QCQ #1-Cohen
In Cohen’s essay about the theses of monsters, he mentions in thesis 3 that the monster is categorizing these monsters that we are making up. The monsters that we know and love are so unique and cross so many lines of race, religion, species, etc, that they can not possibly be put into any category of classification. I agree with this notion in a sense because I do believe that these monsters are not “cookie cutter” in the sense that they are not always one species or one of anything. However, given that most modern day and past monsters all follow that same sort of idea that a monster can be anything and everything, that could in itself be a category. This is especially a 21st-century “monster” because with society finally evolving and becoming more accepting of everyone we see people who don’t necessarily fit what used to be considered as “societal norms.” And just because these people are creating their own path and finding what works best for them, does not mean that they are a monster. It just means that they are different. A recurring problem within the world as a whole but more specifically America/England is trying to hold onto the old way of doing things and deciding that we should just follow that way forever. But with the world changing and evolving, these ideologies need to evolve too in order to be a true community and society. Cohen brings up that these monsters are in a “mixed category” because it chooses to resist any classification built by the hierarchy (7) and that can also be said for the ways in which people are currently living their lives in modern America. Once they realize that there is such a thing as a “mixed category” and they are not confined within a box of who or what they can be, they jump on it.
QCQ #2-Frankenstein
Q: “Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to by thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Every where I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous” (pg. 93)
C: I really enjoy this part in the book where Frankenstein is finally reunited with his creation. Prior to this encounter we see Frankenstein scared of what he had created and accusing it of killing William and ultimately Justine. Frankensetin had abandoned his creation as soon as it did what he had intended. Which I found odd. He wanted to make a dead thing living, or rather, a living thing out of nothing and he did just that. But as soon as he realized what he had created he was scared. It wasn’t until I heard what the creature had to say about his life after he left Frankenstein’s apartment that I started to feel sympathy for him. In this quote, the creature is explaining that although he “looked like a monster” he was only so because he saw “normal people” getting to live lives that he would never be able to. He also says that he wasn’t built/made with the intent of being a monster or doing any harm. In fact when he was made he was good. It was misery that would make him the way he was. I really dislike how Frankenstein had made this creature and left him to be on his own. He ran away from essentially his child. Frankenstein had lost so much sleep and had gotten ill over making this creature and had spent many many hours on him no doubt, just to run away at the first sign of life. This makes me incredibly sad for the creature. This also ties in with a point that Cohen made in one of his Theses about monsters such as this creature in Frankenstein but also in Quasimoto, that it is the people in society that make those with slight differences into monsters because they are not considered “normal.”
Q: A question or thought that I am left with is how could Frankenstein have so easily abandoned what seemed to be his life’s work? Especially when it came in the way of seeing and contacting his family and he seemed to have given up so much for it. Also why did it take him so long to search for this creature? I don’t even really think that he searched, moreso just stumbled across him.
QCQ #3-Perfecting Monstrosity
Q: “What unites these variant readings is a consistent conception of the creature as a horrific by-product of philosophical or technological modernity.”
“The prominent feature of Shelley’s theory of the destiny of the human species was, that evil is not inherent in the system of creation, but an accident that might be expelled”
“Did I request thee, maker, from my clay To mould me man? Did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me?”
“The story, in essence, narrates a process by which the world in which we live transforms Adam into Lucifer or, to put it another way, turns humans into monsters”
“From the creature’s birth onwards, it is the social assumption that visual monstrosity equates to moral monstrosity that shapes the creature’s fate. In this sense, the belief in evil creates evil in the novel.”
“the problem is not the thirst for knowledge, it is a failure of sensibility and understanding. More specifically, it is an incapacity to recognize humanity in those who differ too radically from ourselves”
C: This article talked a lot about how the real monster was Frankenstein himself for creating such a being but also abandoning it. The first quote I wanted to look at provided an additional outlook on the overall purpose/message for this story being written in the fact that it showed the technical advancements for the era and what potentially was to come. The second quote reveals that you will not get evil just by creation, or in better words, although Frankenstein created this horrible “monstrous looking creature,” he was not created with the intent of being evil and if he had been brought under better conditions once created the story would’ve gone much differently. However, it does not eliminate the chance of evil accidentally happening, like in the case of Frankenstein the creature became “evil” but it was not his fault as his initial reaction was to live with love and benevolence. The third quote I chose ties into the comparison between the creature and Adam. In which when the creature confronts Frankenstein and pleads his case, it is the equivalent to Adam approaching God or even if the creature were to represent humanity, it would be the same thing. The fourth quote plays off of that in that it brings together how the story really shows how humans can be turned into monsters. Frankenstein was turned into a monster when he decided to create the creature and abandon him, and the creature was turned into a monster when society would not accept him and forced him into his own isolation and made him miserable. In this story I think it is only right to consider the creature as a human as he expressed all the innate qualities of a human, wanting to be included, loved, noticed and most of all, treated like a human. The fifth quote sheds light on how sometimes us humans will equate how someone/something looks to its moral values and characteristics. For example Quasimodo was a deformed man who when people saw him, decided he was a monster. The same goes for the creature and that is why the blind man saw him for who he really was. The final quote embodies the hard truth that often times when we do not understand something or we see something not so familiar, we are very quick to dismiss it and write it off as wrong or even make up our own justifications.
Q: After reading this article I had realized how little us humans have the initial reaction of sympathy and compassion. My question is, although the times are changing and society seems to be up to date on acceptance and equality, are we on the right track in terms of extraordinary being society’s new “normal”? Or will we always have these confining “boxes” of normalcy holding those back from who they truly want to be?
QCQ #4- Jane Eyre
Q: “Don’t trouble yourself to give her character, eulogius will not bias me; I shall judge for myself. She began by felling my horse.” I really want to focus on the entire interaction that we get between Jane and Mr. Rochester the first time we see him.
C: When Mr. Rochester first shows up in this scene, he seems like he is coming in very aggressive and assuming an authoritative figure with Jane and Adele immediately. This is an ongoing theme throughout the book as in that time, the “adults” were always such when talking to “children.” Which brings me to my next point, I have trouble remembering that Jane is now 18 in this scene as the book had started off with her being about 10. So when I first started reading this scene I was thinking “wow how can a grown man talk to a child like that.” However, she is 18 and it is not as socially unacceptable. I would like to make the distinction between how we view 18 year olds now vs how I am taking that they were viewed back then. Now, we view 18 year olds as “adults” in the sense that they can legally sign things themselves, make doctors appointments, take out loans, etc but they are still looked at as children and being young. However back during these times children of that age were tasked with much more responsibility and are looked at as adults.
Q: Is Mr. Rochester, in this accusing Jane of making the horse slip on the ice? Surely he can’t be suggesting that, it’s ridiculous.
