An Essential Bond Exists between Mother and Child

Like every Cinderella tale, we have an ideal circumstance that acts like a model of love and lifestyles. From the standards that result from this tale, we notice a current and abusive ideology that occupies the mind frame of the influential. Frankenstein serves as a Monster tale, one that exhibits the black side of fairytales, that represents not a model to look at but a model to be repulsed by.
When reading Frankenstein's monster's tale, we see the image of a child. He is experiencing the world for the first time, feeling emotions that he does not understand. He learned that you can't stick your hand in a pit of fire, for it will hurt. He witnessed the change between light and dark, sun and moon. But there is something wrong with this picture: we have a creature perceiving things the way they are presented and without guidance. What does that tell us readers? This entire experience by the monster represents the importance of parenthood. Though seeming innocent enough, he goes into stranger's houses and eats their bread, cheese, and drinks their wine--he does not know that that is stealing and wrong, and he will not know that unless told. There are many instances where this novel represents human nature, such as the desire to be renown, the fear of being inadequate and the hesitation of losing status. But from this point on, i believe the novel's purpose is to reflect the bond between child and mother. It serves as a model to warn us that if we neglect our young impressionable minds, the result would be one like Frankenstein's monster, one who ends up killing to get his way. Is he wrong to kill, when no one told him that that was not OK? It is through observation that the monster begins to notice the kind bond between people when he looks at the family in the cottage, but the treatment that he got from them and everyone else molded the way the monster felt, thought, and reacted. Violence began to shape him, and there was nothing to prevent that, to show the monster acts of kindness and humanity. He is a product of his environment, and that statement in itself is what us readers must soak in, to avoid creating beings of violent tendencies.

A Life Lived in Fear, Is a Life Half Lived

It is brilliant the way in which Mary Shelley recreates the tale of Prometheus. Frankenstien tries to give to the human race a divine power, resembling how Prometheus stole fire and presented it to us. Victor gives us the power to recreate life and to eternally have the power to avoid death of loved ones and to bring them back to life. Though unnatural, there is something tempting about the idea, but why? We must then ask, what hold does Unconditional Love have upon our hearts, abilities, and reasoning?

Unconditional love is scary, I agree. Avoiding it to save yourself from being hurt is a selfish design upon yourself. Why would you rid yourself of love, when it can be the only thing worth living for? Would I have a child, if I knew that child would die before me? No, but I would have a child if I was ignorant to whether it will die before me or not. It is possible that our loved ones could die any day, that our children will die before us, but would you prevent loving and being with that person just because you are cautious and scared? What if they don't die? I don't think it is worth missing out on, for if they do not die and do not hurt you, your life could be incomplete without them. It is not living life if you avoid the chance of love and the chance to create a child that has the ability to complete or destroy your heart. It is possible to think that Frankenstein is driven to create his "monster" to avoid losing those dearest to him. If we are able to recreate those who died, would we ever be hurt? Even if I do not agree with the avoidance of unconditional love, we see the cowardice of Frankenstein to create a being, a discovery, that would lead to him never being hurt again. It is ironic that in his avoidance of death, death is the inevitable result to those closest to him, and therefore also the result to himself.

Walton, another Frankenstein?

There is of course, the obvious comparison that we can make between Victor and Walton. Both are ambitious and carefully foster their ambitions. We have Victor Frankenstein, who without considering the consequences of his discovery, wants to go where no one else has. He wishes to use electricity to create a science-made human--a discovery that in doubt would create a name for him, lasting throughout time. He would have a divine power to create life. Walton, as a younger gentleman, wanted badly to be remembered like Shakespeare and Homer. He therefore followed this dream and tried to find a path to Northern Pole through the North Pacific Ocean. We see both wanting to bring something to human kind, Walton's path and Frankenstein's ability to resurrect humans, as Prometheus gave humans fire. In trying to find this path. does Walton yield cautiously to the consequences that await him? Does he accept the possibility of death of himself and his fleet of men? No he did not, as Victor did not truely think about those he loved.

The two characters also are similar in the fact that they are compassionate toward their family. We have dear letters from Walton to his sister, and we have compassionate speech and actions from Victor towards his cousin. Victor and Walton are very similar, in my opinion, for they both occupy sentiments toward those close, and hold healthy relationships with them. But they both have a dangerous characteristic, one in which they give power to by allowing ambition and desire to blind reality from them, and in turn putting others in danger.

The Two Faces of Love: Bronte Represents Phenomena

Q: What does the article by James Phillips, The Two Faces of Love In "Wuthering Heights", do that helps people better understand the scene in Volume I Chapter IX when Catherine confesses her love for Heathcliff to Nelly.

In class there was much discussion on the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine. The opposing viewpoints were that they should be together, and the other that it was right that they were not together. The scene created confusion, because we were unsure of what Catherine truely meant in her confession. It was difficult to decipher what she meant by: "...he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am" (Bronte 71). Does Catherine mean that she would not be with Heathcliff because everyday of her life she would be talking to a replica of herself? Or because her materialistic mind won't allow her to be with the man who completes her? Of course it was my belief that Catherine was an idiot for marrying Mr. Linton and not following her heart, her sense of self, by marrying Heathcliff. If Heathcliff is herself more than she is, wouldn't she then be leading an incomplete life without him?

The majority of the class believes otherwise, mainly because of Heathcliff's barbaric nature. They, and I agree, believe that Heathcliff and Catherine bring out the worst in one another. But isn't that because they are not together? I counter their actions by saying that they are a product of the situation of the two lovers. Here I go again, defending my opinion. Catherine, as well as the readers of our classroom, cannot truely understand what this confession, this scene of passion, is truely about. "In whichever place the soul lives--in my soul, and in my heart, I'm convinced I'm wrong!" (Bronte 70). But through her later speech she answers this cloud of confussion, and it is with the article by James Phillips that we can translate what she means.

In Phillips's article, he breaks apart our definition of love, for that is what is molding our reaction to this passage as well as defining our misgivings about it. My definition of their love is different from the class' definition--I believe it to be the force that should guide them and unite them, whereas others think it to be an educated decision--for Catherine to marry Linton, so that she experiences variety of character and stability of a lifestyle. Love to us is a single idea that can be handled by different attitudes and approaches. Phillips re-guises love by presenting it in a Janus-like model, stating that there are two sides to love, and that it is not a single idea but an idea with two catagories. "Where Heathcliff is the transcendental face of love, Linton is its empirical face." We can see this because though she has loved Heathcliff from the beginning, she marries instead Linton--then on the day that she dies, it is still Heathcliff that her heart belongs to. Linton's influence cannot disturb her ever-lasting, ever-feeling passion for Heathcliff, yet serves as a type of love complementary to Catherine's feelings.

Can we now treat this scene differently? It is now easier to understand the meaning behind Catherine's statement: "Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same, and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire" (Bronte 71). We see Catherine realizing the difference in love's "two faces" and that one will always be burning inside of her--in the comparison of Linton's and Heathcliff's representations the moonbeam is a more comfortable, soft, pleasant portrayal than the dangerous lightning. Phillips's help in pulling this interpretation from that line has in turn helped me view her feelings in a different light. Catherine's love for Heathcliff intimidates and frightens her, and she wishes not to live in such a thrilling lifestyle but rather in the calm with Linton.

The fact that Phillips brings to the table is that "Emily Brontë breaks love down into two parts." It is in these two parts that Catherine resides, for throughout the entire novel we see both sides of her love shine. In her confession to Nelly we can now distinguish Catherine's argument--that she is marrying Linton not because she does not love Heathcliff or loves him less, or that she would hate to be with someone who defines herself better than she, but because this face of love is one that suits what she wants to get out of love, and that the other face of love is to be set up, idolized and starved of her indulgence.

Heathcliff: A Hero of the Heart

From the beginning of Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff's character begins to form in our opinions. He seems savage, a man of impossible manners and diminished faiths. We as readers cannot connect with him, nor can we feel any pity towards him. This initial approach in introducing his character is very effective, because Emily Bronte sets the mystery of his person so that the readers then pay close attention to his actions in the hope of discovering this dark character. When the end of the book comes to close and his character now better known, is still one that does not evoke sympathy from the reader. He is a bitter, regretful, and malicious man, who takes pride in his revenge. Yet as disgusting as his character may seem, I cannot help but love him! He, at the end of chapter three, pleads from the bottom of his heart for the return of Catherine, yearning for her spirit to be next to him. This to me, for she has been dead a very long time, shows a sentimental side of him, so unyeilding and ever burning! He shows so much in his small exclamation, a large heart that is unfortunately governed by its loss, and has hid away from all others. Only in the scene right before Catherine dies does the true Heathcliff shine. As for his attitude towards the other characters in the novel, can you blame him for his rough manners? A man who is the product of those who raised him in the same brutality and the same meanness? I do not blame Heathcliff, nor admire him, but cannot dislike him. To me he is a very strong character, who has stood against the brutal nature of the snobby household he grew up in, who has lived to see the death of his lover, and who has fought hard to keep his guard up against all others. His story is a sad one, heart wrenching, but also heart-capturing.

In class we discussed whether or not Heathcliff and Catherine should be together, when Catherine describes how he is more herself than she is. People claim that it would grow boring, that they would wear out conversation, and that there is a suffocating aspect to being with someone that resembles your essence. I still cannot believe this to be true. Is it true that you would deny being with someone who is your ultimate companion? Catherine's separation from Heathcliff drives her to insanity! Would this be her fate if they lived together--loved together--supported one another? I cannot imagine Catherine ever being herself, without being Heathcliff as well!

Physical Violation Constitutes Rape

I had argued that Bungle did not commit rape--and though I still adhere to that opinion, I do agree with many aspects we touched on during class. Do characters in books, who are raped, murdered, beaten, are they not to be taken seriously? Are they not to be pitied? Of course they are, and of course I would consider them raped. But they are characters in a world of fiction, whose bodies are violated and harmed---and therefore i cannot connect cyber "rape" to the rape in books. Again, it is abusing the mind, but no actual body is being harmed and violated, as they are in our reality and in the character's reality within their paged world. I agree that there is an emotional investment in being a character online, but to what extent should we consider it in our reality? Those who have committed themselves to going online have voluntarily set themselves up for new possibilities, new chances for abusive encounters, and cyber situations such as these, that take away from their claim of being a rape victim.