The Upsets of Tranquility

The natural and supernatural has always intrigued the most intelligent minds. The natural is the normal, while the supernatural is the abnormal. Science fiction brings these two elements to the same realm. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein brings about this horrific symbol of mankind’s desire to master nature and the extent of the imaginative mind by confining these factors into the main protagonist Victor Frankenstein’s creature’s existences. These factors are extremely significant, especially during times of extraordinary scientific advances in many fields.

            Human beings had long sought to conquer nature and be their own masters. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein along with other characters has expressed or referenced thoughts in mythical and religious terms. By doing this, these characters are ultimately implying that they're own creation and lives seems to reflect characters from mythologies and religions, ultimately stressing control much like a godlike being. As Frankenstein’s ambitious creation expressed to the doctor, “I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel”(Shelley, 77). The remarks about Adam, a known figure in the first book in the Christian Holy Bible, seems to expressed frankly that Dr. Frankenstein is the creator of life just as the Christian God was to the Adam character. Adam is often the symbol of mankind’s honest beginnings in the Genesis stories, so using Adam in this particular way points out to both the Doctor’s and Creature’s innocent beginnings. Victor Frankenstein created and ultimately “animated” the Creature to life as a mean to satisfied his overwhelming curiosity in his studies. The Creature, alone, had to endure years without Frankenstein to guide him or to nurture him in essence, but instead the Creature was immediately seen as a monster before his creator’s eyes. As Frankenstein remarked to Walton about his reason to reanimate lifeless objects, “No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley, 36). The use of the word “father” suggested a godly figure, especially when the Christian God is regarded as “all of creation’s” father. In this context, Shelley is pointing out to the brutal nature of man as many sought to master nature. Frankenstein, in essence, has master nature with is reanimation of a living corpse.

            The early 17^th century was when the ideas of scientific advances peaked. So much of the scientific advancement ideals are reflected on Victor Frankenstein. Like most early works of science fiction, Shelley is portraying the possible horrific consequences of steadfast scientific advances that could lead to mankind’s very own undoing. Victor Frankenstein established that fact by expressing, “I doubted at first whether I should attempt the creation of a being like myself or one of simpler organization; but my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man”(Shelley, 35). Frankenstein thus claimed that he held back his original idea to animate dead objects, but because of “imagination”, he was motivated to continue his course with the experiment. Frankenstein used the idea that he can create a being as “wonderful as man”. This idea in the early 1800s would be considered sacrilege in a predominantly Christian society, since the idea of creation belongs to the Christian God in this case, not mankind. Victor’s idea of his “ability to give life” is thus consider rather radical in the age of monarchism and religion. Shelley uses this method to bring out the possible horrors of science’s progressiveness in men who possess radical minds. All of these radical fears preside in Victor Frankenstein’s image.

            The portrayal of both Frankenstein and his creature were used as a symbolic method to vaguely represent the social fears during and after the time period. The mix of both radicalism and religious imagery produces this horrific product that acts like all men, but his origins was a true upset of nature’s tranquility. In essence, the creature would be considered as unnatural as his creator’s mind is.

           

           

 Word count: 556

Courtesy of brusimm.com

The advancement of science has inspired many science fiction stories and films. In particular is the nuclear horror, Godzilla, where a mutant creature from the prehistoric era suddenly reappears in Japanese waters to trample over major cities. Just because Godzilla is a prehistoric creature doesn't make him science fiction, but it's his origins that does. The story goes on to explain that Godzilla was a product of mankind's ignorant use of nuclear weapons. Both resulting in environmental damages and untold consequences that man isn't willing to accept. Similar to Frankenstein's creature's origins, it's a ultimate upset of nature's tranquility as neither specimen should exist in the first place. The natural world has many methods for equilibrium. The food chain, the cycle of life, and the cycle of terrain. An upset would be when these are all disturbed. Godzilla sets a city ablaze and Frankenstein's monster was made from dead human parts. 

The irony of arguments

Irony, the use of contradicting language to express certain meanings, usually is a essential part in many stories and poetry. It takes the form of organization and vague sense. But when a more in depth analysis is performed, these ironic expressions are essential to the content of the written work as a whole. Take for example, John Donne’s “The Flea”, here, the poem describes a flea and perhaps an argument between two individuals. However, only one individual is really speaking in this continuous monologue. “The Flea” marks an ironic method of deceit from both the speaker’s side and the form of the entire work.

            The speaker of the poem alludes to the audience that he, only assuming that it’s a male in the early 17^th century, is trying to engage in some unconventional sexual act with another counterpart. “A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead” (line 6, Donne). What’s ironic about the speaker’s statement to justify pre-martial sexual conduct is how a flea is used to relate to all of his arguments. Another issue is with line 6, the speaker clearly stated how by performing this unconventional sexual conduct would not result in sinning, shame from either side and effectively loss of maidenhead, which is another word for virginity. Reasonably speaking, the speaker already mentioned that the flea and his counterpart’s maidenhead is simply as insignificant, so in essence, the speaker negated his own argument by stating indirectly that one’s maidenhead is important. Especially when it was mentioned along with sin that it wouldn’t be of loss after the conduct.

            Deceit is a heavy element within this poem. As the speaker tries to convince a receiver to engage in some sexual misconduct, assuming it’s pre-martial sexual intercourse, he progressively uses certain arguments that are both deceitful in reason and also ironic in nature.  After the receiver supposedly kills the “flea”, the speaker counters by saying, “Just so much honor, when thou yield’st to me, Will waste, as this flea’s death took life from thee” (lines 26-7).  The speaker is assuming that the receiver would eventually submit to the speaker’s demands as she has killed the bonding between them. The ironic nature is that there was no bonding to begin with. Since the female receiver seems to have rejected the speaker’s demand as evidenced from the speaker’s alternation in stanza 3, thus therefore no such bonding occur in any point of the poem. The speaker points the contrary to promote guilt in the speaker’s supposed actions. Moreover, this is an example of the level of deceit used along with ironic characteristics to convince the receiver into accepting the speaker’s wishes.

            The use of both irony and deceit to justify a violation of social protocol has made an almost convincing argument. The entire structure of the poem is well written and organized. Similar to the definition for irony, the poem follows a pattern, a form of organization. Each of the three stanzas holds nine lines. The organization occurs both in the external level and internal. Internal is the actual content of the poem. Each attempt and change in argument is what separates each stanza. However the last few lines of the second stanza is where the speaker’s arguments turn to blame. Thus the use of irony and deceit ultimately failed to convince or yet in this case, deceive the receiving individual.

           

Courtesy of youtube.com <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrJYwOhv9sg>

This episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation underlines the poetic use of irony and deceit. As our main protagonist Captain Picard attempts to act like he's once again a Borg, cybernetic beings who overtake individuals and add them into their collective, effectively eliminating individuality. Picard is doing so that he can see if the Borg they captured would react in a certain way. However what's striking is the Borg, whom claim to possess only a collective mind actually have individuality as they each have a "Designation". Ironically these seems to contradict all of what they stand for.

"YouTube - Picard and Hugh - Star Trek the next Generation." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Alessberg, 05 Dec. 07. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrJYwOhv9sg>.


Word count: 664

Order vs. Chaos

     A common reoccurring phenomenon in the natural world and the universe, chaos and order appears everywhere. Even the universe began with a big bang that created everything from nothing and in the mist of chaos came order. This chaos-order relationship occurs everywhere even within human society. The study of humanities such as literature reflects such issues and topics. Greek tragedies portray the gods as the order keepers, but as literature is traced down to the 20th century or what scholars called the modern age, literature starts to reflect such relationship unintentionally to the audience. Since literature tends to reflect conflicts and problems of it's time. It's reasonable to assume that it's a doorway to the thought and ideas of the past. Sylvia Plath's "The Applicant" showcases an individual presumed to be a man due to later stanzas, accept to portray the order and chaos relationship though an individual's lack of material and ultimately a fundamental question of need is being asked over and over by an unknown speaker. Plath’s usage of both poetic format and the monologue from the unknown speaker reflects this chaos-order relationship within the 60’s social thought.           

  Plath uses many notions in “The Applicant” that indicates a continuous chaotic bombardment of questions and suggestions. The question, “Will you marry it?” (Plath 15) was continuously used by the speaker. Notice, how the question distinctively uses the word “it” rather than he or she, suggesting the object is inanimate. However, a question that uses the word “marry” usually indicates a strong attachment to be made usually with other person. What contributes to the chaos of the entire poem is how the speaker suggested different inanimate objects continuously throughout the entire aspect of the poem. But what stands as chaotic and confusing is a possible reference in the third stanza about someone who would “bring teacups and roll away headaches”(13), but the speaker still referred to this possible person as an “it” even though it could be a person. So why does this speaker refer to every object, regardless of an animate or inanimate one, as an “it”. The answer lies within the 60’s thought, a person is imperfect and thus needs to obtain inanimate and animate items to be regarded as perfect, even though animate items can also be a spouse. In essence, the speaker’s capitalist free market ideology brings confusion and chaos into the poem and to the receiver as well.

            In the ensuring chaos, Plath used a uniform way of writing “The Applicant”, the entire poem except for the second stanza, is completely comprised of five lined stanzas that focused on different needs. And almost all the stanzas end with an enjambment. “How about this suit ----“(21) and “Black and stiff, but not a bad fit”(22) shows enjambment being used as a way to switch subjects, but continue onto another stanza. This pattern repeats throughout the poem. As a recurring aspect of this chaos-order relationship, Plath showcases a confusing, but organized form of need on the receiver’s end. The speaker asked the receiver about needing a suit, jewelry for his possible wife or someone close, “teacups” that’ll “shut your [his] eyes at the end” (16-7),  and other items with the question “Will you marry it” constantly asked towards the end of his suggestions. Plath used this to reflect the social thoughts of the 60s. The need to have what one lacks, but this in essence brought upon questions from the reader and also confusion for the receiving end of these questions/suggestions. 

Courtesy of mathworld.wolfram.com. These are basic shapes used in heavy numbers to mimic a similar shape. However, when one looks at it, it appears complicated, confusing, and even chaotic. But in the end, it's simplicity rather than complexity. Much like Plath's organized method to describe a chaotic time period of consumerism and questions. Mathworld highlights how simple shapes could be used to form essentially the same shapes using a large quality of it's smaller versions, however the results look web like and confusing compare to the simple 2D shapes of which it's made from.  

Word Count: 679