The Yellow Wallpaper

Well, this story was kind of creepy. Wallpaper driving this woman insane. In light of the Mills reading earlier this week, especially his discussion of marriage, this story seems to illustrate rather vividly his opinions. The woman in the story is married to a doctor, who believes she is well when she is actually probably mentally unstable. He patronizes her, and treats her serious concerns as silly because she is a woman. But there is nothing, she believes, she can do about her condition, her social one at least. In the very beginning, when she is talking about her health, she says she disagrees with her husband and brother, but then says repeatedly, "what is one to do?" Later on, you know she feels trapped in her social condition when she starts to identify with the woman behind the wallpaper, behind the bars. She even wonders, " if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did?" The only time she thinks she can be free is when she is completely alone, like the women who creep about in the daylight but are imprisoned by night. When she's alone, she doesn't have to watch what she says and obey her husband. Finally, after she has ripped off most of the wallpaper she exclaims, "And I've pulled off most of the paper, so you can't put me back!" As crazy as that sounds, she thinks she's finally freed herself from her feelings of entrapment and is free to creep about all she wants. It was an interesting story, to say the least.

The Communist Manifesto - Part II

In this section, Marx and Engels try to explain why their communism will work and why people should believe in it. The way they do this is what I really found intriguing. It is very systematic. They address problems the bourgeois class has with communism, and then counters each statement. For example, the bourgeois say that communism will take away all private property. That statement is countered with Marx saying that only the bourgeois have really any property, and that the proletarians have none, and when the bourgeoisie disappear it won't matter because you can't take from someone that which they do not possess. In this manner, they counter all arguments against communism. It almost reminded me of when I read 'Crito'. How Socrates brings up all the arguments people have given of why he should chose exile over death, and how he considers each point separately and systematically to convince others that his choice of death is the only suitable option.

Frankenstein, cont.

I finished the novel today, and it's just as tragic as I remembered. It's was interesting to watch Victor lose his short-sightedness. When he created the creature, he could not see past the act of creation to the possible consequences, and by middle, he is very aware of the consequences, not just those that had affected him personally, but what might happen to others. He was able to consider the creature's request for a companion and realize that it may make things worse for mankind, not just one or two wreaking havoc, but a whole brood of them.
When the creature asks Victor for a partner, he blames him for abandoning him, thus making him as he is, murderous and hateful. Instead of nurturing his creation, he ran from it. One could almost say he brought all this upon himself by abandoning the creature. But would the story have turned out any differently? I think not. Although the creature would have had a companion in Victor, he still would have been aware of how the rest of humanity would view him. And it is human nature to desire more than what you have. The creature would have eventually desired the affection of another being, the kind Victor could not provide. He would've made the same request. And although Victor may have spent more time with the creature, something tells me he would've still been reluctant because, as he said, who's to say they would even like each other or that she would not be flat out evil? Plus, he realized how against Nature his act of creation was and would not hasten to repeat it. I think it still would have ended badly.

Frankenstein

I am excited to read this novel again. I greatly enjoyed it the first time. For today's discussion we had to read the letters and preface. That's one of the things I found interesting about this book, how it's a story within a story. Later in the novel, when the doctor meets his creature in the mountains, and the creature tells his story, it's his story within the doctor's story within the Arctic explorer's story. Kind of confusing, but there it is. Looking at the study notes/lecture on this book also made me reflect on the sublime aspects of it. Nature in the novel is truly sublime, from the beautiful yet dangerous Arctic ice to the mountain and lake near the doctor's home. The creature itself could also fall under that category. He is terrifying, but also amazing because his existence seems to defy the laws of the natural world.

Ode on a Grecian Urn

This is a poem I have had to read several times for various classes throughout the years. I've heard several teachers and professors talk about it, but my reaction to it is always the same. It always evokes in me a sense of sadness, which is an odd reaction, I know. But I always feel sad for the figures on the vase, probably because of a small word choice on the part of Keats. He makes it sound joyous, "Ah, happy, happy boughs!", when speaking of the trees, but it's his use of the word 'can' instead of 'will' that makes me feel the opposite. The trees can't shed their leaves. Even if they want to. Not that the leaves never will fall, but that they can't. Not that the Lovers never will kiss, but that they can't.
It also seems interesting to me that a Romantic poet, who should have a greater understanding of Nature and its constantly changing ways, would choose to write about an unchanging scene.