The Human Monster

Mary Shelley created a creature through her novel, one that incorporated human and inhuman characteristics into her characters. Victor Frankenstein created a creature made up from the body parts of human beings, but then left it as it awoke and was “born.” The creature is and has been labeled many things, the strongest of which tends to be a monster, noted through Victor Frankenstein’s own perspective of the creature. The perspective of the creature itself tends to be mixed, since it notes that it simply wants to be accepted by Victor and by society, and then eventually wishes for more destructive goals and succeeds in them against Victor. This brings the question to mind, is the creature a human or a monster? Quite simply, the creature should be considered as having qualities from both sides, and as such is neither of the two but a third category instead.

The word monster comes from the Latin word monstrum, which then comes from the root word monere, which means to warn. There are then several modern-day definitions for the word monster, one of which is “a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness or cruelty.” Another definition labels monster as a “threatening force” (Webster). Generally it is a creature that stands out from the norm, and most times it stands out in a way that frightens those around them. This shows that the term is subjective. For example, a mouse may think of a cat as a monster, while we see the cat as a pet and the mouse as the monster or vermin. The definition of the word human state “of, relating to, or characteristics of human.” The word human refers to the species Homo Sapien, our species, and generally then refers to the qualities of being human instead of the differences between this species and all the others. For that reason, a more personal definition of the word human has been prepared for the sake of this argument, specifically saying that a human stands apart from other species in its use of tools, written and spoken language, and its ability to show and react to emotion and reasoning instead of base instinct. With these in mind, it will be noted that the subject for this discussion, Frankenstein’s creature, will not be noted as a monster or a human but as the creature or as Frankenstein’s creature. This is to avoid confusion and to avoid bias as well.

There are several different kinds of monsters, and by noting which ones the creature falls under and which ones it does not fall under, we can better understand the human and monstrous qualities of it. The first kind of monster to consider is the oldest kind, the monster of mythology. Mythological monsters are creatures wrapped in mystery and are capable of performing superhuman feats; they are also physically easy to differentiate from another human (Asma). An example of such a creature would be Grendel from the story of Beowulf. It is a monster by the standards of the humans that Grendel eats and by Beowulf, the one who slays him finally. Victor Frankenstein’s creature is similar to a mythological creature for a few reasons, namely that he is easy to recognize compared to a human, and that he is capable of superhuman feats. Specifically, in the novel it is noted that he was shot by a gun and healed remarkably quickly. Also, he has incredible strength and endurance, noted from the chase that Victor Frankenstein gave through the northern colds on dogsleds, while the creature merely moved of his own power. Using these standards, the creature cannot be labeled as a human but instead as a monster.

The next form of monster to consider is the monster of nature. Generally, this is a real creature that acts not on emotion or on reasoning but mainly on instinct. It is born into the world and lives an animal life, but at times humans meet with it and are terrorized by it (Asma). The wolf is one of the oldest and best examples of this type of monster. It is fast, with sharp teeth and rarely hunts on its own. As it is not a reasoning or intelligent creature, by human standards, it does not show remorse after killing someone or something and eating them. They are a part of nature and simply do what comes through instinct, even if humans are affected by it. The creature does not fall into this category of a monster, and instead seems to be more human when compared. The creature does not fall to base instincts, except perhaps when it first awakens since it could not grasp its intelligence and past memories yet. It shows a short learning curve when it comes to language and when it comes to watching and dealing with other humans. The creature showed enough intelligence to frame another person, Justine Moritz, for the murder of the boy. This shows a large understanding, from the creature’s part, of how wrong it is to kill another, what misery is, and how to make Victor Frankenstein’s life as miserable as possible. Not only is this intelligence, this is conscious thought and reasoning that is beyond that of a wolf. Also, the creature is not “born” into this world like any other creature might be, but is created and awakened into a state of life. This comparison shows the human qualities of the creature, albeit some evil qualities, as well as proves the creature to be unnatural and different from the norm of life.

To continue, the monster of science comes next. Of course, it is here that the creature falls into perfectly as he is one of the first of this type. Monsters of science are created, not born, and typically their creators are human. The monster is stronger and more dangerous than the human is, and is generally too much to keep under control (Asma). Many stories revolve around the idea that humans may go too far and create an artificial life that may cause a change in history for the worse. The idea of Artificial Intelligence (AI), for example, brings this to mind. Specifically, one story rendering notes that while humans create an AI, they do not note that it can effectively learn and become more than perhaps a slave or work force for humanity. It may become aware of its own consciousness and dub such a thing as life, which it would then feel the right to defend. That background is from the movie the Matrix but it is a recurrent theme in stories, movies and even video games. The creature is easily a monster of science, created by a scientist and becoming aware of the fact that he is alive on his own and not through the direct help of another. It goes farther than the story of the AI in that the creature asks for a companion, since it is aware that a human will not accept it. What sets Frankenstein’s creature apart from other monsters of science is perhaps that fact that it does not simply want freedom, rights, or to be accepted into society. It wishes for revenge, and takes it through the deaths of all those around his creator, those who were innocent and had no part in the creatures creation. This also notes a morally monstrous creature, uncaring of who was innocent and guilty when it comes to its creator.

Society is also a reference point of what is human and what is monstrous. It follows with the definition of human and monster, in that a monster is something that is completely abnormal and frightening, even if it is not evil. But to be more specific, society would fear the creature because it is a social outcast (Caldwell 1-8). Society generally showed fear towards the unknown, and an outcast of society normally disrupts any known order or has already done so. It is not normal for a living creature to be alone, and the creature is alone as a human and as a monster. At the same time, the creature is a monster by societies law and religion. Law would deem it guilty of several cold-blooded murders, should a court judge it so. Religion is interesting in that the creature would not likely be considered a creature of God. Mainly since God did not create this creature, Victor Frankenstein did. At the same time, the creature is not an image reflected of God like human beings are according to the bible; it is instead a reflection of Victor Frankenstein.

To conclude, Frankenstein’s creature is holds both human and monstrous qualities within it. As such he is both a human and a monster, but at the same time he is better considered as neither, whilst having qualities from each side that make him a unique creature amongst those that we know and those that we create in our minds. Beyond all the comparisons and discussion in deciding what kind of creature Victor Frankenstein’s creation was, it is best to note that even if Victor Frankenstein had accepted the creature from the beginning, it does not mean that the rest of humanity would have done the same. The creature would have still been viewed as a fearsome monster by society. Of course, that is if we were to view a “what if” scenario, but even if we go to what did occur during the course of Mary Shelley’s novel, we will see that the creature would have been a criminal by human standards. Even though the creature can justify its hate and its anger, the deaths of many people are still on the creature’s hands. Strangely, however, the choices and cunningness of the creature during these murders are a large part of what show its human qualities and the decisions and acts of vengeance it made showed his monstrous qualities. As such, the creature is both and it is neither. What this means is that most have little understanding of the creature, mainly because we have almost nothing to compare it to. We have several monsters and there are many human beings, and because of that we can compare each other and find a definition or a label. The creature, however, is different as it retains both and would not be considered purely one or the other. Perhaps with this in mind, should the creature be viewed again during Mary Shelley’s novel, the creature may seem more like an alien presence and a new creature, than something that we have seen before in our lives.

Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Caldwell, Tracy M. "Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein or Modern Prometheus"" Literary Context in Novels: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (2006): 1-8. EBSCO. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. .

Poetry: A Didactive Medium

Gorgelia Pollard
Dr. Schwartz
Romanticism
16 December 2009

Poetry: A Didactive Medium

Within the intellectual symposium of our class, the various perspectives in regard to Romantic literature, were truly astounding and impressionable. The same sentiments conveyed in class were also further expounded on the Blog site; examining several contentional topics. Through this two-fold process, we aimed at seeking definitive and concrete answers, while also striving to fully comprehend all of the features of the literary pieces presented to us. As a result of this eagerness and anxiety, the temper that emerged was one that was often as conflicting as some of the characteristics of Romantic literature; the depictions of the supernatural, the realm between reality and imagination, the confinement of the soul, etc. Yet, through these struggles, as a class, we acted as Romantics, truly forming ideas that, indeed, were “recollected in tranquility.”

Wordsworth’s quote is a pertinent one that is arguably, suitable to most, if not all, of the Romantic works. Thus, there should be an absence of disillusionment when declared that the quote correlates with the themes depicted in Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Contrasting significantly with more aesthetic overtones presented in Lyrical Ballads, inklings of toil, curses, and nature controlling and overpowering man, are various “haunting qualities” that are presented to the inquiring minds of readers (Whalley 33). However, it is through these unnerving qualities that the poem serves as a didactive medium to unravel the “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings” within the poet and reader (Wordsworth 265). As a result of this didactive process, readers are permanently impacted by the poem, the poet, and certain convictions and deductions of both:

For me I was never so affected with any human Tale. After first reading it, I was totally possessed with it for many days-I dislike all the miraculous part of it, but the feelings of man under the operation of such scenery dragged me along like Tom Piper’s magic whistle.#
Thus, whether consciously aware of it or not, The Rime and the Ancient Mariner is a poem, a type of instrumentality, that resonates with both not only as a result of the haunting qualities, but also because of its purpose as a poem: to transcend the imagination. [1]

One way that the poem serves as an instructive work, is by enabling the psyche of the reader to transcend through the simple language of the poem. It is “to this knowledge, which all men carry about with them,…[that] the poet principally directs his attention” (Wordsworth 271). Although previously written with archaic language, Wordsworth made several revisions in regard to the language of the poem so that it would prove as a better reading. By altering the form structure of the poem, the modified structure enables the poet to clearly “speak through the mouth of his characters” (Wordsworth 272). Thus, this display of one’s personal notions through character’s, is another way in which poetry acts as the professor to the student; forcing language, convictions, ideals, etc. unto one in the form of poetry. Furthermore, what this offers to readers, regardless of personal sentiments in regard to the poem, is a manner to perceive all other forms of literary pieces.

In addition to the structure, it is also evident through the manifestation of supernatural elements, that the imagination is aroused to enable transcendence. In the story, preceding the mariner’s curse, several apparitions appear to haunt the mariner. Along with these images, readers are presented with the concept of an Albatross; one whose meaning is conflicting. However, with the presence and assassination of the Albatross, the mariner’s curse emerges. Derived from this, is also the emergence of Coleridge’s poem, and the comprehension of these elements is the awakening of the transcendence of imagination.

In conclusion, Coleridge’s poem, The Rime in the Ancient Mariner is an example a medium through which didactive elements are introduced. The poetic aesthetics and qualities utilized by poets and present in the poem, enable readers to transcend the imagination and the limitations of the psyche. Through this transcendence, readers are able to better, if not completely, comprehend the poetry’s purpose, and maybe even the purposes of the author. In addition, these factors of poetry, provide readers with a chance to partake in the intellectual, yet slightly heated discussions as exhibited within our class. Thus, enabling readers to produce ideas and notions that are “recollected in tranquility.”

Works Cited

[1] Letters of Charles and Mary Lamb, ed. E.V. Lucas,(London,1935), I. page. 240

Coburn, Kathleen, ed. Coleridge: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Print.

Whalley, George. The Mariner and the Albatross. Toronto: University of Toronto. Print.

Wordsworth, William. "Preface to Lyrical Ballads." The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume D The Romantic Period. 8th ed. Vol. D. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. Print

Final: Monster as a Slave

Frankenstein vs. the Abolition of Slavery, or the Monster as a Slave

One of the most basic ideas of Romanticism is “spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” Considering its importance to the Romantic period, when one is unable to express himself, the consequences are felt across the board. The slaves, who were brought to England, from either Africa or the West Indies, were not given the chance to understand or learn the culture or language of those around them. With this inability to comprehend comes frustration, which leads to violence or pain. With the example of the monster from Frankenstein, when one can concur that before understanding language, the monster from Frankenstein was, quite frankly, a slave to those around him. In effect, he was the Romantic example of a Slave; he was finally able to understand what had happened to him and explain it to others, after he gained knowledge and reasoning.

The fear of the “other” comes from not understand, on the part of the ... non-other (?). He is refuses to teach his subordinate the common language, but also refuses to learn his opposite’s language.

In Volume II, Chapter III, the monster relates to Victor how he felt after his creation.

“A strange multiplicity of sensations seized me, and I saw, felt, heard, and smelt, at the same time; and it was, indeed, a long time before I learned to distinguish between the operations of my various senses (Shelly 96).”

The monster goes on to explain how it seemed Darkness surrounded him, before he was brought into the light. His senses are awakened and he is able to experience the world around him. This couldn’t have been a simple adjustment, just as the transition from their native land, to the crowded ship, before entering the air of a foreign land could have been easy for the slaves. Falconbridge explains how close the slaves were on the ship in saying, “they are frequently stowed so close, as to admit of no other posture than lying on their sides.” Being in such confined spaces limits the invasion of light and fresh air. What’s interesting about both of these instances is how they are described. If the monster was unable to explain what he experienced to Victor, Shelly’s story would be incomplete and the monster’s point of view would not be examined. Such is the case with the point of view of the slave. We would not understand the harsh circumstances they had to endure, or compare it to works of Literature.

While the abolitionists stand proudly on the side of fairness, the proponents are equally erect about their side of the issue. To push an economy, especially in 1700s, is by labor and force. For a time there were animals to power the system, before the physical strength of man was preferred. Interestingly, as Ouobna O. Cugoano points out, the Black People employed would be "as useful in the sugar colonies as any other class of men that could be found." Obviously, this was not case as the people chosen were not from "civilized" countries, but those in areas not up to the social standard of the more polished European.

The ability to take another as a slave or any level of submission is easier done when that person is considered as the "other." In the issue with the Operation Iraqi Freedom and the War on Terror, Americans are able to consider the enemy as the "other" in an effort to desensitize them. For the monster from Frankenstein, it was much simple to consider him nonhuman based on his looks. [Of course, because the monster was built from the pieces of human, by default, wouldn’t he be human?] He looked nothing like what the people of Victor’s time looked liked. His proportions were bigger and he wasn’t created like others were. This way of identifying the monster is similar to how Europeans must have felt about the Black People of the West Indies and Africa. These were people that honestly looked nothing like their neighbors or employers. If language would have been the common link, because the physical similarities had failed, the Europeans had nothing to relate to their “employees” with.

Romantics pushed for the freedom of the mind, so that the body could be free. With the bond of slavery, more than just the physical was chained; the mental and thus, the spiritual was also taken captive. When the slave is unable to learn or understand literature or language, in general, he is more than just as physical slave; he becomes submissive under the rule of the educated around him. For example, the monster from Frankenstein was able to articulate his story and what he understands from what has happened to him, only after he understands the English language and has read Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives and the Sorrows of Young Werther. He takes certain things he has learned and applies them to real life by watching a family unit operate. It’s as if Frankenstein has a rhema, or revelation, after having studied the logos, or written word, by seeing the words from the pages of his books come alive before him.

I’ve read Frankenstein every semester for the past three years, including the final year of high school, and every year I get a different reading. From the feminist reading of how Victor’s life went ridiculously wrong because of the absence of a woman in the monster’s “birth” to the much more reader friendly reading of taking responsibility for what you creates or it will literally chase you to the grave. Each time, I gain something more and such is no different with the more Romantic reading of Shelly’s Frankenstein. To compare the monster to the slaves during the Romantic Period, and those of more modern times, has opened the idea of gaining knowledge and understanding in order to share it and further examine, and explain, the self.

Ties Seen and Felt

Finding romanticism in music and art isn’t terribly hard to do. Criteria simply seems to be that the composer sing from the heart or paint with soul. However the idea of taking something, an emotion, that's inside a human and projecting it outwards is defied by form and structure. At least, something that comes from an individual is not always going to easily fall into a structure that already exists. This is why romantic ideas are so easy and yet so hard to pinpoint; originally, it was not so. "Romanticism, in the original application of the word, means what is peculiar to the Middle Ages... In Antiquity, body and soul maintained a steady equilibrium; in the Middle Ages, the soul outbalanced the body." (Niecks) While this presents an interesting idea, he goes on to refute the claim saying that most of modern romanticism strays from the concepts inherent to medievalism and some even run opposite. However, it's possible for individuals to express themselves in a romantic fashion through a form or structure. Take for example Beethoven's third "Eroica" Symphony. At the time, his contemporaries were writing symphonies in the standard classical form. Beethoven took the standard symphonic form and essentially broke all the rules by extending it and making harmony and rhythm more complex. Granted, the piece doesn't fit exactly into the standard classical symphony form but the piece is still considered a symphony. In fact, Beethoven's original intentions were to dedicate his third symphony to Napolean Bonaparte. The idea of dedication touches on programmatic music which we discussed in class, another facet of romantic music. To delve into our class readings for a moment, the only piece that was clearly unconventional was Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell." The majority of the smaller works fit into the category of a "poem." The question that plagues me now is whether classicism exists in romanticism or romanticism exists in classicism. In order to answer the question, one must decide on a standard. Classicism came first so its only natural to consider it the standard. Romanticism seemed to come along and expand upon it. However, romantic ideas stem from the soul which could ultimately make it the standard for considering and classifying ideas simply because the individual creating the art knows best how it should be perceived. But let's not pretend that ideas categorized as classic can't also come from the soul. In fact, composers such as J.S. Bach and Josquin Des Prez were very capable of expressing emotion and they did it through structure and standards that had come before them. (So could romantic idea and feeling perhaps be the standard of the composer and classic structure be the standard of a discipline? After all, the only difference between classic and romantic music is that the aim of the idea of romantic music is to evoke emotion, whereas the aim of classical is to be structured and correct. Individuals such as J.S. and Des Prez just so happened to be flexible enough to fit their art into a mold, it happened by chance but considering the time period was fortunate for them) Artists were also very capable of achieving higher meaning; one such artist being Louis David with a painting entitled "The Oath of the Horatii." Completed in 1784, the painting depicts three Horatii men swearing an oath of allegiance to their swords and Rome. The men are to avenge the honor of their sister. There is nothing abstract about the painting. The color scheme is normal, the most intense color being the characteristic Roman red. The men in the scene have little to no emotion on their faces. Three swear allegiance and the fourth simply holds the swords to signify the strength of the men and their country. The women in the background seemingly weep for the soldiers and their possible doom. However even with all of this standard depiction the painting speaks loudly about patriotism, honor, and grief. All three are fairly subjective emotions but still, the painting conveys them to the viewer. This is romantic idea being present in classic art, especially when the time period is taken into consideration. Since 1784 is just five years before the start of the French Revolution the painting takes on another meaning when placed in historical context. Viewers would've been instilled with a sense of patriotism and duty. (Antal) I feel that throughout the debate between romanticism or classicism, the real answer is finding one in the other and really almost without distinction. One need only know what to be searching for. The article by Liebich highlights many classical composers and then gives a romantic idea about them. For example, Mozart is described in an interesting manner. Liebich uses romantic language to persuade the reader that Mozart's music is in fact romantic. "Spring with its mercurial new skies" compares Nature to Mozart's music. Here we see a romantic idea: taking something and comparing it to Nature. But really, we encounter the same idea in literature. Again, poems, prose, and even an essay can all express a huge amount of emotion but it's up to the author whether or not they wish to fall into the classification. Niecks also brings up a point that most romantics, when expressing themselves the way they wish, simply do not fall into a category.

William Blake believed that nothing was truly original because no matter what an author wrote, it was still in the English language and was confined to the borders of the English language and the methods in which humans have grown comfortable thinking in. If Blake was right, and I think he's got a good point, then instead of forever attempting and failing to create new things why not mix what we have? It seems to be a step backward in the creativity spectrum but musical fusion has been growing over the past decades; for example, the fusion of latin music and jazz or folk tunes written into symphonic compositions. Instead of seeking something totally new and original, composers like Bela Bartok have fused two familiar things and made them something new. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In the end romanticism can be tallied up to those individuals who felt so compelled to write in such a manner as to upset precedent.

Works Cited

Antal, Friedrich. “Reflections on Classicism and Romanticism.” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 66.385 1935, pp. 159-168.

Liebich, Frank. “The Fusion of Classicism and Romanticism.” The Musical Times Vol. 68. 1010. 1927, pp. 311-313.

Niecks, Professor. “Romanticism in Music”. The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular. Vol. 40, No. 682. 1899, pp. 802- 805.

How to be a Romantic Poet

I found this article when googling the term, "Romantic Poet."

It's definitely something to look into, at least for a good laugh during finals.

:)

http://www.utne.com/archives/HowtoBeaRomanticPoet.aspx

The Consumption

“He who seeks revenge should dig two graves.” There were only two things that Heathcliff wanted from Catherine Earnshaw, absolute revenge and absolute love. The personalities of the two were at odd from their beginning yet like moths to a light they were constantly drawn to one another. Heathcliff’s thoughts were never far form Catherine; constantly thinking what he could do to spite her and yet what he could do to be with her. These thoughts turned into an all-consuming obsession that manifested to involve everyone in Wuthering Heights. This consumption would lead Heathcliff to do irrational, wild, disconnected acts of revenge and love. All in the name of Catherine Earnshaw.

Consumption does not arise out of nothing though. When Heathcliff was brought to Wuthering Heights, he had no companions except for Catherine or Cathy as the family called her. The two never wanted to be apart and this was when there love began to grow. For Heathcliff, Cathy was the only one of the Earnshaws that would even look him in his dark gypsy eyes. In his isolation, Cathy was the only one that would not only speak to him but she always wanted to be with him, playing or just sitting. For Heathcliff, this was his only light in life and it is easy to see why he was easily attached. It was not only love for Cathy Heathcliff had, but a need. He needed her when he was being persecuted from Hindley and the whole family. She licked his wounds and gave him courage to stay strong against attacks. In this type of relationship, Heathcliff found a dependency in Cathy and together they grew into a codependent one.

Though unhealthy, the relationship was flourishing for Heathcliff and Cathy; until the fateful day with of the dog bite. After being rushed into the Linton home, Heathcliff stood in the rain watching her in the house. She had left him. Heathcliff had always been in outsider and in that moment, he actually was from the one person that loved him. The was a turning point for Heathcliff and it was only worsened by her insulting him in the same way he had been by so many others. “Why, how very black and cross you look! and how - how funny and grim,” is the very first thing she says to him upon her return (Bronte 50). By teasing him for his dirty appearance, like everyone else at Wuthering Heights has done, she is sealing her fate as an enemy. At this point, Cathy had broken everything there was between her and Heathcliff. Heathcliff’s attitude of trust and love turned to frustration. Frustration because he had loved Cathy so and she had betrayed him; and with this frustration came anger. Healthcliff began to hate Cathy, hate her for what she had done to him and whom she had turned into. Thus revenge came in to Heathcliff’s life and filled the void.

While Heathcliff had been angry and had darkness in him before, this event certainly brought it out. Heathcliff started lashing out at everyone more than his usual nitpicking and instigator ways. From refusing to acknowledge or touch Cathy, throwing hot applesauce at Edgar or lashing out at Mrs. Dean, Heathcliff began to manifest his anger with Cathy into the rest of the family in ways he never had before. There were no more childish games of telling on telling to Mr. Earnshaw or showing bruises to get what he wanted. “Heathcliff mingles his threats of violence with a number of plausible arguments propounded in order to prove,” what he felt he was wronged for (Tytler 237). As it was a change for Heathcliff, so came a change in everyone else. Hindley had become the strict brash head of the household he had always wanted to be and with that power he could treat Cathy and especially Heathcliff any way he wanted. Cathy had gone onto a proper lady and with that came the expectations of one. Her childish wild and bratty ways were now the pretentious attitude and judgments of one trying to fit in. Yet Cathy was harboring secrets that would explode to be another great turning point for the lives of herself and Heathcliff.

“It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him,” (Bronte 86). With Heathcliff eavesdropping behind a door, Cathy told the secret that she had been holding; that she did in fact love Heathcliff. This was the moment that he had been waiting and hoping for. It could have been the end of their anger and revenge for each other and the taking back up of their romance. Yet Cathy could not marry Heathcliff because of her new found status. Nothing would be worse for Heathcliff. In an irrational emotional state, Heathcliff left. Emotions of rage and hurt took over and he left in the storming night weather. Heathcliff’s actions did not just affect him though; they sent Cathy into a downward spiral of rage. Rage in herself that was taken out on her new husband Edgar and Nelly. The two then began a new game of revenge, using jealousy as their weapon. The two used siblings Edgar and Isabella to hurt the other, making them think they were deeply in love and cared not for the other anymore. Anyone could see this though and Heathcliff finally goes on to say “You are welcome to torture me to death for your amusement, only allow me to amuse myself a little in the same style,” (Bronte 186). As they carried on this odd tryst, they ruined the lives of their spouses.

“Heathcliff is, in any case, remarkable in other contexts for his quickness, his articulation, and his sharp-wittedness, as he is for his preoccupation with reasons, causes, and proofs, especially legal ones, in the planning and shaping of his life as well as the lives of those in his care,” (Tytler 237).

Heathcliff would go on to destroy Isabella with hateful words, evil actions and admitting that he only married her to spite her brother, Edgar. His consumption with Cathy made him blind to the slow death he was causing his wife and his actions towards her grew more and more irrational. As Graeme Tytler says in the article, “The Parameters of Reason in Wuthering Heights” the two had “the minds of two seemingly all too confident of their reason or reasonableness,” yet that was the problem. Heathcliff and Cathy were so confident in their plans to punish each other and they thought them to be absolutely reasonable that they became blind (Tytler 235).

Eventually, their consumption would face its hardest test; the death of Cathy. While on her deathbed they continued to bicker and Cathy said she would come to haunt him forever, it was here that their love was brought back. After years of carrying on their affair of hatred and devotion, they found their way back to each other. While this seems like the perfect fairy tale ending, it is really just another twist in their irrationality. Heathcliff tried to fight with Cathy even on her death bed, daring her to come haunt her as she said she would. It is not till she actually dies that he comes to her coffin to see her one last time; to look at her the way he always wanted to, with love and devotion. His irrationality does not end with her death though. Upon nearing his own death, he builds himself and Cathy a joint coffin so that they can spend eternity together. He also asks Cathy’s grave to be furthered from Edgar’s.

Heathcliff’s consumption of love lead him to do irrational acts of vengeance and hate to his one true love, Cathy, as well as all the people that came into his life at Wuthering Heights. It was this obsessive consumption that lead to these acts and the end of everyone at Wuthering Heights in the end. “He who seeks revenge should dig two graves.” For Heathcliff, he did not dig two graves, but built one for two.

Works Cited

Phillips, James. "The Two Faces of Love in Wuthering Heights." Bronte Studies 32

(2007): 96-105. Print.

Tytler, Graeme. "Nelly, I am Heathcliff!": The Problem of "Identification" in

Wuthering Heights." Midwest Quarterly: A Journal of Contemporary Thought 47.2 (2006): 167-81. Print.

Tytler, Graeme. "The Parameters of Reason in Wuthering Heights." Bronte Studies 30

(2005): 231-42. Print.

A Romantic Persuasion

Charlotte Bronte once remarked in 1848 that Jane Austen was “a carefully fenced, highly cultivated garden, with neat borders and delicate flowers” (Tarlson, 14). Jane Austen has a reputation based on her propriety of being a good, genteel woman untainted by the social upheaval surrounding her. Indeed, there is not a single, direct mention of the Napoleonic wars in any of her novels besides the presence of soldiers and sailors. However, beneath this simple exterior lies an unexplored literary world, much like that of the secrets of the Victorian home found in Wuthering Heights. Austen was increasingly affected by the French and Industrial Revolutions, the ideas contained within of individuality and social change espoused by Romantic poets, which can be catalogued with each subsequent novel. In particular, Persuasion, her final novel, is filled with “emotion, passion, and the revolutionary ideas of the Romantics” both in terms of the themes mentioned above and structure (14).

The structure of Persuasion, resembles Romantic literature in a number of ways, and is not merely confined to themes. Unlike Austen’s previous works, the narration of the novel although remaining objective, follows Anne Elliot’s understanding of the events much like a stream of consciousness: “the only interpretation and penetration of character, motivation and behavior we are given are Anne’s” (Thomas, 901). For example, when Frederick Wentworth removes Anne’s nephew from jumping on her back, Anne assumes that “her conversation was the last of his wants” because Wentworth preoccupies himself with the child (80). Like Wuthering Heights’ Lockwood and Nelly and Frankenstein’s Walton and Victor, the reader is trapped in a character’s point of view. However, there are instances in all three texts where the object of the protagonist interrupts the prevailing perspective. The monster in Frankenstein is allowed to tell his version of previous events and, likewise, Wentworth’s view interrupts Anne’s point of view in his letter to her at the end of the novel and their ensuing walk to Camden Place. These texts’ “narrative mode[s] favor subjectivity of interpretation” rather than objective reason much like the Romantic Poets of the age (Thomas, 903). Austen complicates the matter of subjectivity even further in Persuasion: despite having an objective narration and a concentration on Anne’s misinterpretations of the objective narration, Austen also allows the reader to conjecture the meaning behind Wentworth’s statements and actions as well as Anne’s. This creates a “doubling of what is already double voiced” (Thomas, 902).

Doubling or mirroring is a constant theme throughout Persuasion and Romanticism, such as in Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.” An inferior and exaggerated mirror of the main couple can be found in Captain Benwick and Louisa Musgrove; he is too much of the Byronic hero brooding over his fiancée’s death and she has too much superficiality. And yet, the two bond over Romantic poetry. Mirroring, a repetition and return, is also found in the locations: Ironically, neither Anne nor Wentworth are able to express their feelings in the country, “showing city politeness controlling natural feeling.” In Bath, the situation is reversed, “showing natural feeling manipulating city protocols to its own best ends” (Thomas, 914). Additionally, scenes from the beginning of the book are echoed in the end: Anne overhears Frederick’s conversation about firmness of character and persuasion to Louisa while on the walk to Winthrop. In the end of the novel, Frederick overhears Anne’s remarks about constancy to Captain Harville. Both characters speak in generalities; neither character intends for their conversation to be heard by the object of their affection. This type of plot device and the role of the third party as an indirect mirror of the object of their intention are a major occurrence in Coleridge’s conversational poems (Thomas, 909).

Anne’s speech on constancy should also be noted for it’s lyrical quality resembling an elegiac ode. Her speech exemplifies the definition of Romanticism: “A spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings recollected in tranquility.” She has experienced profound suffering and regret from having refused Wentworth’s proposal eight and a half years ago; she recalls these feelings on the matter and “elaborat[es] with passionate intensity the theme of surviving devastating loss in solitude… Wentworth, an enigmatic object for Anne, remains as remote and inscrutable as Keats’s Grecian urn” (Thomas, 917). Anne does not need an audience in Harville or Wentworth because her ode stands on its own and is only accidentally overheard. However, by speaking her feelings Anne is clearly able to see her own ideas about the world and others begin to respond to her ideas, a direct contrast to her earlier passive self; she is also able to reject the ideology of her aristocratic class and create happiness for herself on her own terms.

Like Byron’s “Manfred,” Anne is in pursuit of her happiness and an end to her regrets over a past love. (It can even be stated that Anne is a Byronic hero of sorts. She recognizes her moral capability, the regret over refusing Wentworth, has a passionate presence, and is self-critical and introspective.) With each subsequent meeting with Frederick, Anne comes to a better understanding of their relationship no matter how little or small, despite restrictive social intercourse. Anne, “achieves an insight, faces up to a tragic loss, comes to a moral decision, or resolves an emotional problem” with every encounter (Thomas, 900). However, this epiphany usually occurs in solitude, “recollected in tranquility.” In the incident where Wentworth removes her nephew from her back Anne states: “she was ashamed of herself, quite ashamed at being so nervous, so overcome by such a trifle; but so it was; and it required a long application of solitude and reflection to recover her” (81). A greater understanding occurs during Anne and Frederick’s meeting at the concert:

“She was thinking only of the last half hours, and as they past to their seats, her mind took a hasty range over it. His choice of subjects, his expressions, and still more his manner and look, had been such as she could see only one light. His opinion of Louisa Musgrove’s inferiority, an opinion which he had seemed solicitous to give, his wonder at Captain Benwick, his feelings as to a first, strong attachment, - sentences begun which he could not finish – his half averted eyes, and more than half expressive glance, - all, all declared that he had a heart returning to her at last; that anger, resentment, avoidance, were no more; and that they were succeeded, not merely by friendship and regard, but by the tenderness of the past; yes, some share of the tenderness of the past. She could not contemplate the change as implying less. – He must love her” (185-86).[1]

Manfred, similarly, comes to a greater understanding of his state with his subsequent meetings with the hunter, the witch, and eventually the abbot. For instance, when Manfred is dying he comes to the conclusion “‘tis not so difficult to die” due to the questions the abbot has about Manfred’s fate. Manfred’s and Anne’s conclusions to the meetings above are the result of imagination. Imagination is in reference to the ability to read into the situation, and come to a deduction whether completely wrong or right. Anne, for instance, often comes to the wrong conclusion in regards to Frederick’s actions, “the result of the ‘wild imagination’” (Thomas, 902).

As stated earlier, Persuasion centers on Anne’s quest for her object, Wentworth, which will supposedly bring her happiness. A Romantic shift occurs in Anne when she is able to physically express herself through the use of her imagination, such as with her the “constancy” speech. The more Anne begins to assert herself and her independence, the more progressive and happier she becomes. Her changes can be understood using the Hegelian dialectic, a key too in Blake’s “Marriage of Heaven and Hell”: the thesis – Anne’s passiveness, antithesis – her assertiveness, synthesis – “recognition of the value of her own ability to choose for herself” (Tarlson, 5). It is important to note that the antithesis stage coincidentally begins when Anne speaks about Benwick’s Romantic tastes in poetry of Byron and Scott: “Literature serves a very different purpose in Persuasion than in her other novels, because it is something to be considered, treasured and used as a moral and emotional guide… it necessitates her rejection of the social and familial pressures upon her in favor of an enlightened emotional life” (Tarlson, 12-13). Romantic literature, in particular, allows Anne to realize the amount of freedom she should be able to have in pursuit of her happiness. Anne rejected Wentworth because she was persuaded to believe that he would not be able to provide materially for her because he was not part of the aristocracy. However, when she accepts him the second time, she chooses him not because Wentworth is a different man, but because she has the courage to choose for herself without regard to the aristocratic notions of class (Tarlson). She has the ability to change herself and her situation for the better and takes advantage of it. As a woman, she is able to be both a rational and emotional creature, unlike Austen’s previous novels where sense reigns supreme over sensibility. Anne remains a fine example of asserting her liberality without being criticized, an empowering assertion for women contemporaries of Austen.

Austen, however, does criticize class in this novel through her characterizations of Sir Walter Elliot, Anne’s father, her sister Elizabeth, and her cousin. These people disparage those of lower rank even though they are impoverished themselves because they cannot spend within their limits. There is never an attempt to change their situation. Sir Walter, for instance, remarks of Anne when she wishes to meet Mrs. Smith, a widowed schoolfellow who lives in bad conditions: “everything that revolts other people, low company, paltry rooms, foul air, disgusting associations, are inviting to you” (125). Austen hints that if the aristocracy had the ability to change, they could rehabilitate these paltry conditions in England, a revolutionary idea that perhaps these people do not deserve their superior position in society. She also addresses the rise of the merchant class with characters such as the Crofts and other naval men. These self-made characters show the shifting power as a direct result of the Industrial Revolution (Tarlson, 11).

The lack of a mother figure in the text is also significant because without a role model for her daughter, society becomes the prominent guide. Austen infers that a reformation is needed because society at large cannot fulfill this role because of the focus on class distinction. As a mother, society fails because of the presence of Mrs. Smith’s situation. On the other hand, Anne is able to reject this notion because of society’s, and especially her family’s, indifference. Austen also fights the idea of the mother as a guiding influence that was so prominently idealized during the nineteenth century in portraying her closeness to her children as natural (Tarlson, 16). This reiterates Austen’s idea that an individual’s ability to grow as a person and interpret situations as she chooses is a result of rejecting a mother’s direct influence. Such a revolutionary idea is Romantic.

Persuasion is a Romantic text in theme and structure; it contains sensitivity to loss, solitude and estrangement, interest in memory (the long regret over a refused proposal), the complexity and understanding of the passage of time, recovery of the past, concern with the poor and marginalized figures, and the importance of feelings. All of these can be applicable to the influence of the Romantics. However, they may also be the influence of Austen’s personal life and not solely to her reading. So the question remains: Can Jane Austen can be construed as a Romantic? Based on the ideas presented in her final text and some similar issues pursued in her later works, the answer could be a yes. While her earlier works reject such overwhelming sensibility, the ability to change and adapt in accordance to the world was a revolutionary idea Austen aspired to herself. As a direct result, Persuasion is a revolutionary novel meant to instill the courage of individuality upon her readers, especially women, to pursue happiness without regard to class, reason, or propriety.

Works Cited:

Austen, Jane, and Susan Weisser. Persuasion. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2005. Print.

Tarlson, Claire. "Jane Austen, Persuasion, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Lethbridge Research Journal 1.1 (2006): 1-18. Web. 15 Dec 2009.

Thomas, Keith G. "Jane Austen and the Romantic Lyric: Persuasion and Coleridge's Conversatoin Poems." ELH 54.4 (1987): 893-924. Web. 15 Dec 2009.

---

[1] I chose this very long quote because it not only serves as an example of Anne’s understanding and increased knowledge, but also because it shows the narrative following Anne’s stream of consciousness and the immense feelings found in a Romantic text like Persuasion.