelley, 35), he has no proof that the creature was in fact attempting to capture him. Furthermore, while Victor assumes that his creation was the one who murdered William merely because he found Frankenstein at the site of the murder, no substantial evidence exists which proves this theory. As far as the reader knows, Victor’s creation may simply have been looming at the site of the murder because he believed he might find Victor there and was hoping to speak to him.

                On the other hand, while no evidence yet exists which proves the cruel nature of Victor’s creation, the creature’s story in explanation of the first two years of his life actually do provide evidence to prove that he is inherently a good and decent being. While living in the hovel of a destitute family, the creature came to observe the family very carefully and expressed a desire to make himself known to them and share in their companionship. Upon discovering their poverty, he desired to help them from no longer eating their food and anonymously performing small acts of kindness for them, such as gathering wood and clearing snowy paths for them. Furthermore, he shared that he felt sadness and pain with the family did yet sympathized with their joy. On the other hand, humans have been shown to exhibit nothing but hostility towards the creature as a direct result of their fear. After all, Victor’s fear of his creation was the main motivation behind his flight from the creature. Moreover, when the creature naively stumbled into a small village looking for food, “the whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, until, grievously bruised by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons, I escaped to the open country…” (Shelley, 74). Considering all of these facts, I am led to believe that Shelley is cleverly manipulating point of view in order to misguide the reader in believing that Frankenstein’s creature is a detestable and inherently evil being when, in reality, humanity is in fact the savage and uncivilized entity.

Frankenstein Blog 3

                As Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein progresses, the significance of the theme of death in the novel becomes increasingly apparent. The reader quickly perceives the many roles and influences which death has inflicted on Frankenstein’s life. To begin with, the death of Frankenstein’s grandmother was the direct event in his parents’ life which led to his existence: were it not for the death of his grandmother, Frankenstein’s parents may never have met, fallen in love, and brought Victor into the world. Furthermore, the death of the parents of Victor’s “cousin” Elizabeth was the event which indirectly led to Elizabeth becoming a member of the Frankenstein family. Furthermore, death was one of the single most important factors in leading Victor to begin the process of infusing inanimate objects with life. Victor was incredibly fond of his mother and was therefore greatly saddened by her death. After briefly describing his grieving process, however, he explained that, “My mother was dead, but we had still duties which we ought to perform; we must continue our course with the rest, and learn to think ourselves fortunate, while one remains whom the spoiler has not seized” (Shelley, 24). Thus, with this resolution, Victor combined the influence of the death of his mother with his inclination towards natural philosophy in order to create life within inanimate objects. By means of discovering such a revolutionary concept, Victor in more or less admitted that he hoped to possibly preserve life or prevent death. Clearly, death perhaps played a more influential role in his young life and ultimate creation of his monster than any other occurrence.

                Even after the “birth” of his creature, however, Frankenstein continued to be plagued by death. Roughly two years after the success of his experiments and the disappearance of his creature, Victor’s little brother William was found dead in the woods of Plainpalais with the marks of his murdered impressed upon his neck. Upon encountering his creature at the very vicinity in which William was murdered, Frankenstein immediately assumes that his creature was solely responsible for William’s death; furthermore, because Justine Moritz was widely believed to be the boy’s murderer, she was condemned and executed in Geneva for her crimes about a month later. Although Victor was not directly responsible for either of these deaths, nor did he ever intend for his actions to indirectly cause them, he nevertheless experienced the overwhelming burden of insatiable guilt as a result of the loss of these loved ones. Because he believed with absolute surety that the creature had murdered William, he concluded that he was, in essence, the sole reason for the deaths of both of his loved ones and the unending grief of his remaining family members. Consequently, the reader can easily ascertain that death has already played a significant role in the story thus far and will undoubtedly continue to have a powerful impact on the motives of Victor and his creatures as the story continues.

Frankenstein Blog 2

              As Frankenstein describes his young life prior to the creation of his creature to Robert Walton in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, he seemingly discusses the concept of destiny a great deal. Rather than presenting his actions in manufacturing the creature as a direct result of his years of tireless work and fervent study, he seems to ascribe them to destiny. After describing the day during which he met M. Waldman and began his studies in chemistry which facilitated his creation of the creature. In reflecting on the day’s events, Frankenstein remarks, “Thus ended a day memorable to me: it decided my future destiny” (Shelley, 29). While I do not necessarily disagree with the concept of destiny, I do feel as though Frankenstein has attributed too many of the misfortunes of his life to destiny rather than taking ownership of his choices and mistakes. The fact that a number of factors in Frankenstein’s life truly did drive him towards the creation of his creature is undeniable. For example, his ardor for natural philosophy and other sciences in general, such as chemistry and mathematics, provided him with the intellectual ability to create such a being. Additionally, his insatiable desire to discover something no one had ever done before, as well as his inclination to benefit society, gave him the motivation necessary to complete such a monumental task. However, I tend to think that Frankenstein prefers to use the concept of destiny as somewhat of an excuse for his actions rather than admitting some of his own mistakes. Destiny may certainly play a significant role in determining one’s path through life; however, one’s individual choices and actions must also be acknowledged as being equally if not even greater a factor. A love for natural sciences may have been what encouraged Frankenstein’s dream of creating a living being from the body parts of deceased humans, yet the decision to dedicate two years of life to this task was entirely that of Frankenstein himself. Moreover, destiny may have been what allowed Frankenstein to be successful in his attempts at instilling life in inanimate objects, but it was Frankenstein’s cowardly decision to ignore and flee his creation that allowed the creature to thrive and become so learned and adept. Also, he may argue that destiny was what led his little brother William and dear friend Justine Moritz to be murdered, yet Frankenstein still could have done everything in his power to convince the court of the existence of the monster he created, even if this was highly improbably of succeeding. Ultimately, I am not intending to detract from Frankenstein’s theme of destiny. However, I do believe that Frankenstein utilizes his belief in this destiny as a defense mechanism in order to relieve himself for some of the guilt of the unspeakable horrors which occurred as a result of his actions. I only wish Frankenstein would take more responsibility for his actions rather than seemingly attribute all the blame to the unavoidable realities of his destiny.

Frankenstein Blog 1

               The first four letters included at the beginning of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein establish the fact that the novel utilizes the literary technique of a frame story. The novel begins with a series of letters written by the unrelentingly ambitious Robert Walton to his sister providing the details of his journey to be the first in history to discover the glorious mysteries of the North Pole. In the process of reaching the North Pole, however, Walton and his crew venture into icy waters where they are temporarily frozen into immobility. While waiting for the ice to thaw so as to continue their travels, Walton’s crew observes Frankenstein’s creature evidently fleeing something at great speed; one day later, they save Victor Frankenstein from the icy waters by bringing him aboard the ship. After Frankenstein and Walton immediately strike up a friendly rapport, Frankenstein decides to relay the details of his perilous past with Walton, and the remainder of the novel proceeds to tell the story of Victor Frankenstein and the inconceivable being which he created. In his letter to his sister, Walton vows that, “I have resolved every night, when I am not imperatively occupied by my duties, to record, as nearly as possible in his own words, what he has related during the day” (Shelley, 13-14). Consequently, the reader perceives that Robert Walton’s adventure to the North Pole and coincidental encounter with Victor Frankenstein becomes the frame story which provides the context in which the real story of Frankenstein’s creature will be told.

                While the fact that Frankenstein is a frame story is certain, the relevance and significance of this stylistic choice by Mary Shelley remains unclear to me. However, one critical observation is important to determining its purpose: the reader can clearly detect that many similarities exist between the characters of Walton and Frankenstein. Both men have developed strong intellectual interests and a passionate desire to discover or accomplish something which no man has ever done before. Furthermore, both men allow these convictions to take precedence over all other aspects of their lives, including relationships. The reader can therefore infer that Frankenstein chose to confide his story in Walton despite his resolution to never tell the story to anyone because he too detected these similarities between himself and Walton and wished to prevent Walton from stumbling down the same miserable path that he took. Aside from this fact, however, the true reason for Mary Shelley’s use of a frame story remains unclear to me. Shelley certainly did not require the use of a frame story in order to write the novel; therefore, the fact that she chose to use this technique implies that it has an important function of the story. Thus far, the frame story has involved a great deal of foreshadowing; for example, the reader knows because of this frame story that both Frankenstein and his creature will survive. Also, Frankenstein repetitively laments the misfortunes of his life, indicating that the novel will not have a pleasant ending. While I strongly believe that the use of frame story may have an even more important function later on in the novel, I am unsure as to what this purpose would be. As Frankenstein progresses, determining the function of the utilization of the frame story should prove to be very interesting.

"APO 96225"

                I found this poem to be one of the most intriguing works in the entire unit, for it addresses the fact that the experience of traumatic or excessively gruesome events can often alienate someone from their family, friends, and peers. When one experiences something very violent, evil, or graphic in their lives, the memory and recollection of this horrific event is a permanent entity which will never abandon that individual. Unfortunately, such events can sometimes be so unpleasant that they forever alter the attitude and persona exhibited by the victim of such haunting thoughts. As a direct result of the corruption such victims face, they are unable to relate to the loved ones which they could once share freely. While the loved ones cannot help the fact that they simply cannot comprehend the pain which the individual experienced or the horror of the haunting memories, attempting to express such sadness to loved ones can become so futile that victims simply give up altogether. As a result, these people quickly become isolate and alienated due solely to the fact that they experienced something so dreadful in their lives.

                In Larry Rottman’s “APO 96225,” Rottman describes a son who tries desperately to avoid discussion of the horrors of war with his mother by instead writing letters about the climate, scenery, etc. While the mother urged the son to feel free to express his genuine feelings towards the war in which he was participating, the son displayed great reservation when it came to relaying the true events of his day to his mother. The son was clearly worried that, by sharing the deepest and darkest aspects of his life to his mother, he would drive the loving affection of his mother off and be left even more emotionally alone than he already felt physically. However, the mother insisted that she could bear the horrific news, so the son finally replied, “Today I killed a man. Yesterday, I helped drop napalm on women and children” (Rottman, 846). Despite the mother’s plea for her child to relate to her and provide her with genuine details of his life, when he shared this, she truly was unable to bear the horror of the matter and immediately withdrew from him. In fact, the mother was so emotionally disturbed that she could not even reply to the son. “APO 96225” ultimately simply proves that, at times, the horror which one experiences in life not only leaves them permanently scarred, but also alienates them forever from the rest of society, who wishes so strongly to dwell purely in the presence of happy experiences.

"Much Madness is divinest Sense"

                Though the poem is very brief, Emily Dickinson’s “Much Madness is divinest Sense” seems to serve as a quick overview of psychology. Certainly most, if not all, people would agree that “sane” is an adjective which describes people who devise reasonable, logical, and rational solutions to everyday problems. On the other hand, those who ascribed as being “mad” are those who plot highly unusual or unconventional schemes in order to overcome difficulties in their lives. However, in this poem, Dickinson challenges the idea that sanity is in fact sane and that madness is in fact crazy, or “wrong.” The line in the poem which I personally found to be the most powerful was Dickinson’s remark that “In this, as All, prevail—“ (Dickinson, 830). Despite the fact that his passage is very short, the intent of Dickinson’s jab is clear—whether right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, the general idea, principle, or approach which is adopted by a greater majority of people is the method which is described as being “right.” Rather than simply accepting that all people are capable of developing their own personal responses to challenges, successes, and general experiences of life, humans seem to have a tendency to reproach and condemn any opinions or actions which differ from the norm. However, with this brief poem, Dickinson makes the argument that determining the sanity or insanity of an argument or conviction based solely on the number of people who believe the idea is not sufficient enough. Rather, Dickinson argues, perhaps those whose ideas appear to be the maddest are in fact among the very few sane people of the world; likewise, those who are typically seen as sane might truly being the ones who are insane in the judgment of a “discerning eye” (Dickinson, 830).

                With the last line of the poem, Dickinson even goes as far as to hint that those who are viewed as insane and who differ with the majority opinion are, in some regards, forced to wear a metaphorical chain. In other words, those whose convictions differ from others’ are bound and limited by these differences rather than allowed to excel. Therefore, Dickinson’s poem transforms from a simple lament to a challenge to the reader to question whether or not their ideas and beliefs are truly sane or mad and if the fear of advocating ideas different than those of the majority prevents one from supporting the convictions which are most important to them. When others are forced to either abandon their ideals in order to feel included or be isolated because of their beliefs, the gruesome task of alienation is successfully completed.

"I Felt a Funeral, in My Brain"

                Emily Dickinson makes brilliant use of imagery in order to convey her theme regarding death and alienation in her poem “I felt a Funeral, in my Brain.” The poem walks the reader through the stages of the speaker’s “death.” The speaker initially merely envisions the beginning of a funeral in her head; however, as the funeral progresses within her mind, pieces of her body and being slowly begin to fade, in the order that someone who was dying might expect to fade. For example, the speaker’s mind is the closest to go, followed by soul, and then their whole existence. Dickinson’s precise diction is very critical to these descriptions, as well, for she very purposely uses somewhat violent words, such as “treading”,” “beating,” creaking,” and “broke.” With this selection of words, Dickinson implies that the oncoming stages of death did not come upon her gradually or gracefully; rather they seemed to overtake her as though she could already experience her very own funeral before her death had even occurred. The imagery of boxes being lifted from creaking souls greatly contributes to the conveyance of this theme.

                The most potent phrase in the poem is when Dickinson remarks, “As all the Heavens were a Bell, and Being, but an Ear, And I, and Silence, some strange Race wrecked, solitary, here—“ (Dickinson, 776). With this phrase, I was quickly reminded that the poem was focused on alienation rather than death. However, in many ways, I believe that Dickinson is actually intending to compare isolation to a kind of death within the story. As Heaven, or the source of all happiness in the afterlife, is personified by one beautiful bell sound, while life itself is embodied by an Ear with which  to hear this bell sound, the reader desperately explains how she must race against the formidable entity of Silence. In such a symbolic description, Dickinson suggests the idea that, in death, Emily threatened to suffer isolation from all those who remained alive by the fact that her words, thoughts, and feelings would be silenced. Ultimately, just as “Bartleby, the Scrivener” proved the reader how powerful an impact passivity could have the development of alienation, “I felt a Funeral, in my Brain’ proves how silence or the lack of communication is also vitally important to creating a sense of alienation for most people.

"Bartleby, the Scrivener"

Herman Melville describes a number of factors that can contribute to the growth of alienation in his short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” and this is best seen through the indirect characterization of the Lawyer. Although the Lawyer is the narrator of the story, he actually offers very little personal information about himself. For example, the reader never learns the Lawyer’s name, family situation, etc., and he makes no effort to acquaint the reader with the personal aspects of his life. The one intuitive piece of information which the Lawyer offers about himself is the fact that he was “a man who from his youth upwards has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best” (Melville, 642). By considering this statement along with analyzing the Lawyer’s thoughts and actions throughout the book, the reader quickly discovers that the Lawyer himself was not so different than Bartleby. Bartleby was the victim to an incurable case of passivity and unending acceptance. Because of this, Bartleby appears to be the constant victim of unhappiness and dullness. In a similar fashion, the reader learns directly through indirect characterization that the Lawyer tends to accept every set of circumstances thrown in his path without questioning or challenging it. ]

Like Bartleby, the Lawyer is eventually depicted as being very similar to Bartleby in fact that both men lacked ambition and drive and instead left all their happiness to rest of the stoic behavior of others. In this regard, “Bartleby, the Scrivener” draws many correlations to the story “The Lottery.” In both “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” both Bartleby and the Lawyer create relatively dull lives for themselves simply because they lake the ambition to question their current lifestyle to take any action of alter it. Likewise, in “The Lottery,” no villagers ventured to abolish the practice of the lottery despite its harmful impact on the community simply because challenging the validity of the practice took more courage and energy than anyone seemed willing to put forth. Ultimately, therefore, the reader discovers through the stoic mannerisms of the Lawyer revealed through indirect characterization that passivity can be one of the single greatest factors contributing to isolation from society.

Miss Brill

                In my own personal opinion, Katherine Mansfield’s “Miss Brill” best epitomizes the reality of alienation more vividly than any other story in the unit. The reader quickly begins to understand the extent of Miss Brill’s isolation with the phrase “she had become really quite expert, she thought, at listening as though she didn’t listen, at sitting in other people’s lives just for a minute while they talked around her” (Mansfield, 183). The unfortunate reality is that, rather than acknowledging her extreme isolation, Miss Brill actually fins enjoyment in observing others as thought they were in a play and does not realize the fact that she is merely a spectator. This idea best embodies the separation with reality which those who are entirely isolated may be likely to experience. For those who have no true friends or companions with which to share the adventures of life, they are left with no option but to live vicariously through the joys and struggles of others. While the people Miss Brill observes are in fact living their actual lives, Miss Brill feels as though they are merely actors because she has placed herself in a permanent role of spectatorship. While acting as a bystander throughout her life may seem to bring her happiness, the illusion of her inclusion in this role-playing is shattered when the woman in the ermine toque ridicules her fur. Ultimately, the theme of the novel is revealed in the symbolism of the fur that Miss Brill proudly adorns her shoulders with. By wearing such a fur, it is as though Miss Brill is putting on a costume in order to play the same character that she has always played in the scene involving the park every Sunday. However, at the very end of the story, “She unclasped the necklet quickly; quickly, without looking, laid it inside” (Mansfield, 186). By removing this vital piece of her costume, Miss Brill seems to be coming to the understanding that, if she truly wishes to find happiness in life and overcome the horrid loneliness which accompanies alienation, she must forsake the notion that she is merely a character in a frequently performed scene and begin writing her own story. Therefore, by employment of the symbolism of the fur as her costume, the theme of alienation is exemplified in “Miss Brill.”