Othello Act II

                One of the most unique and interesting portions of Act II of William Shakespeare’s Othello was the conversation conducted between Desdemona, Iago, and Emilia about four different types of women. While I admit that I am not entirely sure what the significance of this conversation may be to the remaining action in the play, I do believe that this conversation provides important insights into Iago’s character and perception of women. To briefly summarize, Iago ultimately circumvents genuinely complimenting any type of woman by providing only left-handed compliments of woman at best. He describes beautiful and smart women as having the brains to utilize their beauty to gain a man; beautiful and dumb women as being without worry since their foolishness will make them more attractive in the eyes of men; smart and ugly women having the wit to marry an uglier man so as to make herself look even prettier; and dumb and ugly women as using the exact same tricks as beautiful and smart women. Ultimately, the message which Iago is attempting to convey is that he sees little value or significance in woman. After a long passage describing the perfectly obedient, inferior, and servile woman in Act II, i, 147-156, he finally concludes that “She was a wight, if ever such wight were… to suckle fools and chronicle small beer” (Shakespeare, Act II, i, 157-159).

                While I may be unsure as to whether or not this conversation will have any greater significance in the rest of the play, I do believe that this conversation is noteworthy simply in the fact that it shows Iago’s detestation for women. Since the reader can now plainly see that he views all women as having ulterior motives in order to find a husband and satisfy their desires, understanding his intention to bring about Othello and Cassio’s destruction by spreading lies about affairs seems much more plausible and logical. Furthermore, this conversation is important to understanding the relationship which Iago has with his wife and the way he intends to manipulate it in the future. When addressing Cassio after he kisses Emilia in greeting upon her arrival in Cyprus, Iago remarks that, “Sir, would she give you so much of her lips as of her tongue shoe oft bestows on me, you’d have enough” (Shakespeare, Act II, i, 100-102). Therefore, while Iago clearly has no respect or love for his wife, he intends to keep her as his wife for as long as she can be useful to him. As the rest of the play progresses, the reader may find that understanding the opinions and perceptions of Iago revealed in this conversation are necessary to understanding his actions and motives.

Othello Act I

                William Shakespeare employs a great deal of direct and indirect characterization of the central characters in Act I of Othello so as to immediately provide the reader with an understanding of the personalities and underlying motives of the characters. For example, Othello is immediately characterized as a confident, calm, and righteous man who conducts himself with integrity. His integrity and pure intention can be seen in the fact that he married Desdemona because he was in love with her mind rather than her body. His marriage is that of genuine love, and he has no ulterior motives in marrying Desdemona other than to love her with his whole heart and soul. Furthermore, Othello’s capability to maintain composure can be seen in the cool and collected manner in which he defended himself against Brabantio and those who accused him of drugging Desdemona in order to trick her into marrying him. Although Othello’s physical differences from the rest of his companions due to his Moroccan nationality often lead to racist comments, most all characters aside from Iago greatly respect Othello for his work and personality. For example, the Duke highly admires Othello and even defends him to Brabantio, who was appalled by Othello’s sudden marriage to his daughter. In advising Brabantio to accept his daughter’s marriage to Othello, he remarks, “If virtue no delighted beauty lack, your son-in-law is far more fair than black” (Shakespeare, Act I,iii, 286-287). Being aware of Othello’s good-natured demeanor will be critical to understanding his responses and actions later in the play, so Shakespeare’s characterization of him in Act I was ultimately essential.

                Shakespeare’s characterization of Iago in the first act of Othello is perhaps even more critical for the reader’s understanding of the plot. Because the play has such a strong foundation in dramatic irony, the reader must understand that, while Iago is a truly vile and evil character, all the other characters in the novel are completely ignorant of his wickedness and believe him to be honest and loyal. This trust of the other characters in Iago, particularly Othello, can be seen in the fact that Iago is often addressed or described as “honest Iago.” However, Shakespeare intentionally utilizes frequent soliloquies of Iago to explain to the audience his true personality and true intentions, which are nothing short of loathsome. For example, characters such as Roderigo believe Iago to be genuinely concerned with their welfare and emotionally invested in their friendship, yet when Iago delivers a soliloquy, his actual motives are revealed: “Thus do I ever make my fool my purse, for I mine own gained knowledge should profane. If I would time expend with such a snipe for my sport and profit. I hate the Moor….” (Shakespeare, Act I,iii,363-366). Without such revealing soliloquies being presented within the first act, the reader may be just as ignorant as the characters in the play of Iago’s evil nature. In reality, the fact that the story is told from the perspective of the villain is what distinguishes this play from the rest of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Therefore, Shakespeare’s use of soliloquy and other forms of indirect characterization are essential to laying a foundation of the character’s personalities and motives which will be essential as the play progresses.

"Getting Out" Question 2 Pg. 897

Cleopatra Mathis’s “Getting Out” distinguishes itself from all the other poems in this unit of literature because it describes a much deeper and more genuine love than any of the other poems in the unit. While every other short story and poem in this unit focuses on individuals who are bitterly devoid of a relationship or left with nothing but spite or hate for the person they once loved, “Getting Out” tells the story of a couple who had every intention of loving each other their entire lives. Unfortunately, through “the silent work of tightening the heart” (Mathis, 896), the couple gradually fell out of a romantic love together and determined that they could no longer function as a married couple. While the speaker never identifies a specific reason for their eventual decision to divorce, her description of the photo of the two of them with their matching eyes and hair offers some insight into the reasons for their divorce. The fact that their features matched each other so perfectly seems to indicate that they were two very similar people who lacked little independence from one another. Perhaps because they were so similar in nature, they felt as though they started to lose a piece of their own identity and felt too confined within the marriage. A specific reason for why the couple made the decision to divorce is not essential to understand the essence of the poem, however, for the reader can understand without details that these two individuals, despite their love for another, simply had lives which did not coincide well with one another when bound by marriage. This fact certainly points to a certain emotional maturity which is lacking in all the other works in this unit. While every other work in the Love Me Not Unit conveys a sense of hostility towards love and is filled with hatred, spite, and rage, “Getting Out” simply describes a heartbreaking but mutual falling out of love between two people. In every other work, the speaker is blatantly hostile towards their past lover or every person of the opposite gender in general. However, the emotional maturity of the man and woman described in “Getting Out” is evident in the fact that neither one of them hates the other. Unlike the other works in the unit, no blame is placed and no spitefulness is expressed anywhere in the poem; rather, the speaker merely talks of the pain of losing a relationship that they both desired to last forever. While the speaker is accepting of the fact their physical distance from one another prevents her from ever seeing him and seems comforted to receive a yearly letter from her ex-husband saying that he has found happiness , she also expresses a deep love for him that will never truly die. The mature love between this man and woman is best embodied by the last two sentences of the poem “Taking hands we walked apart, until out arms stretched between us. We held on tight, and let go” (Mathis, 896). In this statement, the immense level of emotional maturity and inexpressible love between the two is fully manifested. While the couple could not survive in a married relationship, they did not resent each other for the failure of their marriage; rather, they loved each other enough to separate despite their deep care for another because they understood that they would be happier leading separate lives. Therefore, the element of emotional maturity that is embodied by the photograph of the couple’s matching eyes and hair is critical to distinguishing this poem from every other in the unit and expressing a kind of love for another that is difficult to articulate.

"Popular Mechanics" Question 2

                Raymond Carver’s “Popular Mechanics” consists mostly of action and dialogue but focuses very little on aspects such as setting or detail. Despite this lack of extravagant detail, the few descriptions of detail and setting that are mentioned have a great impact on the short story by the way in which they reflect the tone of the novel and the mood within the home of the maniac couple. At the beginning of the poem, Carver states, “Early that day the weather turned and the snow was melting into dirty water” (Carver, 334). This statement of setting, while very brief, carries very significant meaning to the entire essence of the poem by symbolizing the nature of the couple’s relationship. While snow often represents beauty and purity because of its pure white nature, dirty water carries with it the unpleasant connotation of being tainted and ugly. While Carver never indulges the reader on the state of the couple’s relationship prior to the hateful explosion that is depicted in this short story, the reader can assume that they once loved each other very much since, in the poem, the reader can see that they lived together, were likely to be married, and had a child together. However, the reader can clearly determine that, regardless of the past nature of their love, all that remains between the couple now is absolute rage and hatred. Therefore, the description of pure and beautiful snow melting into disgusting and tainted slush at the beginning of the poem symbolizes the couple’s relationship as it melted into a horrific catastrophe. The other brief description of setting offered in the poem lies in Carver’s statement that “Cars slushed by on the street outside, where it was getting dark. But it was getting dark on the inside too” (Carver, 334). This detail also carries important meaning in that it, too, reflects the nature of the couple’s relationship. While the fact that the day was literally growing darker outside could mean that it was literally getting darker inside the house, as well, Carver’s statement that the inside of the house was growing darker also carries a metaphorical meaning. Considering that love is often associated with light and hatred and evil are often associated with darkness, the fact that Carver describes the inside of the house as growing dark clearly symbolizes the way in which the couple’s relationship had grown utterly dark in the shadow of hate. This illusion of the house growing darker can also foreshadow the horrific fate of the baby at the story’s conclusion. Therefore, the few details that Carver included within his story carried a great deal of purpose and significance to “Popular Mechanics.”

"The Story of an Hour"

Kate Chopin’s use of imagery in her short story “The Story of an Hour” greatly enhances the theme of marriage being an ultimate sacrifice of freedom and absolute happiness. Authors often include descriptions of nature which reflect the tone or mood of the characters in their stories in their works; for example, this technique was employed by Mary Shelley in her novel Frankenstein. Kate Chopin uses a similar technique in “The Story of an Hour,” but with a few modifications. At the beginning of the story, I made the premature assumption that Mrs. Mallard would be devastated to hear the news of her husband’s tragic death in a railroad accident; in accordance with this assumption, I also expected Chopin to describe the weather as rainy, story, overcast, etc. to reflect the mood of Mrs. Mallard after such a horrific loss. Therefore, when Chopin writes in detail about the beautiful spring day Mrs. Mallard observes out her window, I was reasonably surprised and found the beauty and liveliness of the spring day to be in stark contrast to the tone of story. However, after Mrs. Mallard recovers from a brief period of numbness and shock, she immediately becomes exhilarated by the idea of the freedom which she will gain through the loss of her husband. She confesses to having never loved him extensively and to hoping for a quick end to her dreary life as it was before Mr. Mallard’s death. Her true emotions toward the loss of her husband were not that of pain or grief as the reader might expect, but rather of delight and excitement for the freedom which she had so unexpectedly attained. Consequently, I discovered that the imagery of the beautiful and lively spring day did not serve as a direct contrast to the stark misery of her heart in order to emphasize her pain, but rather it served the purpose of reflecting her inner joy. Chopin’s imagery was symbolic of the birth of new life that Mrs. Mallard believed she had acquired. The imagery was not a reflection of love, as I might have expected; instead, the imagery was a reflection of her freedom. This imagery therefore reflects the theme of the novel, as well, which was also of freedom rather than love, which can be seen in Mrs. Mallard’s statement: “What could love, the unsolved mystery, count for in the face of this possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being” (Chopin, 327). Ultimately, Chopin’s use of imagery in this short story greatly enhanced the overall meaning of her work altogether.

"You're Ugly, Too" Question 4 Pg. 371

                Lorrie Moore’s prevalent use of irony and sarcasm throughout her short story “You’re Ugly, Too” greatly influences the tone of her story. In paragraph 6, Zoe distinguishes between irony and sarcasm by implying that irony is an entity far more layered and sophisticated than dry humor or sarcasm. Regardless, Zoe utilizes sarcasm like a weapon throughout the story, and her life is overflowing with irony. For example, Zoe alludes to the irony in her relationship with her sister Evan by mentioning that, while Zoe is the older sister and often extended a great deal of sisterly advice to Evan when they were young girls, Evan now plays the role of counselor to Zoe as Zoe complains about the dreariness of her life. Furthermore, Moore employs irony when Zoe encourages Evan to finally marry Charlie and warns Evan that “…You guys probably think living together like this is the best of both worlds, but… I’ve always found that as soon as you think you’ve got the best of both worlds… it can suddenly twist and become the worst of both worlds” (Moore, 361). The statement alone is not only an example of situational irony in the world today, but it also relates to a great deal of irony in Zoe’s own life. Zoe is offering Evan relationship advice and sharing her wisdom on how to find happiness in “both worlds” when Zoe is, in fact, the character who has been unable to find true happiness and is experiencing the worst of “both worlds.”  Zoe is therefore speaking ironically in the sense that she is offering advice to her perfectly content sister which she herself is unable to follow in order to find happiness.

                Examples of Zoe’s sarcasm occur on every page of the short story since she utilizes in conversation so frequently. One such example occurs when Zoe is speaking to Evan on the phone and encourages Evan not to marry Charlie yet. When even inquires is Zoe is just insisting on this because she is jealous that her little sister might get married first, Zoe responds by saying, “Oh, my God… I forgot to get married” (Moore, 355). Zoe is obviously very sarcastically in this instance since she clearly did not forget to get married, but rather has never fallen in love with someone and been ready for the commitment of marriage. However, the intriguing aspect of Moore’s constant use of both irony and sarcasm is that Zoe’s sarcasm in and of itself is ironic. On one hand, Zoe’s constant use of sarcasm in conversation is one of the most likable aspects of her character, for it points to her wittiness and makes her a more personable individual. Zoe also often uses sarcasm as a way to make light of the fact that she is still single. However, although this sarcasm can sometimes make her a more likable person, she simultaneously utilizes her sarcasm as a guard to hide her loneliness and insecurities. Therefore, her sarcasm is ironic in the sense that it is likely to be one of the largest factors in keeping her from finding the person she lives. Clearly, sarcasm and irony play a significant role in “You’re Ugly, Too.”

"Delight in Disorder" Question 2 pg. 980

                Examples of oxymoron are prevalent throughout Robert Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” and greatly contribute to the work’s overall meaning of discovering beauty in disorder and delight in imperfection. The first oxymoron seen in the poem appears in line 1, where the reader describes a “sweet disorder” in a dress (Herrick, 979). Normally, the word “disorder” carries a somewhat negative connotation, indicating that sloppiness has led to a displeasing unkemptness. However, by adding the word “sweet” in front of “disorder,” Herrick implies that the chaotic nature of disorder is actually desirable or pleasing. Another example of oxymoron can be seen in line 4, in which the author refers to a scarf messily thrown around the shoulders as a “fine distraction” (Herrick, 979). Similar to disorder, distraction in and of itself often carries an unsatisfactory connotation; after all, distractions are often seen as annoying deterrents or nuisances. However, when the word “fine” precedes the word “distraction,” the speaker conveys the idea that this distraction is actually pleasing to the eye. Perhaps the speaker even intends to suggest that such a distraction is a pleasant relief from the monotony of life that lacks any distraction whatsoever. Lastly, Herrick employs another oxymoron in line 12, in which he remarks that a carelessly tied shoestring represents to him a “wild civility” (Herrick, 979). Civility typically conveys the sense of calm, reserved, and refined demeanor; however, the word “wild” stands in stark contrast to civility by implying a sense of rebelliousness or free spirit. While these examples of oxymoron are interesting to analyze, they actually serve a functional purpose in the poem by conveying the author’s central theme. The entire essence of Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” is to discuss the ways in which beauty can be even more apparent and evident in disorder and imperfection that in things that lack uniqueness or strive to be flawless. The speaker admires a woman with an untied shoelace or tangled ribbons on her dress more than a woman who is always in pristine condition because he believes that this disorganization radiates a sense of life and humanity that perfection tries to mask. He sees much more beauty in something which does not attempt to hide its imperfections. The examples of oxymoron in this poem which bring a pleasant nature to words which typically convey negative connotations reinforces this idea that delight can actually be found in disorder.  

"Bright Star" Question 1 pg. 792

In considering Question 1 on page 792, I came to understand the ways in which the speaker in John Keats’ “Bright Star” desired to emulate the star as well as the ways in which he was grateful to differ from the star. To begin with, the author aspires to imitate the star in this sense that he wishes to be steadfast, which is revealed in the first line of the poem when the speaker declares, “Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art…” (Keats, 792). Just as the star is firm and resolute in its station in the night sky as it perpetually gazes upon the beauties of the earth below, the speaker, too, wishes to be eternally steadfast in admiration of the woman whom he loves. The star is portrayed as observing with “eternal lids apart” the magnificence of nature, such as the ebb and flow of the sea as well as blankets of snow upon mountaintops. In a similar fashion, the speaker is portrayed as resting with his lover while admiring the beauty of her very nature as she breaths tender breaths. However, the speaker expresses his desire to be different from the star in that he wishes to always be in a close relationship with the woman he loves. Forever banished to the great reaches of the night sky, the star is doomed to an eternity of loneliness in the vast emptiness of the sky, merely left alone to observe beauty like a “sleepless Eremite” (Keats, 792) from afar. The speaker does not in any way envy this isolation of the bright star, for he greatly cherishes his physical and emotional closeness to beauty and love. Rather than having to simply observe the beauty of his lover from afar, the speaker is able to be in close proximity to her and have a personal relationship with her. Therefore, the bright star and the speaker, while both steadfast, differ greatly in this regard. The ways in which the speaker differs from the star greatly behoove the speaker, for this type of close, personal relationship is necessary for humans. While a star is not actually a living being and does not require the company of others, a human being such as the speaker relies on this happiness and love to survive. Keats’ utilization of personification and apostrophe greatly enhance this comparison by personifying the star as an actual living being and having the speaker address the star directly.

"Eveline" : Round Characters

                Even within the short length of the story “Eveline,” James Joyce manages to fashion a rather complex dilemma on which the story is concentrated, and Joyce’s utilization of two round characters heightens the complexity of this issue. The first round character developed by Joyce is obviously Eveline herself. One on hand, Eveline expresses utter misery in the current lifestyle she is currently forced to live. In an effort to fulfill her promise to her dying mother, Eveline alone has remained with her alcoholic father to deal with his inebriated rage and potential violence on a daily basis. While all of her other family members passed away or left the home, she has struggled on a daily basis to care for her loathsome and repulsive father. Due to the sheer unhappiness of such a lifestyle, Eveline expresses a desire to run off with her lover, Frank, to begin a new life in Buenos Aires. On the other hand, however, Eveline begins to feel guilt for leaving her father and her current lifestyle behind. While she is desperate to escape the feeling of imprisonment which suffocates her in her current home, she is also paralyzed by the fear of leaving the life that she is “comfortable” in and venturing out into unknown lands with a man whom she hardly loves. She begins to talk herself out of escaping with Frank, assuring herself that her life at home isn’t unbearably miserable and, in reality, much more familiar to her. She reasons that she cannot leave her father alone in such a horrid state, yet, at the same time, she convinces herself that she deserves to follow her own dreams. She confusedly argues with herself, saying, “Why should she be unhappy? She had a right to happiness” (Joyce, 221).  The constant presence of this internal conflict within Eveline therefore reveals that she is a round character in nature, for there are many dimensions to her personality. While a piece of Eveline longs for her own happiness, freedom, adventure, and the fulfillment of her own dreams, another dimension of her personality reveals her sense of duty to her father and her fear of embarking into the unknown.

                Surprisingly, Eveline’s father can also be seen as a round character. While the reader may initially assume that he is an entirely wicked man for conducting himself so poorly and treating his children so wretchedly and abusively, Eveline also explains the potential he had to be a good man and father. She recounts tales of times when he read her stories and made her toast in the fire, and she remembers “her father putting on her mother’s bonnet to make the children laugh” (Joyce, 220). When Eveline shares these memories, the reader is led to wonder what caused the father to collapse into such a horrible state in the first place if he was once a good man. While the father’s drunken state and poor choices remain inexcusable, the fact that he is portrayed as not entirely evil makes him a round character in that he, too, had multiple dimensions to his personality. When considering the multidimensional nature of Eveline’s father, therefore, the reader can gain somewhat of a better understanding of why Eveline struggled to such a great extent with her decision to leave her father and her home.

"How I Met My Husband"

                The characterization and tone employed by Alice Munro in “How I Met My Husband” greatly contributes to the reader’s understanding and interpretation of the motivation behind the character’s actions. For example, Edie is indirectly characterized as a very innocent and naïve young girl through several of her comments throughout of the story as well as her confusion over the meaning of the term “intimacy.” This revelation of Edie’s innocence enhances the reader’s understanding as to why Edie was so entranced by Chris Watters. While reminiscing, Edie remarks that, “I wasn’t old enough then to realize how out of the common it is, for a man to say something like that to a woman… for a man to say a world like beautiful” (Munro, 135). Although Edie may appear to be somewhat idiotic for genuinely expecting to receive a letter from Chris for such a long period of time, this characterization of Edie as a very simple-minded and naïve girl offer a reasonable explanation. Indirect characterization also contributes to the plot in other minor ways as well. For example, the fact that Chris and Alice return from their date and walk off separately without really even acknowledging each other indicates that their relationship must not be highly fortified by love or romance. This indirect characterization of Chris provides the reader with some insight into what his motives may have been in kissing Edie. Another example of the role of characterization in the overall plot of the story is seen in Mrs. Peebles. Although she is initially characterized as a spoiled woman who knows very little of how to be a housewife and somewhat of a foil character to Edie, her actions in defending Edie to Loretta Bird actually characterize her as someone who ultimately cares for Edie and wishes to protect her.

                Edie’s tone while narrating the story of how she encountered Chris and eventually met the mailman also contributes to the overall meaning of the work, which was essentially to merely recount the events which led up to her first encounters with her future husband. While the reader may initially be outraged by Chris’s actions in kissing Edie and seemingly taking advantage her, a closer look at Edie’s tone indicates that she never felt as though she was truly being taken advantage of. In fact, Munro utilizes tone to hint that Edie saw no wrong in Chris’s actions or her own while they were in his tent. Moreover, when Edie speaks of marrying her husband, her diction and tone suggest that she may not feel a great deal of love towards this husband. When talking of her husband, Edie merely says that, “…I went out with him for two years and he asked me to marry him, and we were engaged a year more while I got my things together, and then we did marry” (Munro, 146). While nothing in Edie’s tone proves that she regrets marrying the mailman, nothing about her diction supports the idea that she truly loved him or was happy with him, either. This leads the reader to question her motivation in marrying the mailman. Without such complex characterization and tone, “How I Met My Husband” would like many intriguing components of its plot.   

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.