Connecting the Dots

Of all the selections we have read thus far, those pertaining to the tales of King Arthur have definitely been the most enjoyable. Over the years, through various forms of media from television to movies, I have been exposed to small segments and variations of these infamous tales. At the time, however, I was either oblivious of their origin or unaware of their meaning. One show referred to the fictitious events of King Arthur's time on several occasions. Their was an episode about the Lady of the Lake and the sword Excalibur. At the time I had never even heard of them, which retracted from my understanding of the episode. In elementary school, we read a story in math class about the knights of the round table, but once again I was uninformed of its meaning. After reading "Sir Gawain and the Lady Ragnell," I connected its plot line to that of "Shrek." Prior to reading the story, I assumed the story line was unique to the movie. As I was reading the story and the plot unfolded, I became intrigued to learn the origin of the infamous tale. Of all the elements, I definitely enjoy learning of the challenges and tests the characters must overcome the most. They create a sense of suspense as I am reading, while teaching a valuable and familiar lesson. My favorite challenge was when sir Gawain had to discover what women wanted more then anything. As it turned out it was the power of sovereignty, which I feel was extremely progressive for the time in which the tale originated. Not only did he orally learn this lesson, but he was also conspicuously taught it when he allowed Lady Ragnell to decide for herself whether she wanted to be hideous by day or night."You have answered well, dearest Gawain, for your answer has broken Gromer's evil spell completely" ("Sir Gawain and the lady Ragnell"). Because he gave her the power to exercise her own will, treating her as an equal, her broke the curse and made her beautiful all the time, rewarding both her and himself. Not only are these feats interesting to see unfold and challenging to figure out, they teach timeless lessons.

How Beowulf's Desire for Fame Benefitted Everyone

There is no doubt that Beowulf's greatest desire is Fame, "But Beowulf longed only for fame, leaped back into battle. He tossed his sword aside, angry; the steel-edged blade lay where he'd dropped it. If weapons were useless he'd use his hands, the strength in his fingers. So fame comes to men who mean to win it and care about nothing else! He raised his arms and seized her by the shoulder; anger doubled his strength, he threw her to the floor" (1528-1538). However, as exemplified in the preceding quote, Beowulf's desire for fame is what enabled him to defeat Grendel and his mother. It gave him strength when he was injured and the courage to keep fighting. Without this strong drive to achieve fame, Beowulf would not have been able to defeat Grendel and save the Danish people. Beowulf's quest for fame also resulted in many other favorable outcomes, "You've turned Danes and Geats into brothers, brought peace where once there was war, and sealed friendship with affection" (1855-1857). Because his search for fame helped people rather than hurt them, Beowulf was not selfish to desire it. The thought of fame simply gave him the strength to do what no other warrior could. Without his need for fame and glory, Beowulf would never have traveled to Denmark in the first place, and Grendel would still be eating innocent people.

Locked Inside the Walls, But Outside the Family

Despite what his parents and the rest of his family think, Ben is a human like the rest of them. Yet because he fails to fit the description of the "perfect" child, they assume he is dangerous and insist on isolating him from the others. Throughout is childhood, he continually finds himself locked in his bedroom all alone, with no human contact to comfort him. Anger and resentment towards his family slowly build up inside of him, causing his temper tantrums and uncontrollable behavior. Yet he is sill just a child that needs a little love and guidance, instead of his constant seclusion from others. This is why I feel that the fourth cover is the best fit for the novel. It depicts a child (Ben) standing alone inside a window, with a look of boredom and depression on his face. This represents how Ben is barred in his own bedroom when his family does not want to deal with him. "Heavy bars were put in, and there Ben would stand on the sill, gripping the bars and shaking them, and surveying the outside world, letting out his thick raucous cries. All the Christmas holidays he was kept in that room" (Lessing 60). It can also represent how Ben is locked away in an insane asylum where there is no hope for any of the patients. He is also socially secluded because he is different than the other children. Finally, the boy in the picture is yearning for a way out, just like Ben is. Once Ben finds friends among the gang, his time spent at home steadily decreases.

"There's a Bit of the Creature in All of Us" (Schildt)

Victor Frankenstein's creation is commonly referred to as a monster, but this "monster" is intended to be a symbol of human nature, not a killing machine. In the article, "183 years after its literary birth, Mary Shelley's monster lives on," it discusses the intended theme of the novel, "Mary Shelley was not writing about the evils of science and progress... but suffering and loss and pain, the feeling of being ostracized-that I think she knew very well. And I think people have always felt that, and so they can feel for the monster too... There's a bit of the creature in all of us" (Schildt). In the story, the monster experiences real human emotions and strives to attain love, acceptance, and friendship. As with humans, the absence of these things causes great despair and can lead to violence. The article describes how these human emotions dictate the creature's actions, "Their creation intentionally hurt only those who tormented him, and wanted nothing more than love and beauty. When he saw a sunbeam for the first time, he reached for it in rapture; when he accidentally killed a child, he screamed in uncomprehending anguish" (Whitty). In the novel the monster is not accepted by humans because of his repulsive appearance. He feels alone because he has no friends, even his creator despises him. To fill the hole in his heart, he requests Victor make him a mate that will accept him for who he is. He is desperate and alone, so he turns to violence when his request is denied. Human emotions are strong and can dictate ones actions. Loneliness and anger can lead to envy and hate, as exemplified through the creature. "I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind" (Shelley 134).

Like the creature, any human would become enraged and violent if they had no friends, and were rejected by everyone. Besides clothing, shelter, and food, the essentials of life are friendship, fun, and love. The monster lacks all of these things, and is therefore miserable. Because the creature's appearance is unusual, no one accepts him, even though he is kind at heart. This shows that you should not judge people by the way they look, but rather by what is inside. As Schildt suggests, everyone has a little monster inside of them, which can influence ones actions especially when they are overcome by these feelings of hate, loneliness, jealousy, and despair. The effects of pain and suffering are the main theme of Shelley's novel Frankenstein. It may have been science that gave life to the creature, but it was human emotions that created the monster.

Where Do You Draw the Line Between Right and Wrong?

In my opinion, a good book is defined as not only something that makes you think, but something that makes you question those thoughts and the opinions that created them. As Mary Shelley's story Frankenstein unfolds, many controversial topics arise pertaining to both the novel and society in general. These thought provoking topics can make you question your opinions and even your own values. In the story Victor gives life to this human like creature. It has a human body, a human brain, and even a human heart, yet it is capable of superhuman actions, "...I could have torn him limb from limb, as the lion rends the antelope" (Shelley 124). The creature uses this strength to kill innocent human beings out of revenge for Victor, feeling no compassion or sorrow towards his victims. So is this creature human? Some humans are murderers, but their actions are considered inhuman, so are they truly human? What exactly defines a human, is it the physical and biological makeup; or the inner workings of compassion, love, and the ability to think on a higher level? Also, did Victor have the right to give life to this creation? He may have had good intensions when he started the project, hoping to make a scientific breakthrough explaining life itself, yet he was aware that his creation would not be perfect, "My operations might be incessantly baffled, and at last my work be imperfect..." (Shelley 39). Does he and the rest of the scientific community have the right to experiment with human life, knowing that things could go wrong? Like Victor's experiment, cloning and stem-cell research have become very controversial topics because they deal with the very delicate life of humans. Because it is for the benefit of society, I believe that justifies these experiments. But the line must be drawn when Victor is overcome by pride and decides to create an eight foot superhuman just because he can.

Another commonly debated aspect of the story is what should Victor do in response to the creature's violent actions and demanding threat, "My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create" (Shelley 133). Knowing how the first creature turned out and the the damage it is capable of, it is morally wrong for Victor to even consider creating another creature. However, the creature possesses great animosity towards human kind, "... Should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No; from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery" (Shelley 126), and the only way to reason with the creature and prevent it from killing other humans is to give it a female mate. Yet if he makes this female companion, it would be extremely unpredictable and could end up causing more damage than the first creature. Either way, Victor is putting human lives in danger, and the only way to solve that would be to kill the creature. But does he have the right to kill the creature that he gave life to? People give life to babies and it is morally wrong to even consider hurting a baby. Abortions are even a controversial topic and the babies are not even born. Yet unlike the creature, babies are innocent and have not murdered anyone. So is it right to kill someone if they have murdered others purposely? The debate of whether Victor has the right to kill his creation, brings up the controversy of the electric chair and other forms of punishment by death. And finally the question of who is the true monster, Victor or his creation, arises. Because the story creates all these controversial topics that cause the reader to rethink their opinions and draw a line between right and wrong, Frankenstein, in my opinion is a great novel.