Slavery and Identity in Beloved

This is such an interesting novel; I have read the whole book already, and I am astonished at how deep this book really is. Discussions of death and spirits, slavery and violence all tied together in one telling story. I knew this book was known to be really strong and significant in the time period it came out within... now I know why!

Slavery obviously has the main role within this book, as almost all of the characters discussed had some experience personally with slavery, and all the other characters are affected by it because of everyone around them who were forced to endure slavery. The devastation of slavery affects Sethe very heavily: with her children, her husband, her mother, and her "friend" Paul D. Sethe desperately tries to keep her past in slavery away from Denver, noting that "as for Denver, the job Sethe had of keeping her from the past that was still waiting for her was all that mattered" (42).

Paul D in particular has incredible difficulties with his history in slavery, as he eventually shuts down large parts of his head and heart, as his traumatizing experience as a slave, and subsequent prison experience horribly affects how he sees the world around him, and the people around him as well. He even tries to help Sethe recover from the past, and says he’ll catch her if she falls (46). He questions his own manhood as well at some points in the novel (128) and looks to Sethe to help him feel more whole again, as he asks her to have a baby with him to justify his manhood.

The entire concept of identity is just trampled upon in this novel, as almost every single character has issues with his or her identity, and have some sort of self-loathing or regret about something going on in their life or in their past. Denver always has a strange relationship with Beloved, where she can’t stand being away from her, but often feels lonely and rejected by her because "When her mother was around, Beloved has eyes only for Sethe" (121). Oftentimes, while characters are striving to find themselves in this book, they look to communities and others in their family for help, as Sethe always looks to her children for reassurance, Paul D. looks for reassurance from Sethe, and Baby Suggs helps the community with her preachings on the rock… community seems to help characters feel more whole and give them somewhat of a better understanding of themselves, as well.

Final Proposal!!

For my final project, I was leaning towards doing a creative project, and possibly a collage or photography or portrait type project, where I would be comparing the various depictions of vampires from Dracula and Interview with the Vampire that we’ve discussed in class. I plan on comparing and contrasting the depictions of how vampires look and act, thus defining the differences between the “Old” and “New” vampires. My goal in this project is to show the transition and transformation of the idea and visual picture of what a vampire looks like, and how all the characteristics have changed over the years and stories written about these creatures.

To start this project, I would review each book’s/author’s description of their main vampires: namely, Count Dracula within Dracula and Louis of Pointe du Lac in Interview. After organizing that evidence, I would attempt, in my own interpretation, to put together a visual depiction of what the vampires would look like. Probably using posterboard, and various pictures (whether cut out of magazines or printed off my computer), I could organize these pictures to symbolize what these characters could look like, and how they differ. I would explore why the authors created the characters to look this way, and what the importance could be of the metamorphosis.

Oftentimes, the society around a person at a certain time period has a large impact on what a person dresses and acts like; the big question I’d like to answer, also, is are vampires products of their social environment and history? Or are they timeless beings that are idealistic and historically significant? Within Dracula, we can see that he does not try to be a human, or redeem himself in any way, however, we do not see him as a “young vampire,” thus are unable to make judgments about what he tried to do early on in his “vampire life.” Louis of Point du Lac, on the other hand, gives us his full story firsthand, and implores upon us that he has tried to humanize himself and truly find out if he is damned, and if his soul is intact or completely shrunken and destroyed. By seeing Louis’ process through life as a vampire, we get a more modern picture of what it “was like” for him, and the challenges he had to go through, especially with certain surroundings impacting his life. Dracula, as well, is an interesting character, as, after awhile, he seems to completely control all around him, acting very confident and poised at all times with the other characters. The differences between these two vampires can shed light onto the time period they are both portrayed within, and how that time period affected the vampires themselves, as well as other people living at the time the stories were released.

I am very interested in where my project will lead me, and what else I can learn about the cyclical creation of vampires throughout history, as well as what various authors view most important in creating their personalities, physical characteristics, wants, and how they are socially impacted by people and customs of their time.

Interview With The Vampire

I definitely see major differences between how vampires are portrayed within Interview with The Vampire compared to Dracula... While in Dracula, we see the Count as a very poised, confident, aristocratic type of vampire, very old and seemingly knowledgeable about parts of the world and kinds of people, etc., in Interview, we see a very different portrayal of vampires. Louis is a very thought-provoking character, as he stays very much in touch with his "human nature" even after he becomes a vampire. It's quite interesting that he does this, as before he turned into a vampire, he describes himself as: "I drank all the time and was at home as little as possible. I lived like a man who wanted to die but who had no courage to do it himself... I backed out of two dues more from apathy than cowardice and truly wished to be murdered..." (11). While Count Dracula is very alluring in a Victorian sense, that he has a mansion, is intelligent, and is sometimes even portrayed as "sexy," Louis and the other vampires in Interview are portrayed in another light. One of the first things I noticed was that they never seem to get older, obviously I know they're immortal, but Louis describes the faces of vampires as soft and wrinkle-free sometimes. It's interesting that they can contain their human characteristics they had in life within their un-dead bodies as vampires.

Also, Count Dracula is viewed completely as a monster, with little or no friends, and many are actually afraid of him, and cower by the sight of him. On the contrary, vampires like Louis, Lestat, and Claudia seem to lure humans in because of their intense beauty and their seemingly sensual personalities. These attributes allow us to almost not hate them as much; Louise seems to have feelings, unlike many other vampires, that humans share, and this causes him much trouble throughout the entirety of the book. On pages 85 and 86, for example, when Lestat is toying with some prostitutes' lives, drinking their blood, scaring them, and leaving them to die, Louis demands he stop, as he cannot stand to be in the room while he did this to human women. Lestat tells him, "You can stand it!... You're a vampire the same as I am!" This is a very bold statement, as we come to find that Louis is very UNLIKE all of the vampires we see in this incredibly enticing novel.

Dr. Seward's Significance

I think Dr. Seward is one of the most interesting characters in the novel, as his stories and journal entries give us much insight into the vampire world, without even realizing it at first. His main patient, Renfield, has a strong connection to Count Dracula, and exhibits vampire-like qualities throughout his stay at the insane asylum. It is interesting how the two vampires are described, as Renfield and Dracula seem very different from one another, one completely disgusting and desperate for his master, always mumbling to he who obviously cannot hear him (96), and the other seriously independent, poised, and intelligent about what his life consists of. By placing Renfield in the insane asylum, we are able to see what could happen to a "free-spirited" vampire when they are confined, especially separated from human blood they need as sustenance. Renfield consumes living creatures, such as flies, spiders, and sparrows, and Seward classifies him as a "zoophagous"- or a "life-eating" maniac, and is described as wanting to "absorb as many lives as he can" (71). This fiendish desire tells us much about the true nature of vampires, but how it can be stifled and contorted if the vampire is imprisoned and unable to get human blood. Dr. Seward's role of reporting what happens with Renfield is a crucial one, especially since he is within the confines of an insane asylum, and seems to have a pretty clear divide between himself and his patients: Seward sees life very scientifically, in black and white. His desire to classify Renfield immediately after he arrives tells us that even if Seward doesn't understand something, he needs to give it a scientific name in order for it to make any sense in his mind.

It is also interesting/ ironic that Lucy does not choose Seward as her husband, and that, if she had, he possibly could have helped her more because he is a scientist, and could have seen connections between what was happening to her and what he observed with Renfield...... Finally, Arthur Holmwood has to write to Dr. Seward asking him to examine Lucy (104).

Healthcliff and Catherine

Emily Bronte does such an incredible job at capturing the essence of what a love-hate relationship can possibly be like, between her characters of Heathcliff and Catherine. When Heathcliff first comes into the Earnshaw family, Catherine and her brother Hindley were very jealous of and resented Heathcliff, as he soon became Mr. Earnshaw's new favorite son. After awhile, however, Catherine falls in love with him, and they become inseparable playmates. I think that Catherine, being raised by her parents and surrounded only by "proper," "clean," and "feminine" ways of life (ways she ought to act), doesn't realize what she's missing out on, until she meets Heathcliff. He's described as a "dirty, ragged, black-haired child; big enough to walk and talk- indeed, its face looked older than Catherine's- yet when it was set on its feet, it only stared round and repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand" (29). Catherine was probably never taught to want to play with dirty "gipsy brats" (29) like Heathcliff, so when her father accepted him into the house, she didn't know how to react. When she realized that Heathcliff was different from the rest of her family, and almost had a certain alluring element to him, she couldn't stop her desire to be with him all the time. It's fascinating, especially in children, the desire humans have to want what they cannot have. Catherine cannot have what Heathcliff has, and so she and her brother Hindley are jealous of him; he seems to have some kind of freedom (as we discussed in class) that Catherine longs for in life.

However, when she is approached with the decision of who to marry, she defaults back to what she believes is "safe," and decides to marry Edgar, whom her parents and the townspeople would approve of. Here, she seems to lack self-confidence, or as people in class described it, "just wanted what she wanted, and that's that"... But I think she's actually a very smart girl, in this situation. Yes, she's desperately in love with Heathcliff, but she probably cannot trust herself to be with a person who is unacceptable and so incredibly straying from the norm of who she should marry and be in love with. She even says that "my love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath- a source of little visible delight, but necessary" (64). Catherine seems to embody what we all might feel deep within ourselves; wanting what we can't have. It wouldn't make sense for her to marry someone who has no social status, and has no authority over anything, while Edgar has ultimate authority over Thrushcross Grange when his parents die. Little does Catherine know that Heathcliff ends up having power and authority over all of Thrushcross Grange AND Wuthering Heights.

It's just a shame that many of us (including Catherine) aren't able to follow our dreams/hearts because we know we won't come out as successful in the end. Catherine really is level-headed, I believe, but it's very saddening that she cannot be with the one who she loves, and instead has to deliberate and "pick" the smartest marriage during this time.

Spivak's Essay about Frankenstein

Initially, I was somewhat confused after reading the entirety of this essay, as the author proposes many philosophical and literary allusions that I had otherwise been unaware of. However, after a second read-through, I think I can grasp some of the major ideas better...

Spivak first intimates that it is absolutely crucial to remember that "the role of literature in the production of cultural representation should not be ignored" (262). This, to me, means that literature has a huge impact on how we view society, as well as how we define ourselves as a culture, and even as individuals. If we ever separate the two notions, Spivak believes we can never truly understand ourselves, let alone the literature we are reading. I think this is incredibly eloquent and a great way of viewing literature; I know from my personal experience that every time I finish reading something, I walk away from it feeling different... changed in some way... I love that feeling that a book, a simple story, can have on me in my everyday life and how I approach certain situations.

Spivak continues by explaining an absolutely fascinating notion about the three main characters (not including the monster). He parallels the lives and roles of these characters as "Kant's three-part conception of the human subject: Victor Frankenstein, the forces of theoretical reason or "natural philosophy;" Henry Clerval, the forces of practical reason or "the moral relations of things;" and Elizabeth Lavenza, that aesthetic judgement--"the aerial creation of the poets..." (264). This notion of a three-part human subject is absolutely intriguing to me, as I never really saw the three characters in that way. Frankenstein, as we've discussed in class, obviously has an affinity for natural philosophy and science. Henry Clerval, especially along his travels with Frankenstein, always had a conscience that we heard from often, requesting that they continue traveling, or that he had a bad feeling about something. And Elizabeth was clearly the aesthetic character, as she was the only person that truly made Frankenstein, a possibly senseless and feeling-less character, have feelings of passion, other than towards his affairs in science. Elizabeth had the moral reasoning, and seemed to reinforce the ideas of knowing right from wrong, especially during times when Victor was looking for help/ an answer to his problems.

While the rest of this essay has more key points and interesting parallels and aspects, I find this one to be most intriguing.

Education in Frankenstein

I have read Frankenstein many, many times, as we all probably have, in grade school and high school, but this specific time, I actually noticed many more interesting and incredible things about this story; aside from the fact that this book just pours out "Gothic-ness," it also has many brilliant literary aspects as well.

One element that I focused on while reading this book was the significance of education, how a person gets their knowledge, and what they choose to do with this knowledge. In Chapter 2, Volume 1, Victor Frankenstein tells us that chemistry became his passion, and he eventually "succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life" (30). Aside from the fact that this seems impossible at the time, we are led to believe that Frankenstein is ahead of his time, and is an incredibly intelligent person. However, as he tells Captain Walton his story, he confides in him saying, "natural philosophy is the demon that has regulated my fate" (21). This incredibly powerful statement gives us a look into the horror and gruesome situation that Frankenstein is truly in; while he thought he was building something inspirational and futuristic, he quickly realizes soon after that he created a monster.

The monster, on the other hand, learns his methods of life just by observing a family in a home he comes upon, after his master Frankenstein abandons him. He tells Frankenstein that "I found that these people possessed a method of communicating their experiences and feelings to one another by articulate sounds" (74). Just like a child learning to speak for the first time, one needs a model to look up to, in order to mimic actions that will be acceptable in "normal" society. This is heavily studied in the Psychological field, as the model that a person looks up to has a huge impact on how the person develops and learns to interact with the outside world. Clearly, just by observing a group of humans and not being able to talk with them personally, greatly affects the development of the monster, as he never truly learns how to interact with people in a normal situation (especially since he just strangles people when he gets angry!).

Studying the differences between how these two characters learned and grew within their own lives (interestingly, not interacting with one another at all during this time) gives readers a great deal of insight into how the characters' develop and why their characters are the way they are.

Sexuality

One of the reasons why I love reading The Monk is because of all the explicit language and activities described within it; I just give Matthew Lewis so much credit for discussing the previously "undiscussed" and talking about the absolute taboo topic of his time. While this book was seen as a disgrace and "dirty" in many eyes, I see it as refreshing, yet still grotesquely twisted.

Obviously, there are always people who are completely against the Catholic church, and there are people who are eternally devoted to it; Matthew Lewis, in an odd way, I think, is somewhere in between. He obviously disses the role of priests, as we see with his depiction of Ambrosio, himself, as he gives himself seemingly too easily to the sexual desires of much younger Matilda. Brilliantly, Lewis sets Ambrosio almost in the same position as a 7-year-old boy, not ever seeing a naked part of a woman, but being full aware that it exists under those clothes. He becomes easily emotionally charged, and is incredibly, and strangely, naive in a situation like this, with blatant sexuality being exposed right before his eyes.

Especially when he speaks to and about the painting he owns of the Virgin Mary, we as readers are called to question his true intentions. Is he being overtly faithful and devout? Or is he pushing those lines too far, and infringing upon lust and desire? Here is where Lewis, in my opinion, does his finest work, as he blends those lines so thinly, that we as readers are called to make distinctions and conclusions for ourselves.

The Gothic in Western Culture Response

Just to start off, I really like that this article explains right away that "gothic" isn't the gothic most people think of, as it states "Gothic fiction is hardly 'Gothic' at all (1). Most often, we think of the word gothic in associations with things like: the color black, the devil, angry people, etc. Gothic writings are actually, for me at least, one of the best genres of books because they seem to incorporate so much of what other branches of genres have now become today. These books have the drama, the excitement, and all kinds of qualities that lure people into the readings and keep them interested throughout the duration of it (at least for me!).

After reading this article, I honestly found my passion and great interest in Gothic novels resurfacing. Being an English major and Psychology minor, these books directly address and incorporate both of my favorite subjects into one style of reading, which makes me want to read even more and analyze these texts deeper than just their surface meanings. This article explains, “the longevity and power of Gothic fiction unquestionably stem from the way it helps us address and disguise some of the most important desires, quandaries, and sources of anxiety, from the most internal and mental to the widely social and cultural, throughout the history of western culture since the eighteenth century” (5). This quote perfectly states everything that Gothic novels are about, as I completely agree with what this author, Hogle, is saying. Taking Frankenstein as the example he used in his article, the Gothic style of writing allows readers to personally become involved, if they so choose, with the characters, and truly experience and witness their anxiety and internal and mental problems and terrors. This brilliant way of writing is perfect for people who are interested in psychology, in this sense.

The article also talks about the Gothic in terms of having the essence of the “seemingly unreal, the alien, the ancient, and the grotesque” (7). Our modern-day ideas of unreal and grotesque often venture off into bloody and gory ideas, while the Gothic, in my opinion, incorporates these elements in completely tasteful and alluring ways. Take Frankenstein again: he is a completely disgusting looking, sounding, and acting creature, without being all gory and murderous, as current movies and ideals might make him out to be. Gothic writers create these creatures almost in a way that pulls at our heart strings, making us wonder and become even more curious of the world we do not know yet. Also, we could see these characters in comparison to ourselves, and notice similarities and differences between us, making the Gothic stories seemingly self-reflective, as well.

If I could ask a Gothic writer any question, I would probably just ask “where do you get your inspirations?” I am more of a critical and analytical writer, so creative writing is difficult for me to do. Gothic writing is so imaginative, and yet so incredibly brilliant in terms of the psychological concepts it employs and introduces. I am almost always impressed with the Gothic literature I read, as it has a certain element that other genres of books do not have, which always intrigues me as a reader.