Dickens

Having read and hated Great Expectations as a freshman in high school, I still have had a difficult time getting into it for the second read. I find it humorous, especially the jokes about Uncle Pumblechook asking Pip to constantly add numbers (and sixteen!). I also like the way that Dickens creates Pip's childlike imagination. The narration and vocabulary reminds me very much of my childhood, when I was still in awe of the world. And of course, we see the modern idea of social inequality, especially at the dinner table. That's all I have for now, but will have more to say once I get more into it.

Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and a kind ain't satisfied til he rules everything

It is interesting to see the development of a passion in the miser. Money, to me, is a medium of exchange. It is not the object of the desire, but merely a way of obtaining what I desire. If I desire a grand piano, I have to work hard to earn money to pay for it. So in a sense, I don't work for the paycheck, but I work for the piano. In Grandet's case, he does not use his money and gold as a medium of exchange. He actually desires the money, which has no other commodity value. He sits for hours locked in his vault, just staring at and admiring his gold. When he is dying, he asks Eugenie to show him some gold. His passion for money seems misguided, because he uses his money very little. In fact, for all real world purposes, he has very few material desires. It could be said that his only desire is to diminish his desires.
Although people in the world today still have a passion for money, a lot of them really have a passion for desire. Yes they love money, but they love money because it lets them buy a fancy car, and a big house, and join the country club, etc... Money is a means to achieve certain desires. Money also becomes a way to achieve sexual desires. Women are attracted to a man with a big wallet. But Grandet again seems very disinterested in sex, and shows very little compassion towards his wife. "All engrossing passions increase in strength with time: and all who devote their lives to one overruling idea, so observers note, whether they be misers or simply ambitious men, cling with the whole force of their imagination to one symbol of their passion (208)." So the way I see it, Grander is obsessed with the symbol of his passion or money. But the ironic thing, is that the symbol is this case represents nothing else. With his money, Grandet still lives in a small house, and gives very small allowances to his wife and daughter. The symbol becomes the object of his passsions.

You may say that I'm a dreamer... But I might be the only one?

"Misers hold no belief in a life beyond the grave, the present is all in all to them. (126)" This line hit home for me about the power of tangibles in the world. People have a difficult time grasping what cannot be shown to them, especially the conservative business types. Abstract ideas, whether it be artistic or a concept of an afterlife, have little meaning to them. If an object is not immediately available to the senses, its essense can only exist in the mind, and some imaginations are stronger than others. In this era of modernity, importance in society is being put upon the senses, as visible in Frankenstein, where Victor wanted to create a tangible being. This theme is more prominent in a more "realistic" novel like Eugenie Grandet. This issue in modernity brings out the constant struggle of the "realist" vs. the "idealist," which is a dominant strugle in literature in characters like Don Quixote vs. Sancho, Emma vs. Mr. Knightley, Victor vs. Society and now Grandet vs. Eugenie.
Grandet lives in a realist world. He wants things now, namely money. He cannot grasp an 'idea' as powerful as money, or something tangible is to him. Eugenie is seeing the impact of an idea, in this case love. She starts to see the world differently, noting its distinct beauty. As someone with an artist's heart, I find more power in ideas. But our society at times is not ready for the fantasy, the ideas, the creations. Victor tried to create the ultimate idea: a living being, but immediately shunned it because he knew society would deem the being ugly and unfit. All you have to do is look out of your window in Manhattan to see the how important 'reality' is, how important it is to accumulate material things (I live in the Financial District). This is the ultimate warning of Rousseau: society and civilization teaches us to live in the now, to only envision a world that is present to us, which in this case is seen in the miser that is Grandet. Today, as we move forward in society and civilization, it comes as no surprise to me that the percentage of atheism in America is growing.

Frankenstein Musical Journey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1mV_5-bRPo

This is Edgar Winter Group's Frankenstein. There are no lyrics, and I've always loved the song, but I think I have a better appreciation for the song now that I've read the book.

Frankenstein and God

Although I am sure I am not the first person to come to this conclusion, I find too many themes in Frankenstein that parallel the concept of Christianity to not at least talk about it on this blog. First, the underlying conflict throughout this book is simple: man knows nothing and is constantly trying to know everything, but will never successfully do so. For Walton and Frankenstein, there is a void that humanity cannot fill. They both look to pursue knowledge and adventure in their own ways. For Walton, that involves leading a dangerous journey through the unexplored depths of the north, and for Frankenstein it involves battling science for what is and is not possible. Frankenstein wants to know it all; wants to have the powers of God. For in this reading, I understand that Frankenstein believes a God exists. And what, for him, is God's greatest power? That of creation. It was God's vision, imagination, and creativity which gave form to the world we live in. As humans, we have very little creative power. Although we can be creative in an artistic way, and can procreate our species, our imagination cannot simply make something in the mind appear in reality. Victor sets out to prove this wrong. He has an idea in his mind, and makes that thing tangible in reality, thus playing the role of God.
Frankenstein is the creator and master of his wretch. From the inner thoughts of the monster, we see that he is troubled to live in the world of humans. Is this not completely parallel with God's creation of mankind? We have moments of compassion and love, like the wretch feels for the hovel inhabitants, but we also feel neglected and at times angry, often leading to acts of violence. How prominent is war throughout our history? We still use technology today to find better ways of murdering one another. Frankenstein gives into his angry emotions and takes the lives of Justine, William, Clerval, and Elizabeth, but in the end repents to Walton and says he feels complete shame for what he has done.
In one final parallel to the bible, Frankenstein's (in this paragraph, Frankenstein refers to the wretch) life, at points, alludes towards the life of Jesus. First, Jesus was born of a miracle, and without a biological father. Frankenstein is truly "born" without a mother or father, to the miracle created by Victor, who is reluctant to tell his secret. Jesus was human, but also something else... something beyond humanity. Frankenstein shares the same characteristics: he is human in that he speaks the same language as us, and his mind operates and thinks cognitively like a human, but he is inhuman in his incredible and unnatural form, and his physical capabilities. Both Frankenstein and Jesus are neglected in society, and at times put to shame. Frankenstein has moments of passionate rage, similar to when Jesus is enraged and throws tables outside the temple. Frankenstein's rage is obviously much more uncontrollable, for Jesus never did anything to hurt anyone. In the end, both Frankenstein and Jesus' lives on earth end because the human society simply cannot accept their presence. In a sense, Victor created Frankenstein to live in a world where he was ultimately unwelcome, just as God created Jesus to live in a world that ultimately was not ready to accept Him either, making the two of them outcasts in the same world.
"(Adam) had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator... Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me (163)." Man is flawed, and is not perfect, and that is why we were not given the ability to create life from our imagination.

the true savage

When the monster finally tells his maker his story, I see the truest version of the savage man trying to live in society. Victor had already admitted that "If our impulses were confined to hunger, thirst, and desire, we might be nearly free (121)." This is a thread that runs throughout Rousseau. But this theme is even stronger in the wretch. When he is abandoned by Victor, he is left alone as an ugly, savage being. He learns the keys to survival in nature while he is in the woods, where he tries to emulate the beautiful sounds of a bird chirping: "Sometimes I wished to express my sensations in my own mode, but the uncouth and inarticulate sounds which broke from me frightened me into silence again (129)." Throughout his monologue, I see the theory of Rousseau at play. He learns to take shelter, and calls the hovel his own property, eventually learns to use language, and finally uses his imagination to think about how he can approach the cottagers without scaring them. He also only learns of his true ugliness when he starts to watch the cottagers. "I had admired the perfect forms of my cottagers - their grace, beauty, and delicate complexions; but how was I terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool! (142) In this sense, he is truly looking at himself through the eyes of the other. He has internalized the norms of the human culture around him, and has deemed himself ugly.

Thoughts on Emma Part 1

Through much of Volume one, I find one repeating theme: people who are obsessed with what society expects of them. In Werther and Adolphe, I saw people who were trying to fit in with society. Emma is an exception. Many of the characters in this novel are identified solely by how society defines them.
Emma takes Harriet under her wings. Harriet is significantly lower on the social totem pole than is Emma. When Harriet is offered marriage by Mr. Martin, of middle class, society expects that she will accept the offer. Mr. Knightley as well supports this decision. But Emma has her choose against society. Emma wants her to have her marry into a higher class. Emma's sole purpose in life seems to be to prove society wrong. She wanted deeply to prove to Hartfield that Mr. Weston can and will marry again, even though everyone thought he never would. Emma wants to show her town that Harriet can marry into a higher class, even if society shuns it.
Mr. Knightley does not approve of Mr. Elton as a sufficeint suitor for Harriet because his manners are weak. He is constantly looking at people in light of how they are viewed in society. He says that the Churchills were never shown in a good light, but that Mr. Weston is "depending, I suspect, much more upon what is called society for his comforts (93)."

Thoughts on Adolphe

Adolphe struggles with the same problem that Werther struggled with. Both men, whether knowingly or ignorantly, conjure up insatiable visions and creations of a woman in their minds. Their imaginations completely take over their realities, and they begin to live only in their imaginations. The first support of this I see in Adolphe is when Ellenore takes her first long vacation to see friends, and Adolphe is unsure of when she will return. When he finally receives word that she is returning, his imaginations gets to work: “I visualized her smiling as I came up to her at the way in which a short absence had calmed a young hothead’s effervescence… the vision of her was floating before my eyes, holding sway over my heart. (52)”
The creation of Ellenore as a forbidden love began in Adolphe’s imagination. He even says that he was looking for some sort of game; some sort of woman who was worthy of his efforts. Because Ellenore was already married and had children, his quest would be that much more worthy. This unhealthy and obsessive love that Adolphe feels is more towards an image of Ellenore in Adolphe’s mind than it is towards Ellenore in reality. Thus, Adolphe creates Ellenore as he pleases.
Later, when he has become dissatisfied with the love affair with Ellenore, Adolphe says that, “We are such unstable creatures that feelings we pretend to have we really do have in the end. (83)” His imagination is so strong and vivid that he creates a world in his mind that would please his father. “The wife suddenly conjured up by my imagination fitted into all these visions and made all such wishes permissible;… and all these things seemed so real, so intensely alive that they made me tremble almost unbearably. (96)”
Because Adolphe is with Ellenore, he cannot satisfy his father. His father wants Adolphe to use his talents and have a wife and family. Adolphe must also have a vivid imagination where he can place himself in a world with a wife where he can please his father, like shown in the quote above.
The most important observation from this book is the distinction between reality and the imagination. As I have tried to show before, Adolphe created this divine-like vision of Ellenore in his mind. The fact that their love was forbidden only strengthened his desire for her in his fantasy. But when his fantasy is finally fulfilled, after a short while he comes to realize that Ellenore does not exist in reality as she did in his imagination. Ellenore at one point tries to rekindle Adolphe’s imagination by flirting with many other men in their town. She knows the power of Adolphe’s imagination, but at that point in their relationship, Adolphe has already learned to differentiate (maybe subconsciously) between the two.

Thoughts on Werther

In the opening pages of what seems like an elongated suicide note, I already see a string of logic between Werther and Rousseau. Early on, while discussing his place in society, Werther proclaims that “I know quite well that we are not and cannot ever be equal (8).” He chooses not to explain this sentence as to why he is not as equal as others, but simply takes it as a truth in society. Later on, he also talks of how judgment on others, a concept that Rousseau sees as essential to man’s downfall, is painful and deceiving: “How foolish it is to judge others by oneself. And as I am so preoccupied with myself, and since this heart of mine is so stormy, oh, how gladly would I let others go their way if they would only let me go mine (81).” Although Rousseau spoke about how civilized man looks inward and learns to judge and contrast himself with others, in Werther’s words, we see this concept at play. Werther is haunted to live in a world where he is expected to give off a “shadow on the wall,” according to Plato. And he himself is also expected to judge other shadows on the wall that people have cast.
There are two strong examples that Werther talks about that strengthen Rousseau’s argument that man is most peaceful and happy in his most natured state. He talks of the beauty and ignorance of being a child, and finally proclaims his true feelings, “How limited and happy were the glorious Ancients! How naïve their emotions and their poetry… What is the use of my present knowledge, which I share with any schoolboy, that the earth is round? Man needs only a few clods of earth whereon to enjoy himself, and even fewer for his last rest (97).” Werther here is clearly in nostalgia to live amongst people who do not judge each other and who have no knowledge of societies. In a way, Werther wishes he were more animal like. If he was, he would not know the joys of the love he had for Lotte in the first part of this book. This is an acceptable sacrifice to also not have known the pain associated with his forbidden love for her during the later parts of this book.
In an even stronger example, Werther meets a man in the winter looking for flowers. The man is clearly handicapped, but his mother comes and explains that he was most happy when he was out of his mind. Upon hearing this, Werther says, “When you were happy!... When you felt as carefree as a fish in the water. God in Heaven! Did you make it men’s destiny only to be happy before they come to reason and after they have lost it again? (121)” Again Werther makes an allusion to the naivety and bliss that must only be present in ignorant beings like animals, children, or the insane. Reason and civilized man have the propensity to be deeply troubled and pained, as in the case of Werther.
I find this interesting, because Kant seems to be arguing the exact opposite. Enlightenment for him is “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage.” He even goes as far as to say “Have courage to use your own reason – that is the motto of enlightenment (29).” Kant wants to embrace the use of reason, while Rousseau and the fictional character Werther are deeply haunted by it. Reason alone distinguishes man from beast, that is clear. Although reason creates civilizations and eventually societies as intricate as Manhattan, Rousseau and Werther believe that we are actually venturing farther and farther from what it means to be human, or to be made in the image and likeness of God. Werther claims that this human life became too much for even Jesus Christ himself: “Yet did not the cup become too bitter for the human lips of God’s only Son? Why, then, should I brag and pretend that it tastes sweet to me? (116)” I think what Werther wants to say is that perhaps there would not have been a need for God to send his only son to earth if we had never allowed for the cultivation of reason.

Thoughts on Rousseau's Discourse Part 2

The most intriguing idea that Rousseau brings up for me is the concept that the man of nature is more concentrated on himself, whereas the civilized man is more concentrated on all things external to himself. “Each began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself; and public esteem came to be prized… and this was the first step towards inequality and at the same time towards vice. (114)” Rousseau seems to imply that humans only learned to become cruel, and were not originally cruel. When I first read that line, I immediately thought of all the things I do in expectation, or maybe in hope, that others will see: I make sure my face is clean and shaven, although I will never actually even see my face (except in a mirror or photograph), I make sure I am fully clothed, with all buttons buttoned and all zippers zippered, (nothing seems more embarrassing than someone else noticing your zipper is down), I even take great stakes to decide what shirts and clothes I wear, because that in itself is something I want to show other people. For example, today I am wearing a Beatles shirt. This is significant to me, because I feel that this shirt tells people that I have not conformed to listen to the rap and garbage that has become popularized in music today, but instead choose to listen to classic rock.
Rousseau says that we become obsessed with the appearance we give, and in the process lose sight of what we really were in essence: “It was necessary in one’s own interest to seem to be other than one was in reality (119).” This strengthens his original idea about civilized man looking outward, and again I see a parallel in today’s society. Among college age people, Facebook is becoming a staple of society. The interest, and at points the unhealthy obsession, with Facebook, seems to me that each person can control what others see of them. They are completely aware what pictures of them are available for others to see. They control and create their own unique profile for others to see. Why would I make a list of my interests, favorite music, education info, and photos of me if it was for myself? I surely know all these things about myself. But it is the desire to tell other people what you are about that fuels Facebook. Most importantly, each person is completely aware of what is available for others to see, which is a true perk. When I go out on a weekend, I look in the mirror before I go out, and probably occasionally throughout the night, but I cannot know constantly how I look. With Facebook and Myspace, each person is constantly aware of what others perceive of him or her.
Rousseau goes further, saying that “the savage lives within himself; social man lives always outside himself; he knows how to live only in the opinion of others, it is, so to speak, from their judgment alone that he derives the sense of his own existence (136).” Our whole system of comparing and contrasting, good and bad, vice and virtue, is born out of our first attempt to appeal to others. I think this is Rousseau’s strongest point about the civilization of man. It explains why we sometimes have a tendency to be vain, and to constantly look out for ourselves in selfishness.
However, in general I find Rousseau’s euphoric depiction of the savage man a little overdone. Although the savage man is more likely to choose peace over violence, he clearly cannot identify his first virtue as compassion. He is more animal like, with no reasons to interact with other people. Because he is not inclined to violence, but rather pity, I do not find this sufficient reason to be jealous and nostalgic towards our beginnings. Rousseau’s findings are important and revolutionary in the relation to the ideas of other philosophers at the time. But I would find it hard to believe that anyone in our society would gladly choose to live among savage humans who are less violent and jealous, but also do not have the joys and happiness that is only available in civilized man. The passion of love, he claims, is completely nonexistent in the savage man. This seems to me to be a deterrent, for isn’t love of one another what propels our civilized society to constantly move forward?

Thoughts on Rousseau's Discourse Part 1

One of the points that Rousseau implicitly makes in part one of his discourse is that God’s influence (or some supreme being) is much more prominent in the natural and barbaric state of man. Rousseau does not argue this explicitly, but rather shows many examples of how the savage man is a better representation of being in the ‘image and likeness of God himself’ than the reasoned and civilized man. On page 96-97, he makes a point that suggests that maybe humans didn’t even invent language, but rather discovered it from some divine force. He believes that the notion that language could not have been created by purely human means, and he asks the reader this question: “Which was the more necessary, a society already established for the invention of language, or language already invented for the establishment of society? (96-97)”
He goes on to talk about many of the instincts of the savage man, the heart of which he sees is compassion. He says that all humans and even animals possess some innate sense of pity when another member of their species is suffering. This instinct is stronger with the man of nature, because without language or reason, his primary purpose is to sustain and reproduce his species. With this idea in mind, his concept of ‘love’ is a purely physical one, without any moral attachment. Rousseau then claims that “men must experience the ardours of their temperament less frequently and less vividly and consequently have fewer and less cruel quarrels (103).”
For Rousseau, the changing of the heart of man from a savage and compassionate instinctual being to that of the 18th century man is parallel to the forming of reason: “It is reason which breads pride and reflection which fortifies it; reason which man turns inward toward himself; reason which separates him from everything which troubles or affects him (101).” Through philosophy and reason, man learns to care more for himself than the betterment of the species as a whole. He learns to not feel threatened when another man’s life is at stake. In conclusion of Rousseau’s beliefs: “In instinct alone, man had all he needed for living in a state of nature; in cultivated reason he has what is necessary only for living in society (97).”
For me, Rousseau clearly believes that man was originally created in the image and likeness of God. These compassionate instincts and peaceful ways of life seem to point toward a divine inspiration. Only through the development of culture and socialization have we lost what it meant to be created in the likeness of God; to be truly compassionate beings. We have learned to care more for ourselves than others. One point Rousseau does not touch upon is why the compassion could not go hand in hand with reason. Also, Rousseau makes a lot of judgments and conclusions drawn from savage man, which I am very doubtful of his foundations. How could Rousseau know so much and generalize so much about this ‘savage man?’