It is honestly quite difficult to sum up my feelings on the last part of the book. I was shocked as to how much emotion the monster shows In the end. He goes on a wild killing spree due to Victor's refusal to make a female version of the monster. First, Clerval is killed. Then Elizabeth is killed on their wedding day; it's terribly sad. Worst of all, the monster regrets killing those closest to Victor only AFTER Victor has died, eliminating the chance for anyone to apologize. I wish Victor had done one of two things when he had the opportunity to: kill the monster, or follow through with female monster. This way, there would be some peace when there was able to be.
Another moment of emotion that shook me was when the monster appeared on Victor's deathbed with tears spilling from his eyes. This made me wonder, was the monster really running away from his creator, or was it leading him on? If it were truly running away, you would thing he would not dare to return to his master's whereabouts. This could be observed more closely, but that is not entirely what I was focusing on. I was honestly (and still am) disturbed by the rampage of death that the monster went on, taking no consideration of the emotions of others, only the pain of his creator. And what was all if this murdering for? Victor's dropping if a promise to make the monster a female counterpart. How foolish. I understand, a creature so lonesome and original in the world longs only for someone to be able to connect with. But such a creation requires years and years of work, a research that might last longer than Victor's own life. A punishment involving the murder of a lore and a best friend is far more painful than any such punishment should be.
The actions if both the monster and Victor have unfailingly upset me, and I am not quite happy with the book's ending, which continues to resemble "Hamlet" immensely. In the well-known Shakespeare play, the final scene is a fantastic performance of revenge and squalor which ends in a flourish of death. By the very end, every major character in the play is dead, except for Hamlet's servant and Prince Fortinbras. it us quite an unfortunate ending, but an unforgettable one, no less.
These are my feelings about the end if Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein".
Sayonara!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Frankenstein ~ Week 3
Though these next few chapters began quite uneventfully, I continue to be surprised by the monster's intelligence. He admits that he learned to read, which in such a short amount of time is quite shocking. I was amazed to see him talking about his self-discovery of becoming a monster, and how he now sees him self as an isolated creature in society. It is quite sad, as the monster has so much potential that is now lost to his truthful sorrow. This tells me that humans often let themselves down and ignore their own potential due to appearance and social status.
I see Mary Shelley's over all story as both interesting and unrealistic. I admit, it is hard to make a story that IS realistic while attention-grabbing, but I had higher expectations for this book. It is the same with the scene of the monster rising from the dead; the scene was literally approximately five sentences in length. I was thinking the whole time, how blunt.
The monster's human-like features continue to support the idea of "nature vs. nurture" through his learning process. He simply observes the villagers and learns about emotions like joy and despair. I found it almost humorous when he read Paradise Lost in belief that it was a historical record. I am impressed that he could comprehend such a work of literature, as I am working up the courage to attack the exact same work.
I took some time to reflect on the event of the monster finding Victor's journal papers and reading his thoughts on his creation. It made me think about the pain he must have felt from this, learning that your own maker despises the very thought of you. That would be like my mother wrinkling her nose up in disgust every time I approached her being or her mind. How awful. But then I saw it from Victor's perspective, as the creator. My thoughts on this are that one thing is worse than having a deep hate for something or someone. And that thing is the pain you feel when the person or thing finds out about the hate you have for it. I have experienced this pain before, I'm sorry to say. This happens to be the part of the book that I have connected the most with so far, and it is a wonderful part, despite its sadness.
Well, those are all of my feelings so far on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
Sayonara!
I see Mary Shelley's over all story as both interesting and unrealistic. I admit, it is hard to make a story that IS realistic while attention-grabbing, but I had higher expectations for this book. It is the same with the scene of the monster rising from the dead; the scene was literally approximately five sentences in length. I was thinking the whole time, how blunt.
The monster's human-like features continue to support the idea of "nature vs. nurture" through his learning process. He simply observes the villagers and learns about emotions like joy and despair. I found it almost humorous when he read Paradise Lost in belief that it was a historical record. I am impressed that he could comprehend such a work of literature, as I am working up the courage to attack the exact same work.
I took some time to reflect on the event of the monster finding Victor's journal papers and reading his thoughts on his creation. It made me think about the pain he must have felt from this, learning that your own maker despises the very thought of you. That would be like my mother wrinkling her nose up in disgust every time I approached her being or her mind. How awful. But then I saw it from Victor's perspective, as the creator. My thoughts on this are that one thing is worse than having a deep hate for something or someone. And that thing is the pain you feel when the person or thing finds out about the hate you have for it. I have experienced this pain before, I'm sorry to say. This happens to be the part of the book that I have connected the most with so far, and it is a wonderful part, despite its sadness.
Well, those are all of my feelings so far on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
Sayonara!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Frankenstein ~ Week 2
This part of the book simply amazed me. It is honestly true that you can not judge a book until you have read it, as proven in Frankenstein. Victor seems to resemble Shakespeare's character, Hamlet, in one of his most popular tragedies. Victor contemplates the idea of suicide (with Hamlet reciting the infamous quote, "To be, or not to be") but turns away with the reminder of his relatives. Hamlet also shuns suicide with the thought of his lover, Ophelia, whom later ironically commits a questionable suicide, herself. Anyway, Victor and Hamlet find themselves with little to cling to, but those who are dead and gone.
The part that really shocked me was when Victor and his creation have an almost pleasant conversation with each other. Now, I am well aware that a talk with a grotesque creature in a freezing ice cave is far from a tea-with-granny kind of pleasant, but they actually held a reasonable conversation. The fact that the creature is so naive yet intelligent (contradictory description, there?) is unbelievable. We picture in our minds a tall green monster who simply moans and walks about with no reasoning at all. But rather, this mysterious person/invention teaches both Victor, and the reader, that we look at life the wrong way. It tells it's creator that humans work so hard in life to receive simple material things of physical value, yet no one is truly happy in the long run.
This book has opened my eyes to the theme of spawn teaching master, not master teaching spawn. Life is about taking pride in accomplishments, rather than taking short-lived pride in what's in your pocket. The book in itself can show us that viewing something stereotypically is not the correct way to go about doing things. Frankenstein is in fact an odd character of great wisdom, not a lime-colored killer.
Well, that is all I've taken out of the book so far, and I can't wait to read more.
Sayonara!
The part that really shocked me was when Victor and his creation have an almost pleasant conversation with each other. Now, I am well aware that a talk with a grotesque creature in a freezing ice cave is far from a tea-with-granny kind of pleasant, but they actually held a reasonable conversation. The fact that the creature is so naive yet intelligent (contradictory description, there?) is unbelievable. We picture in our minds a tall green monster who simply moans and walks about with no reasoning at all. But rather, this mysterious person/invention teaches both Victor, and the reader, that we look at life the wrong way. It tells it's creator that humans work so hard in life to receive simple material things of physical value, yet no one is truly happy in the long run.
This book has opened my eyes to the theme of spawn teaching master, not master teaching spawn. Life is about taking pride in accomplishments, rather than taking short-lived pride in what's in your pocket. The book in itself can show us that viewing something stereotypically is not the correct way to go about doing things. Frankenstein is in fact an odd character of great wisdom, not a lime-colored killer.
Well, that is all I've taken out of the book so far, and I can't wait to read more.
Sayonara!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Frankenstein ~ Week 1
Invade you were wondering, I am reading Frankenstein with Melanie due to the fact that I am currently quite cozy with The Odyssey.
I was very excited to be reading Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein.". This is mostly because I am always looking for excuses to read the classics. My excitement was somewhat reduced when my mother insisted that she read the book as well in order to have discussions about it. Not to worry, she can never uphold goals that don't require her humdrum career in marketing. Besides that, I dove into Frankenstein with great enthusiasm.
I was quite surprised to see that the first chunk of the story had absolutely nothing to do with the tall green monster, as I had anticipated. Instead, the first bit is a collection of letters written by a Captain Robert Walton to his beloved sister in England. Through these letters, I learned that Walton wishes to make scientific discoveries in the North Pole. He finds himself longing for a friend, and later befriends his vessel's crew.
I find that this book is not quite scary, but would be more accurately described as "haunting." The event if seeing a strange, giant figure in the distance, where no human should be, is nerve-racking. Though this scene foreshadows the monster part of the story, events tend to move slowly, leaving the reader in wonder for dozens if pages.
I question why the later-introduced Dr. Frankenstein goes into so much detail about his childhood. I understand that certain parts of it connect to his creepy creation, but other details are somewhat unnecessary.
In later chapters, the story does begin to fit the description of a horror story, when the monster is created, but that us not exactly what I chose to focus on as the reader.
I am more interested in the fact that Dr. Frankenstein obsessed over something for so long that he blocked out every other aspect of his life. However, when his much-anticipated creation was made, he was afraid of the appearance of his hard work. I find this almost symbolic as to what we consider worthy if praise and what to be ashamed of. Dr. F. shunned his project after seeing that it did not fit his complete expectations for such a difficult achievement. It is almost like a parent birthing a child and seeing that it had many uncomfortable physical flaws, then casting it off in their minds. I may be looking at this from an incorrect angle, but that is how I see it.
I also wish that people would appreciate this book for its brilliant take on science and technology, rather than a playful ghost story. Very few books manage to hold an interesting surface story while concealing an impressive theme on the underbelly of the book. Many people neglect the scientific part of Frankenstein and focus solely on the scary part. I'm glad that I have the opportunity to read this book for myself, in order to observe this concealed theme.
Sayonara!
I was very excited to be reading Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein.". This is mostly because I am always looking for excuses to read the classics. My excitement was somewhat reduced when my mother insisted that she read the book as well in order to have discussions about it. Not to worry, she can never uphold goals that don't require her humdrum career in marketing. Besides that, I dove into Frankenstein with great enthusiasm.
I was quite surprised to see that the first chunk of the story had absolutely nothing to do with the tall green monster, as I had anticipated. Instead, the first bit is a collection of letters written by a Captain Robert Walton to his beloved sister in England. Through these letters, I learned that Walton wishes to make scientific discoveries in the North Pole. He finds himself longing for a friend, and later befriends his vessel's crew.
I find that this book is not quite scary, but would be more accurately described as "haunting." The event if seeing a strange, giant figure in the distance, where no human should be, is nerve-racking. Though this scene foreshadows the monster part of the story, events tend to move slowly, leaving the reader in wonder for dozens if pages.
I question why the later-introduced Dr. Frankenstein goes into so much detail about his childhood. I understand that certain parts of it connect to his creepy creation, but other details are somewhat unnecessary.
In later chapters, the story does begin to fit the description of a horror story, when the monster is created, but that us not exactly what I chose to focus on as the reader.
I am more interested in the fact that Dr. Frankenstein obsessed over something for so long that he blocked out every other aspect of his life. However, when his much-anticipated creation was made, he was afraid of the appearance of his hard work. I find this almost symbolic as to what we consider worthy if praise and what to be ashamed of. Dr. F. shunned his project after seeing that it did not fit his complete expectations for such a difficult achievement. It is almost like a parent birthing a child and seeing that it had many uncomfortable physical flaws, then casting it off in their minds. I may be looking at this from an incorrect angle, but that is how I see it.
I also wish that people would appreciate this book for its brilliant take on science and technology, rather than a playful ghost story. Very few books manage to hold an interesting surface story while concealing an impressive theme on the underbelly of the book. Many people neglect the scientific part of Frankenstein and focus solely on the scary part. I'm glad that I have the opportunity to read this book for myself, in order to observe this concealed theme.
Sayonara!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Odyssey ~ Book 2
I am glad to see the plot forming more as we dive deeper into the story. I have noticed something in Telemachus that I have not observed before: a kind of selfishness. My observations of rulers have shown that the best kings and queens are the ones who do not grieve on a personal note, but rather for the people as a whole. Telemachus mentions that he strictly wishes to depart for the good of himself, his mother and his father, while the crew have family who died alongside Odysseus. I would have advised him to verbally consider the lost (or not lost) ones of others in Ithaca.
The suitors, as expected, become even more reckless than usual. I would think that in the amount of time they stay at Ithaca's palace, the supplies used by the maids and whatnot would be entirely gone. You would think that the sheep would die out after one is cooked almost every day. If I were Tele, I would straight up kick them out on their tooshies. A considerate son would do so.
I honestly would like to drop kick the maid who told the suitors about Penelope's secret with unpicking the loom. Foolish young girls and their idle minds. Someone tell me if I ever get that ignorant, please. Because of that maid, Penelope's marriage is in grave danger, as is Telemachus.
I am sorry to even agree with the suitors at any point in this epic, but I manage to find reason in the theory if Ody dying in a distant country. In all honesty, if a goddess had not appeared to me and told me that Ody was still alive, the arrows would point to his death.
I don't believe I mentioned this last time, but I found it peculiar that all names of characters are followed by "son/daughter of...". For example: Leiocritus, son of Evenor. Or, Nestor, son of Neleus. Why don't I start calling myself "Hannah, daughter of Geoffrey." And my father would be "Geoffrey, son if Douglas," and so on and so forth. It is interesting, but can definitely get annoying.
Most of all, I wish the story would just begin to follow Odysseus' story, rather than Telemachus'. Ody, by far, has a much more interesting story ahead of him, traveling to Hell and back in attempt to get home.
Well, that's all for now.
Sayonara!
The suitors, as expected, become even more reckless than usual. I would think that in the amount of time they stay at Ithaca's palace, the supplies used by the maids and whatnot would be entirely gone. You would think that the sheep would die out after one is cooked almost every day. If I were Tele, I would straight up kick them out on their tooshies. A considerate son would do so.
I honestly would like to drop kick the maid who told the suitors about Penelope's secret with unpicking the loom. Foolish young girls and their idle minds. Someone tell me if I ever get that ignorant, please. Because of that maid, Penelope's marriage is in grave danger, as is Telemachus.
I am sorry to even agree with the suitors at any point in this epic, but I manage to find reason in the theory if Ody dying in a distant country. In all honesty, if a goddess had not appeared to me and told me that Ody was still alive, the arrows would point to his death.
I don't believe I mentioned this last time, but I found it peculiar that all names of characters are followed by "son/daughter of...". For example: Leiocritus, son of Evenor. Or, Nestor, son of Neleus. Why don't I start calling myself "Hannah, daughter of Geoffrey." And my father would be "Geoffrey, son if Douglas," and so on and so forth. It is interesting, but can definitely get annoying.
Most of all, I wish the story would just begin to follow Odysseus' story, rather than Telemachus'. Ody, by far, has a much more interesting story ahead of him, traveling to Hell and back in attempt to get home.
Well, that's all for now.
Sayonara!
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Odyssey ~ Book 1
When I was told that we were going to be reading The Odyssey, I was both excited and surprised. I have read Homer's masterpiece before, along with The Iliad, and had no problem reading it the first time. I was even more surprised to see how few others had read either one of Homer's most renowned works of literature. Because I have read The Odyssey before, I found myself needing very little preparation to read. I simply picked up the book knowing who each character was, how they corresponded with each other and how the plot was lain out. I did realize very quickly that I have read a different version from the one I just recently received. There are many differences between the two versions that almost get on my nerves. Many of the main characters have different names, such as Athena's alternative name, Minerva. The most irritating difference is how this version uses the name "Ulysses" for the main character, while the first version I read used "Odysseus." Personally, I find that Odysseus makes more sense, as it corresponds with the title.
My habit in active reading is to write the "dumbed down" version of the text in the margin. As I do this, I use abbreviations of names and places, such as "Tele" for Telemachus and "Ith" for Ithaca. Being the stubborn reader I am, I refuse to stop writing "Ody" for Ulysses, no matter what version I am reading.
Regarding my opinions on the story itself, I find The Odyssey to be my favorite of the epic poems I have read. The fact that this 174 page booklet is actually classified as a poem blows my mind. I see The Odyssey as an ancient adventure, like the hundreds of years old version of Star wars, or something like that. By reading about Odysseus and his adventures through the Mediterranean area of the world, I have gained a great amount of knowledge about that area of the world during that time period. For example, Ithaca is a thin island south of Italy now known as Crete (I believe?). We learn about geography, culture, government and religious beliefs through a story that is referred to (on the surface) as a poem about a war general trying to return home.
I find Homer works to be easier to read than Shakespeare, especially when read in this version. The first version I read was slightly more prose and verse, where this one is in more of a sentence-y form. It may the fact that The Odyssey was translated fairly recently, where Shakespeare was written during the Renaissance, making the language of Homer more understandable for us.
Regarding the plot of Book 1, it has hardly begun to dig in. The image of the story is just beginning to settle! Most characters have barely been introduced, like Penelope, Telemachus, the suitors and even Odysseus.
There's not much else to say other than that the story is going to get MUCH better after Book 1.
Sayonara!
My habit in active reading is to write the "dumbed down" version of the text in the margin. As I do this, I use abbreviations of names and places, such as "Tele" for Telemachus and "Ith" for Ithaca. Being the stubborn reader I am, I refuse to stop writing "Ody" for Ulysses, no matter what version I am reading.
Regarding my opinions on the story itself, I find The Odyssey to be my favorite of the epic poems I have read. The fact that this 174 page booklet is actually classified as a poem blows my mind. I see The Odyssey as an ancient adventure, like the hundreds of years old version of Star wars, or something like that. By reading about Odysseus and his adventures through the Mediterranean area of the world, I have gained a great amount of knowledge about that area of the world during that time period. For example, Ithaca is a thin island south of Italy now known as Crete (I believe?). We learn about geography, culture, government and religious beliefs through a story that is referred to (on the surface) as a poem about a war general trying to return home.
I find Homer works to be easier to read than Shakespeare, especially when read in this version. The first version I read was slightly more prose and verse, where this one is in more of a sentence-y form. It may the fact that The Odyssey was translated fairly recently, where Shakespeare was written during the Renaissance, making the language of Homer more understandable for us.
Regarding the plot of Book 1, it has hardly begun to dig in. The image of the story is just beginning to settle! Most characters have barely been introduced, like Penelope, Telemachus, the suitors and even Odysseus.
There's not much else to say other than that the story is going to get MUCH better after Book 1.
Sayonara!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)