Self-reflection

In my final writing project, I tried to combine the counter argument of the third project with the personal aspect of the first. I wanted to strengthen the validity of my argument by giving a little personal touch to it. I think that a personal aspect can either make your argument unarguable, like Birkerts, or give the reader a little insight into why they should believe what you are saying. I chose to incorporate parts of my first project with my third because I saw a connection between the two that would make my argument stronger in my final project if combined. I tried to revise the third essay with my personal battle with reading that I discussed in the first project. I thought that by showing the reader that I wasn’t always fond of reading, but still believe in the validity of books over hypertexts, would give the reader a sense that I am not biased.

I believe I achieved what I set out to do with this last writing assignment. With the last assignment I wanted to clearly state my side and accomplish some of the items on my to-do list. I tried to be more adventurous with my writing by an introduction, that wouldn’t be the norm for me, and a style, that included both personal and argumentative components. I also tired to utilize stronger vocabulary and be more confident with my writing.  I also think that over the course of the semester I have utilized my to-do list in trying to become a better writer. I now know that I don’t have to worry so much about getting my introduction done first. I now can focus on what I want to convey throughout my paper and then go back to write an introduction I am more proud of. I want to keep using this style of writing in my coming semesters at Washington College because it is a less stressful way of writing that really allows me to focus on what I want to say and then how I want to present it. My portfolio shows the start of my progression as a writer. My first project wasn’t written with as much confidence as my third and my final wraps the two together to show how I have changed. I am happy with the writing that I have accomplished this semester and I am more confident for the coming semesters that my writing will continue to develop and strengthen.

Final: To Agree or Not to Agree With Birkerts? That is the Question..

Picture a black screen with an opening title of “The Museum” across a building. You click enter and are brought into the story. Now the next black screen appears with a description and dialog of a gathering in the lobby of the museum a few hours before closing. The group of people wants to see as much as they can and you see a link to move to the south wing. Now in the south wing more description appears upon another black screen, but this time there is not just one link, there are numerous links. Now you must make a decision as to which path you want to take, some of the paths may lead to sub-stories, and some may continue on with the original story. You make a decision and are brought to a new screen with more of the story or a sub-story. This new screen also has its own links to various locations, and so does the following screen, and the following screen. You click on link, after link, after link bringing you to all these different screens in which you must decide where to go next and before you know it you don’t know how you got to the screen you are on and are unsure of how this whole thing makes up any kind of story. What you just imagined is the utter confusion that I occurred to me when I first attempted to navigate my way through “The Museum” a hypertext by Adam Kenney. It is this confusion that left me wondering, what makes a hypertext a valuable part of electronic literature?

What is a hypertext? Is it a story that the reader is in control of or a way of getting confused by an electronic medium? I personally think it is the latter, but that doesn’t mean that all electronic literature mediums are confusing. When I think of a story I think of a beginning that catches the readers attention. It doesn’t have to be suspenseful or adventure packed, it can be as simple as just getting the reader thinking. This beginning is then followed by an introduction of characters, one or a few, which the reader will hear about throughout the story. This makes up the middle of the story, which can have numerous or one plot line in which the characters or a character deals with some sort of issue. The story then comes to some sort of ending by ways of resolution or unanswered questions, but so that the reader understands the story is over. With hypertexts you are left to design your own story from the information provided to you by the author. You can go in often multiple directions that leave you questioning when the story will reach an ending. This searching often causes a person to get confused, lost, and fed up. I had those three exact feelings when viewing “The Museum.” I found myself expecting to be thrown into this new way of reading, but instead I was left staring at the screen waiting to have this moment of connection like I would get while reading a book, in hand or on the screen. Sitting staring at the screen I had a frightening realization, one similar to when you find yourself becoming more like your parents, I agreed with Sven Birkerts’ view on hypertexts.

I don’t often support of the antics of Sven Birkerts, so it was surprising to me that surrounding the idea of hypertexts I found myself agreeing with him. Hypertexts are incomparable to the experience of reading a book. With a book, in hand or on a screen, you are viewing something that an author created to tell a story in a specific way, in order to evoke an emotion from the reader. The author is guiding you in the direction necessary to get to the conclusion of the story. With a hypertext an author created a multitude of outcomes to allow the reader to create their own story and evoke their own emotions. The idea of creating one’s own story sounds highly appealing until one begins.  Birkerts in his chapter on Hypertexts says:

The batter of directions and option signals all but short-circuited any capacity I may have had to enter the life of the words on the screen. I was made so fidgety by the knowledge that I was positioned in a designed environment, with the freedom to rocket form one place to another with a keystroke, that I could scarcely hold still long enough to read what was there in front of me. (Birkerts, 169)

This quote sounds like Birkerts has an issue with focusing, but as one who has viewed a hypertext I couldn’t describe the feeling in better words. With the opening of the link you would think that you would be guided in at least a semi-specific path with a few alternate routes here and there to be able to create a story along a plot line or idea of your own desire, but what you often encounter is numerous possible links that take you every which way until you are unsure of the idea behind the link altogether. This feeling of utter confusion can cause one to just close the screen and sit baffled as to what the purpose of opening it was in the first place.

The feeling of absolute incomprehension is not one that occurs with all electronic mediums of literature. I find myself at this frightening crossroads as to whether or not I should agree with Birkerts because of his outlandish criticism of almost everything technological. I agree with him that hypertexts are form of new media that is just over stimulating with no clear direction, but I do not agree with him on his attack of any and all electronic mediated literature. Janet Murray in her book, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, says it best:

I am not among those who are eager for the death of the book, as I hope the present volume demonstrates. Nor do I fear it as an imminent event. The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible. (Murray, 8)

I don’t believe that we should ever get rid of the book completely and at one point I wasn’t not as deeply connected to books as I am today, so this statement is based off a fairly new connection made to books and reading. Over my few years on this earth I have been able to determine a clear line between what I enjoy from what I don’t. The act of reading is something that has been flip-flopping back and forth over the line for quite some time. Reading began as something I enjoyed as a young child, developed into something I felt forced to do, and has now become something I get lost in thought during.

As a child reading was a part of my life, I assumed like any other child’s. My mother, one of my grandmothers, or one of my great grandmothers would read to me. They would read Winnie the Pooh or one of the books from the Little Golden Books collection. They read to me until I was able to read by myself. Once I could read I would buy as many books as I could from the school’s yearly book sale. I would then bring them home to read with my parents or on my own. This free time to read whenever I wanted was lost once school became more of a challenge. School reached a new level around fifth or sixth grade and that is when reading stopped being an enjoyment and became a burden.

For the past couple of years I would never be found with a book I desired to read in hand. Throughout middle school and high school, I had more reading to do than I ever wanted. I had no idea that at college awaited reading assignments upon reading assignments, but I digress. I was reading during the school year and doing assigned summer reading over, what was supposed to be, my vacation. I felt controlled to read specific books at a predetermined pace even when I wasn’t sitting in a classroom. It is this idea of being forced to read that turned me off reading for my own enjoyment. When I was made to read the last thing I wanted to do was pick up yet another book in my free time.

The great enjoyment one can get from reading a book didn’t come to me fully until this past summer. It took one summer of not being required to read a book, to actually understand the enjoyment of picking up a book because I wanted to. One of my favorite rediscovered feelings is the feeling you get when you are lost in a book. The idea of getting lost in a book is not the same as getting lost in a hypertext. When you are lost in a book you are absorbed with the story and can almost picture what is going on as if it were a movie in your mind. You become one with the characters and begin to connect with them on an emotional level. You become involved with the plot and just want to keep turning the pages to see what could possibly happen next. When you get lost in a hypertext you literally get lost. After you have clicked on one too many links, you lose what the purpose of the hyperlink was in the first place.

I am unsure of the purpose of hypertexts, but I am more than open to the idea of reading books on the computer or electronic tablets. Birkerts shuts out the idea of technology serving any purpose other that a destructive one and that is a point I greatly disagree with him on. The computer serves as access to a multitude of books. It allows a reader to read various books without having to have books upon books in their immediate reach at all times. The computer advances the experience of reading and by no means lessens the importance that books contribute to society.

I actually read Birkerts’ book on my laptop. Even though he would hate to hear it, I believe it is a better experience than reading it in text form. On the computer I am able to highlight, make notes, and search for specific sections and words with greater speed. This allows the reading experience to be heightened without ruining a book with various levels of highlighter markings and notes. The computer is a portal to a new reading experience; it is not an evil machine here to destroy all books. The attitude Birkerts has towards computers is a highly negative one that is hard to accept because of his biased, vicious attacking of the electronic device without looking at the benefits of it. Despite all his often unarguable positions, Birkerts’ idea of the hypertext lacking all that a book has to offer is something I can clearly agree on. Hypertexts are a form of electronic “literature” that I am unsure their real purpose in the world of electronic mediated literature. I understand that they can be interesting new form of media, but I don’t see them ever taking the place of the book.

To Agree or Not to Agree with Birkerts? That is the Question..

Picture a black screen with an opening title of “The Museum” across a building, you click enter and are brought into the story. Now the next black screen appears with a description and dialog of a gathering in the lobby of the museum a few hours before closing. The group of people wants to see as much as they can and you see a link to move to the south wing. Now in the south wing more description appears upon another black screen, but this time there is not just one link, there are numerous links. Now you must make a decision as to which path you want to take, some of the paths may lead to sub-stories, and some may continue on with the original story. You make a decision and are brought to a new screen with more of the story or a sub-story. This new screen also has its own links to various locations, and so does the following screen, and the following screen. You click on link after link after link bringing you to all these different screens in which you must decide where to go next and before you know it you don’t know how you got to the screen you are on and are unsure of how this whole thing makes up any kind of story. What you just imagined is the utter confusing that I occurred to me when I first attempted to navigate my way through “The Museum” a hypertext by Adam Kenney.

What is a hypertext? Is it a story that the reader is in control of or a way of getting confused by an electronic medium? I personally think it is the latter, but that doesn’t mean that all electronic literature mediums are confusing. When I think of a story I think of a beginning that catches the readers attention. It doesn’t have to be suspenseful or adventure packed, it can be as simple as just getting the reader thinking. This beginning is then followed by an introduction of characters, one or a few, in which the reader will hear about or will tell the reader their or a story. This makes up the middle of the story, which can have numerous or one plot line in which the characters or character deals with some sort of issue. The story then comes to some sort of ending by ways of resolution or unanswered questions, but so that the reader understands the story is over. With hypertexts you are left to design your own story from the information provided to you by the author. You can go in often multiple directions that leave you questioning when the story will reach an ending. This searching often causes a person to get confused, lost, and fed up. I had those three exact feelings when viewing “The Museum.” I found myself expecting to be thrown into this new way of reading, but instead I was left staring at the screen waiting to have this moment of connection like I would get while reading a book in hand or on the screen. Sitting staring at the screen I had a frightening realization, one similar to when you find yourself becoming more like your parents, I agreed with Sven Birkerts’ view on hypertexts.

I don’t often approve of the antics of Sven Birkerts, so it was surprising to me that surrounding the idea of hypertexts I find myself agreeing with him. Hypertexts are incomparable to the experience of reading a book. With a book, in hand or on a screen, you are viewing something that an author created to tell a story in a specific way, in order to evoke an emotion from the reader. The author is guiding you in the direction necessary to get to the conclusion of the story. With a hypertext an author created a multitude of outcomes to allow the reader to create their own story and evoke their own emotions. The idea of creating one’s own story sounds highly appealing until one begins.  Birkerts in his chapter on Hypertexts says:

The batter of directions and option signals all but short-circuited any capacity I may have had to enter the life of the words on the screen. I was made so fidgety by the knowledge that I was positioned in a designed environment, with the freedom to rocket form one place to another with a keystroke, that I could scarcely hold still long enough to read what was there in front of me. (Birkerts, 169)

This quote sounds more like Birkerts has an issue with focusing than anything, but as one who has viewed a hypertext I couldn’t describe the feeling in better words. With the opening of the link you would think that you would be guided in at least a semi-specific path with a few alternate routes here and there to be able to create a story along a plot line or idea of your own desire, but what you often encounter is numerous possible links that take you every which way until you are unsure of the idea behind the link altogether. This feeling of utter confusion can cause one to just close the screen and sit baffled as to what the purpose of opening it was in the first place.

The feeling of absolute incomprehension is not one that occurs with all electronic mediums of literature. I find myself at this frightening crossroads as to whether or not I should agree with Birkerts because of his outlandish criticism of almost everything technological. I agree with him that hypertexts are form of new media that is just over stimulating with no clear direction, but I do not agree with him on his attack of any and all electronic mediated literature. Janet Murray in her book, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, says it best:

I am not among those who are eager for the death of the book, as I hope the present volume demonstrates. Nor do I fear it as an imminent event. The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible. (Murray, 8)

I don’t believe that we should ever get rid of the book completely, but I am more than open to the idea of reading books on the computer or electronic tablets. The computer serves as access to a multitude of books. It allows a reader to read various books without having to have books upon books in there immediate reach at all times. The computer advances the experience of reading and by no means lessens the importance that books contribute to society.

I actually read Birkerts’ book on my laptop. Even though he would hate to hear it, I believe it is a better experience that reading it in text form. On the computer I am able to highlight, make notes, and search for specific sections and words with greater speed. This allows the reading experience to be heightened without ruining a book with various levels of highlighter markings and notes. The computer is a portal to a new reading experience; it is not an evil machine here to destroy all books. The attitude Birkerts has towards computers is a highly negative one that is hard to accept because of his biased, vicious attacking of the electronic device without looking at the benefits of it. Despite all his often unarguable positions, I find myself buckling to the idea that he is right. I tried to fight the fact that he could be right, as one would fight becoming their parents, but like the latter it is evitable. Birkerts’ idea of the hypertext lacking all that a book has to offer is something I can clearly agree on.

Hypertexts…um..I am so lost

I began looking at all the links on Contents by Keywords and well, I got a little lost. There are so many different links that lead to so many different types of “electronic literature”. Each link was different from the next and leading to work that was more strange than the next. I jumped around to a couple, but the three that stuck out the most were: Birds Singing Other Birds’ Songs by Maria Mencia, The Dreamlife of Letters by Brian Kim Stefans, and Code Movie 1 by Giselle Beinguelman.

Birds Singing Other Birds’ Songs…well that was something out of the ordinary. The birds were outlined with letters that didn’t appear to make words and the sounds the birds made weren’t words either. I was thrown unsure as if to play each bird after the other to listen to the sound to try and form a word or to play them all at once in hopes they would form a word or sentence. I didn’t know what to expect when I clicked on the link, but that was just something I couldn’t have expected.

The Dreamlife of Letters…not as weird as Birds Singing Other Birds’ Songs, it was still strange. I thought it would be a poem that filed over the screen on its own in creative ways…it was that, but calling it a poem is kind of a stretch. I guess the word poem doesn’t really have an exact definition, but words going over the screen in alphabetical order, is kind of hard for me to consider a poem. I mean, the way it was presented was very interesting, but it was also pretty lengthy.

Code Movie 1…what was that! Numbers and letters flew over the screen in different designs and at different speeds. I didn’t know what to call it. “Electronic literature” a broad term, I suppose, but was that literature? After watching it I felt confused as to if I had to describe it to another person I would have no idea what I would say. I looked at the screen dumbfounded as to what I was seeing and hearing. The music that goes along with it takes you by surprise, as if you are not already shocked by not knowing exactly what you are looking at.

Overall, I suppose I am not the greatest fan of hypertexts or “electronic literature.” I often find hypertexts confusing, leading me to different aspects of the work, even to sub works without no real understanding as to why. My problem with “electronic literature” is that I am not really sure as to what it is. When I think of “electronic literature” I think of things that have been published as books that are transferred online, blogs, or other online articles. This website shows so many different types of “electronic literature” that I am not really sure how to think of them. I just really find myself confused with it all, but I am not going to shut it out all together. Like Birkerts it is a world I don’t understand, but unlike Birkerts I don’t blame it and other parts of technology for the “down fall” of society.

And Finally Someone Sees the Light

The computer is not the enemy of the book. It is the child of print culture, a result of the five centuries of organized, collective inquiry and invention that the printing press made possible.

It was nice to finally read something by someone who truly appreciates the change that computers have brought to the world of reading. I do believe there are negatives to the computer, nothing is perfect, but to go from Birkerts who thinks it is the route of all evil to someone who understands that computer is just another way for literature to spread was enlightening. The vast contrasting beliefs between the two of them allows me to see the great aspects computers bring to the literary world. The computer allowed imagination to flourish in many ways. It opened new doors for people to share their beliefs and literary works with many more people. It allowed the works of many famous authors be at the fingertips of people all over. The computer is now a reference tool for the lovers of all types of books. It extends the act of reading to discussion and invokes conversation. The computer didn’t change the world into a cold place without art. It instead fosters the idea of creativity and allows literary works to be forwarded.

Just as the computer promises to re­shape knowledge in ways that sometimes complement and sometimes supersede the work of the book and the lecture hall, so too does it promise to reshape the spectrum of narrative expression, not by replacing the novel or the movie but by continuing their timeless bardic work within another framework.

Computers were not created to abolish all works of art, they’re here to help art live on forever. The pages of books may wither and rip, but the computer screen will allow stories to be told for eternity.

The Medium is the Massage and The Gutenberg Elegies

After struggling to understand what the author was trying to say with The Medium is the Massage I realized it was closely related to The Gutenberg Elegies. They both discuss the connections of the changes in the world to electronics. Birkerts talks about this shift in society that was caused by a shift of importance from books to electronics. The Medium is the Massage sees that same shift, but realizes it has been going on for much longer than Birkerts seems to want to admit. The Medium is the Massage gives a more believable argument to the same issue. Birkerts sees this shift in importance as something that is more recent and is the cause of the recent downfall in society. The Medium is the Massage talks about the changing of the world because of electronics, but realizes that it is something that has been going on for long period of time. It was hard to understand at first, but the message conveyed through The Medium is the Massage has more believable point. Birkerts adds the personal connection to his argument which can make it hard to connect to. The Medium is the Massage stays more to a non-bias argument that can allow the reader to follow without just disagreeing with a personal connection. Although it was confusing at first I valued the content of The Medium is the Massage over that of Birkerts. 

The Invention of Hugo Cabret: Wow!

The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick, is unlike any other book I have read. It has more pictures in it than actual text pages and it is a large book at over 500 pages long. I knew about the numerous amount of pictures before I began to read it, but I had no idea how much they too told the story. The pictures in this book are just as important as the author’s written words. They continue the story as pictures often do, but they also often tell the story unlike I have ever encountered in a book. It is one of the most interesting techniques I have ever seen used by an author. Often pictures in books are just used to solidify something that the author already said with the text. Selznick, used pictures as if they were words to continue the story from where the words on the previous page left off. This amazing way of telling a story had me lost in the book and I would have to force myself to put it down. It has a way of entertaining all aspects  of your imagination.

Some people would argue that incorporating text with illustrations in this manner, limits the reader’s imagination. People who say this obviously have not read this novel. I found the illustrations engaging from the very first couple of pages. The pictures draw the reader in to the novel as if they were the opening scene to a movie. How can the reader’s imagination be limited when they are reading and holding a book in their hands, but could at times feel as thought they are watching a movie? Books are often brought to movies, but never made to appear as a movie.  This book provokes your mind to get lost in it and that is exactly what happened for me. While reading it, you’re so intrigued to see what is going to happen next that you forget that you are actually reading. Every once in a while, I would flip a page and remember that I am actually flipping the pages of a book and not watching the story just unfold on its own in front of me. Selznick’s use of illustrations causes the reader’s imagination to run wild and get lost in a book that resembles a movie so much that the reader often needs to remind themselves it isn’t. To bring text to life isn’t an easy task, but Selznick did as if it was the easiest thing in the world to do.

Intertextual Wreading: Parallels of Paradise Lost and Frankenstein

To a person who has read both John Milton’s Paradise Lost and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, there is an irrefutable connection. Not only do Shelley’s characters resemble that of Milton’s, but also his poem plays an important role in her novel. Shelley shows parallels with Paradise Lost by Victor and his creation sharing characteristics of Milton’s characters: God, Adam, and Satan.  Most significantly, Milton’s poem is seen in Shelley’s novel by Victor’s creature reading it to learn the English language and ultimately coming to terms with his place on the planet. This critical part of Shelley’s novel is an element to pay close attention to while reading because of how Shelley introduces the parallel.

The most thought-provoking parallel approach by Shelley is the one that is clearly stated by the monster. Victor’s creation while trying to understand the language reads Paradise Lost and ends up coming to a conclusion about his own existence. In Frankenstein, Victor on a hike in search of solitude comes across his creation, who commands Victor to listen to his story. The creature tells the story of what occurred after he fled Victor’s lab, which is a story of how he came to understand his existence as well as how society views him. The creature explains the thoughts that Paradise Lost provoked about his abrupt existence in the following passage:

Like Adam, I was created apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature: but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. (Shelley, 98)

The comparisons made to the character Adam by the creation are very important for understanding the feelings of the creation. The creature has a sense of being lost in the world because of a lack of guidance by his creator, Victor, and reads in Paradise Lost that Adam is created by God and also guided by God. The creation is created by Victor and left clueless to fend for himself in the world with no guidance.

The contradiction between his creation and Adam’s creation, with his lacking guidance, communication, and consideration from Victor, leads the creature to see himself as one of the other characters of Paradise Lost, Satan.

Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gale rose within me. (Shelley, 98)

The creature reads and understands that he was created like Adam, but unlike Adam his creator left him. God created Satan, then created Adam, and left Satan to focus more on Adam.  Satan angered by being tossed aside becomes enraged and evil, lashing out against his creator for leaving him.

O Hell! What doe mine eyes with grief behold,

Into our room of bliss thus high advance’s

Creatures of other mould, earth-born perhaps,

Not Spirits, yet to heavenly Spirits bright

Little inferior; whom my thoughts pursue

With wonder, and could love, so lively shines

In them Divine resemblance, and such grace

The hand that formed them on thir shape hath pourd.

Ah gentle pair, yee little think how nigh

Your change approaches, when all these delights

Will vanish and deliver ye to woe,

More woe, the more your taste is now of joy; (Milton, 4. 358-369)

The creature, like Satan, is enraged by is desertion. He, like Satan, was created without the knowledge of hatred, but soon, like Satan, learned of its existence and allowed it to take over his thoughts. The creature was angered for being created and being left to go out into the world with no one to understand him. Satan was created by God, but had others to converse with; Victor’s creation was created alone and then left alone. Ultimately, it is this lack of consideration, communication, and knowledge from Victor that causes the creation to learn of evil and, like Satan, follow a path of evil in different ways throughout his existence.

The parallels of Milton’s great poem to Shelley’s novel do not end there. The resemblance of Milton’s  characters are carried throughout Shelley’s novel, but seen again prominently closer to the end of the novel.  The creature again resembles two of Milton’s characters, Adam and Satan, in his request to Victor. The creature comes to an understanding because of his horrid appearance and realizes that he will never fit into society. He was created, like Adam, alone on the planet with no one like him. In Paradise Lost, Adam asks God to create him a companion and God does creating Eve. In Frankenstein, the creature asks his creator, Victor, to make him a female companion.

You must create a female for me, with who I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being. This you alone can do; and I demand it of you as a right which you must not refuse. (Shelley, 111)

The creature asks this because he feels he deserves it as much as Adam did. The creature feels deserted in a world where he knows he will never be accepted, so he is just looking for another being to spend his days with. Victor sees the damage that has been cause by his first creation. He realizes that he can’t be God and create life, for he has no control over it. With this knowledge, Victor refuses and that is when the creature begins to again resemble Satan.

I will revenge my injuries: if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear; and chiefly towards you my arch-enemy, because my creator, do I swear inextinguishable hatred. Have a care: I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you curse the hour of your birth. (Shelley, 111)

Satan, previously shown, is angered by God and plans revenge. The creature threatens revenge if he doesn’t not get what he asks for, mimicking Satan’s evil plans against Adam. The creature resembles Satan completely by following through with his threats and causing Victor even more pain and anguish.

The connections between Paradise Lost and Frankenstein are undeniable. There are clear parallels between the two pieces of literature, what can be different is how the individual reading interprets them. While reading Frankenstein I saw the multiple instances in which Paradise Lost was woven throughout the novel. I interpreted the instances differently then others may, but the associations made are still strong. One of the most interesting connections I found to be the one made by the creature himself because it is not only an interesting parallel, but also it is interesting for Shelley to introduce it in that manner. The idea of the creature having that moment of self-discovery drew me to read that section of the novel on a deeper level. The parallels found in that section can be further supported by the creature’s later choices of actions. The hatred towards Victor that filled the creature caused me to forward a connection to Satan of Paradise Lost, but the idea behind the creature’s coming to be and the confusion he had caused me to make a connection to Adam of Paradise Lost. The idea of one character resembling two from another piece of literature can be confusing to some, but if one reads a piece of work, like Frankenstein, closely you can get lost in making multiple connections that aren’t seen when just reading the piece for its entirety.

The Monster, Victor or the Creature?

These chapters take a surprising turn when Victor meets the “wretched” creature. The creature is only described by what Victor remembers from his brief encounters with the creature. The reader is given the idea that this “monster “ is the most awful being that could have been created. Once Victor says the “monster” killed William it is hard not to imagine the creature being anything less than an entity that shouldn’t be on the planet.

When in search of solitude and peace of mind Victor comes across the creature. Then comes the twist that I didn’t see coming. What the reader would think is that the creature in all its evil and fury will attack Victor, but something totally different happens. The creature just wants to tell his story to Victor. He wants Victor to understand what he has gone through and how his life is so awful because of being created.  The creature has only experienced the animosity of mankind. He has never really been given a chance for someone to understand him and he explains this all to Victor.  Victor seeing that he cannot get the creature to just leave, listens to his story. Victor hears the tales of the creature’s travels and how he learned many things, understood how to read, and began to understand the world. The creature confesses to killing William, but it was mostly an accident. The pain that is experienced by the creature throughout his story makes the reader understand that he isn’t as evil as one would previously believe. The creature has been mistreated throughout his whole existence and now only wants Victor to create him a female.  The creature is just looking to get away from being alone and misunderstood by society.

Throughout the story of the creature’s hardship Victor hears how the creature killed William and would hurt Victor and Elizabeth if Victor doesn’t comply with his demands of a female. Victor during this time is only in fear of own life and of what could happen to him and doesn’t seem to worry about what could happen to Elizabeth. He also doesn’t seem to pick up on the fact that it truly is his fault that William is dead. If William never mentioned the name Frankenstein, the creature may have not gotten so angry, and things could have went differently. Victor’s selfish behavior is still present at this point and evokes the question: who is the real monster?

Reading for the first time: The development of Victor

When I opened the pages of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, it seemed familiar. I read the introduction and had a glimmer in my memory of reading it before, but as I get deeper into the novel I didn’t recognize it anymore. I believe that it may have been assigned reading at my high school, but it faded into the mix of reading that had to be done.

After I got a few chapters in, I began to see that this wasn’t like anything I have read before. There are so many different narrators with in the beginning of the book that it can get a little confusing. The novel goes from Shelley with her introduction to Walton with letters to his sister, then to Victor. It was a little hard to follow as a first time reader, but I was soon able to catch on to then watch the personality of Victor unfold.Throughout the beginning chapters it is a clear to see the progression of Victor. He begins as a family oriented person that is dedicated to making good choices that, for the most part, his father will approve of. When he goes off to study he is away from his support system and he begins to change. He falls more involved with his studying, that he forgets to write home. He becomes so obsessed that he works nonstop until he brings the creature to life. This obsessiveness as well as the fear of being able to create this being, overwhelms him causing him to fall sick. When he is nursed back to health he hears news of his brother being murdered and falls into a deep state of sadness that drives him to return home. The change that I did not expect to see in his persona was the one that surfaced when he returned home. When Victor returns home he come to the conclusion that his creation was responsible for the murder of his brother William. With this knowledge Victor feels unbelievable guilt, but also beings to convey a sense of sorrow for himself.  He feels so guilty that his brother died at the hands of a monster he created, but he also is upset for being the one that created the monster. He is upset for himself that this sense of guilt will now be upon his shoulders. Even at the trial when Justine is being accused of murder, Victor says nothing. He does not object for fear of looking crazy. He lets Justine confess to a crime she didn’t commit, thus there is another murder on his hands. He feels like in the whole situation he is having the hardest time and he comes off as selfish.

The evolution of Victor’s personality is quick and surprising on a level. Never having read the novel before, I didn’t see this selfishness coming. I had an idea because of Hollywood’s rendition of the story of what to expect, but the development of the characters is something that I had no expectations about. I am interested in seeing Victor’s development continue and the connection of his creature into more of the story.