Term Two Reading Response

Frankenstein

By Mary Shelley

'Mary and Her Creation' by MirrorCradle on deviantart.

SYNOPSIS

‘Frankenstein’ is about a young man, Victor Frankenstein,  who discovers the how to give life to the inanimate, but it goes terribly wrong.

The book starts with some letters from a man named Robert Walton, who is writing to his sister from his ship on a voyage to the Arctic Wastes. He soon explains that he has come across this strange man, Victor Frankenstein from Switzerland, on the icecaps. He then writes down Victor’s amazing story of love, hate, life, and despair.

Victor was a happy child, with a love for life. But that wasn’t enough, he wanted to create life. So he went to University, created a huge person of old body parts, and animated it. Driven crazy by what he has done, he falls ill, and the creature escapes. Over the course of the book you discover the creatures story as well as Victors. It’s a very depressing, but gripping tale of revenge, written by the genius Mary Shelley, nee Wollsencraft Godwin, when she was eighteen. (There is a bit more to the story then that, but that’s a very condensed version).

CHARACTERS

Victor Frankenstein

Victor is very intelligent, and from a young age was interested in science and what makes life. He is intense, and if an idea comes to his mind, he will not let it go. That is where all his mistakes stem from actually.

You find out that, while at University, Victor discovers how to animate the dead, or how to create (with scalpels and organs), life. At the time, he didn’t think of consequences at all. He didn’t even consider what he would do with the creature if it did come to life, he could only see the goal of being the first to make that great discovery. So when the creature does wake up, and move, and groan, Victor goes into a fever and becomes delusional and very, very ill. He’s dramatic in all his emotions. When he feels love, it’s deep and pure, and it’s felt with all his heart, and same with hate.

For most of the book it’s told from Victor’s point of view (like he’s telling his tale to Robert), so his thoughts dominate, and are very strong. You know he feels depressed about what he’s done, and though you don’t think it was right that he should of created the creature, you feel for Victor as well, because he feels so bad, he feels so guilty. The fact that he creates the creature in the first place, without considering consequences is proof that he doesn’t quite think things through though. He also thinks that the creature wants to kill him near the end, and so he is reckless and doesn’t care about death compared with living with the creature also. But the creature said he was going to destroy Victor’s life, and so kills all his loved ones, not Victor. That’s what really destroys him by the end. Victors character is interesting because though he is so depressed and that can become tiring at times when it’s from the depressed character’s point of view, he is still a strong character that you can relate to, so you carry on reading, and you don’t get bored. And with out Victor’s mistakes, there would be no book, so you want to see his journey through those mistakes, whatever it takes.

 A cool thing I found out about the book ‘Frankenstein’, it’s also called ‘The Modern Prometheus’. Prometheus was a Greek Titan who created human beings, so the title has a lot of meaning behind it, seeing Victor creates life. Prometheus was also tied to a rock as punishment for trying to trick Zeus, and everyday and eagle would come and eat out his liver. In a way, I think it’s kind of like that for Victor, especially near the end of the book where the creature keeps torturing him even though he’s down already. I also like that Mary thought of Victor as modern. Of course she would.

‘The Creature’

The creature was born with a pure heart, I definitely think. He had a love for life, and all he ever wanted was to be accepted. But because of his hideous looks, everyone he approached ran in fear. He was so lovely and kind, but the repetitive rejection was too much, and it drove the creature to punish Victor instead of talking about it. The creature, though murdering to hurt Victor, was still logical about it, and did it all for a reason (though of course nothing justifies murder). For example, he killed Victor’s brother because he knew that would bring Victor looking for him. Then he framed someone else for the murder.

The character of the creature is extremely interesting, like does he have a soul? Does that even matter? Should he have equal rights? Was he pure from the start, or was he destined to kill and hurt? Did he inherit Victor’s intense emotions? Could he have reasoned with Victor? And would he have left and had been happy if Victor had animated his wife?* Only some of these can have answers, and even them are matters of opinion and perception.

There is definitely an interesting link between Victor and the creature. Intentional or not they have many similarities such as they both have a love for life, they both have their way with words, they don’t think of consequences, they have tempers, both single minded and obsessive, powered by revenge at the end, and many more. I don’t know if the creature actually inherited these features from his creator, or it’s just symbolic. Interesting.

Another interesting thing about the creature is the fact he has no name. Frankenstein only ever refers to him as wretch, demon, vile… thing. Me and my sister became partial to calling him Adam, after Adam and Eve, because the creature takes a liking to Adam in a play of ‘Frankenstein’**, where he quotes ‘Paradise Lost’. I then later discovered Mary Shelley herself referred to him as Adam, I was on the same wave-length as a woman 200 years ago! This made me ridiculously happy.

Elizabeth Lavenza

…Is a strong woman, and I think it’s a shame she had to be locked up in a house all her life, looking after others. But that was the norm back then. Now I think Elizabeth would be a lawyer, or a doctor, or something strong like that. It's interesting Mary didn’t make her more strong, seeing I think Mary is a wonderful woman (Mary was a feminist), but I suppose it’s the situation she put Elizabeth in. She feels she must look after her family, and she is also the love interest, so she has to be slightly pathetic and/or weak.

MY RESPONSE

I think ‘Frankenstein’ is a fantastic book. It’s grim and depressing, but the characters are so that you feel for all of them, and the descriptions are wonderful, you get lost in that world. It is also so well written that you feel the narrator’s feelings. You feel their sadness, anger or love for life.

It’s very refreshing to read ‘Frankenstein’, and also very interesting to ponder over because so many philosophical questions are explored. It’s refreshing because the characters are so strong, but also because there is a character of the creature in the book, who is experiencing life for the first time, but learns very fast, so you see the world through his eyes.

But back to the philosophical questions. I also like that though God is there in a sense, and Heaven and Hell plays a part for the characters that live when their loved ones die, it's not forced upon the reader, when it easily could have been.

I also like ‘Frankenstein’ because it was written by a woman in the early 1800’s. How awesome is that? A women writing about a man who defies God and digs up dead people. I didn’t realize that it was written by a woman when I first wanted to read it, so it made it all the more cooler when I found out it was. She wrote it because when she was in Geneva (where the book is set actually), she and her friends had been telling ghost stories to entertain each other, and they made a deal to write one of their own, something about a supernatural occurrence. Her friends never got round to writing theirs, but hers became hugely popular, and many say it was the start of science fiction. The actual idea of the story apparently came from a dream she had, about a scientist who galvanises a corpse, but it all goes terribly wrong. It was a favourite topic between Mary and her friends, the idea of galvanism. I also feel there is a subtle message about technology in the book, like she’s warning us about technology, and what research and pointless experimenting could lead to, which relates to the other text I read this term ‘The Adoration of Jenna Fox’. ‘Frankenstein’ should definitely put people off trying to create people other than having babies, Victor even goes mental at Robert at one point when asked how he made the creature, what his secret was to sparking life. He says that he wont let anyone make that mistake again, which is a clever because it leaves that mystery to the reader’s imagination.

Another strong theme in the book is ‘an eye for an eye’, which, as this book tells you, doesn’t really work, it just makes everyone sad.  

STYLE

The book is written from many peoples point of view, mainly three. There is Robert, who is writing to his sister, then recording Victor’s tale. Then Victor, while telling his story, talks about what the creature told him, which is the creature’s tale. Then there are letters Victor received during his life, and all of this is recorded by Robert. This style of writing is interesting because it seems unnecessarily complicated, but it makes sense while you read. Though sometimes that style does annoy me, Arthur Conan Doyle does it too, where Watson is writing about a man who told them what his father said to him about what he had said, word for word, to another man. I’m sure that could have been condensed. But this was entertainment in those days! It’s like a flashback in a soap opera or a movie. And ‘Frankenstein’ was written to be a tale told by the fireside, so by having it constantly in first person adds to the spookiness of it all, which is fantastic. If it’s like ‘this is what the creature actually said’, it makes it all the more deep and intriguing, and also makes it more realistic, like it was recent history. It’s just a different way of writing, and I also find it interesting why we don’t write like that anymore… I guess it’s because we feel movies do it for us.

---

* The creature asks Victor to create him a wife, because he is lonely. But Victor destroys her at the last moment, fearing she would be evil and that they would continue to make his life a living hell.

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FEakgJj-uA

Reading Response (from beginning of the year)

An original drawing of John Watson and Sherlock Holmes

The Hound of the Baskervilles

By Arthur Conan-Doyle

PLOT

A man, named Dr. Mortimer, comes to Sherlock and John with a story, a myth of the hound of the Baskervilles.  It states that there once was a man named Hugo Baskerville, and he cursed his family by going on a hunt with his hounds after an innocent girl. People tried to stop him from reaching her, and so they gave chase over the moor, but when they reached him they found a huge hound over his body, ripping at his throat and ran away in fear. It is said that that dog has haunted that family ever since. Sherlock is told the myth, and also the story of Sir Charles Baskerville and his recent death on the moor. Dr. Mortimer asked of Sherlock’s opinion on the matter and tells him that Sir Henry Baskerville, Sir Charles’s nephew, will be arriving in England soon, to inherit the house, and wonders wether Sir Henry will be safe, or if he will also inherit the myth…

John is sent out to the moor with Sir Henry and is left to solve the case by himself, seeing Sherlock is too busy to leave London.

My Response

I think it is a fantastic book. It is written, of course, in the point of view of Watson, and he describes everything in detail. I love the way he describes characters especially. He won’t say the colour of their hair, or their eyes etc, but he will describe something like the their type of nose, or wether their stout or stocky, or the look in their eyes, or the fact that they’re tight lipped. It gives you a much better idea of the character he’s describing.

Also, another thing I like about the way Watson dictates ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ is that he is usually telling the story like he’s recalling it, but he occasionally says something like ‘I think it would portray the story better if I show you the letters I wrote to Sherlock at the time’ or ‘Here’s an exert from my diary at the time, my memory won’t be the best to rely on to retell the event’. It’s refreshing, it keeps you in the story, it feels more real. I think it is clever the way Arthur Conan-Doyle wrote his Sherlock stories from the point of view of Watson because he has a more realistic (I mean basic compared to Sherlock’s brain) view of things, and you can understand both the characters more.

The storyline is also fantastic. It keeps you guessing, like a true detective story should, even if it can be a bit slow at times. It might be the fact that it’s in the point of view of a character, or because the style of writing might be dated, but there were times where Watson would say something exciting happened, and then would take a few paragraphs to get to that, and that could be frustrating because you just wanted to know what happened. But in a way, that’s good writing, because it keeps you on your toes. And it only does that occasionally.

CHARACTERS

Dr. John H. Watson

John can seem quite simple sometimes, but that’s mainly when you compare him with Sherlock. John is kind, and cares for people, but isn’t the best a interviewing them for a crime, he comes off too rash, not quite sly enough. He used to be in the army, so he’s a good shot and he’s quite fit (well, that’s how I imagine him, and in the book he runs across the moor nearly two times a day, so I consider him fit, even if other adaption’s show him as a short, fat man with a moustache.). In this book, because he is doing all the detecting by himself, you get a bit more of a sense of his character and how he actually depends on Sherlock. He is very grateful when Sherlock arrives at the moor.

I also like how innocent John is. Constantly he is exclaiming, ‘Sherlock, how did you work that out?’ and is so astounded by nearly everything Sherlock does. He is a nice, and strong character, and I like him just as much as Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock, as everyone knows, is an amazing sleuth. He can deduce remarkable things from next to nothing, such as a person’s walking stick or a couple of handwritten words. Holmes is also quite arrogant. He will get his ideas across, even if it offends others. He does occasionally use people, mostly John, but surprisingly I still find myself loving Sherlock’s character. He is described wonderfully by John, that is his nature as well as his looks. He is tall, thin face, has a long beaky nose, and doesn’t have a deerstalker hat. He is often smoking and when he’s concentrating he puts his hands together and rests them on his chin. He is described as having a cat-like neatness about him, but his house is always a bit of a tip, which can annoy John.

I like that Sherlock may be rash sometimes, but though it can seem otherwise, he also cares for people. For example, every time he mentions his success of the case (of the Hound of the Baskervilles), he still mentions how he is sad that it should have tried Sir Henry’s nerves, it’s like he can’t help point out this flaw in the case. Another example of Sherlock’s hidden kindness is that when he sends John off to Baskerville hall, without his permission, he does say before John leaves, “But I’m not easy in my mind about it.”

“About what?”

“About sending you. It’s an ugly business, Watson, and ugly, dangerous business, and the more I see of it the less I like it. Yes, my dear fellow, you may laugh, but I give you my word that I shall be very glad to have you back safe and sound in Baker Street once more.”

Sherlock is still popular today because people believe what he does could actually be possible, and I think it could. He’s like a super-hero, except he uses his wits, and I think that appeals to people. And that’s also why people like his character, even if he can be very unsympathetic sometimes.

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson from the BBC TV series, 'Sherlock'

Reference sites to the BBC TV series:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/

http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co.uk/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t4pgh

Reading Response (from the beginning of the year)

The Wind Singer

By William Nicholson

(from The Wind on Fire series)

PLOT

The city of Aramanth is divided in to four sections, the white section, where the Emperor and all the high status men and women work and live, the scarlet section which is of lower status, but still respected, the orange section, where the humble live, and the grey section, which is the scum of the city, the lowest status of all…

This system seems to work well and isn't questioned; people try their hardest to achieve the tests they are given yearly, if they’re lucky and do well and earn enough ‘points’ they are moved up, if they do not so well, they stay where they are. If you do a crime, points are taken off you, and you are moved down.

No one complains, except for the Hath family.

One day, the restricted ranks at school become too much for 10 year-old Kestrel, and she runs to the white section and climbs the old, silent Wind Singer, a huge structure in the heart of the city. She yells and insults Aramanth and it’s leaders, something that is unheard of there, and while trying to escape the guards clutches, she find the Emperor. He is a prisoner in his own city, and he gives Kestrel the task of searching for the heart of the Wind Singer, so it will sing again and give peace to Aramanth once more. So Kestrel, Bowmen (her twin brother), and her new found ‘friend’ Mumpo, go on a quest to save their home.

MY RESPONSE

I like the series. They get more and more depressing as they go on, but the first book is great. It has moments that make you sad, happy, scared, and humble. It’s suprising, because I usually hate books with twins in it that have a psychic

connection, but these books are excused because Bowman can talk to others in his mind as well as his sister.

I doesn’t tell you their age untill the second book, but you can pretty much guess in the first book that they are very young, which I like. The three friends may go through ordeals and hardships that heros would cower at, but the twins sleep holding hands and other things like that that suggest just how young they are, which you wouldn’t be able to guess otherwise.

The characters are very detailed. They are also quite unique in some ways. There’s Kestrel, who has a hot temper and likes to act more than discuss. She’s strong minded, determined, and brave which is good for a hero, but not always commen in girls when you read a fantasy novel. Then there’s Bowmen. He’s quiet, and though brave, he is also very emotional. He can read, not people’s thoughts, but more their hidden feelings in their head. Him and Kess are very close and would die if they were to be parted (defintly emotionally, but I don’t know if they would literally phyically die, probably though). And, the last of the three friends, there’s Mumpo. Mumpo is an unfortunate character, but he grows on you. He’s smelly, dirty, his nose is constantly streaming, and he is quite stupid at first. But the more you learn of him the more you think of him as simple minded, and not in an underminding way. He only has room for one emotion at a time, like happiness, now hunger, now fear etc. I found his character painful at first, but as the twins get to know and like him, you do to.

The twins also have a family, unlike Mumpo. There’s their father Hanno Hath, mother Ira Hath (daughter of ‘the famous prophet’ also called Ira Hath) and their one or two year old sister, Pinto, or ‘Pinpin’. Hanno is a lowly librarian, and unlike everyone else, he doesn’t try to strive harder and work his way up, he likes books and is happy. He also hates the system of Aramanth, though trys to keep that to himself. Ira is bossy and loud, but a kind and caring mum. She sometimes walks around the streets yelling ‘O, unhappy people!’ pretending to prophisise like her father (later in the series you find she actually can predict things). And Pinpin can’t say or do much so in the first book you can’t get a real sense of her character, though she does love her family very much.

The books are very creative. Through out the book the three friends come across many towns, all that have completely different ways of living. There’s the mud people who live under Aramanth, and though they live in the sewers of the city, they still live happily and do well. Then there are the two cities on wheels, Omchaka and Baraka. They are actually huge ships, with sails that help the cities glide across the desert on wheels. There is also the old children, who still freak me out every time without fail. The writer paints a very good picture of all these different races, their ways of living, their personalities, their religion etcetera, and he fits them all in one book, but they all still have depth.

The main evil character isn’t one person in these stories, but is evil it’s self. Everyone who is overwhelmed by the lust for power and are prepared to kill, kind of turn into the Morah, Mor meaning evil. The Morah is basically a power, and anyone can contribute to it. It is Bowmen and Kestrels job to defeat this power, but not in the first book. In the first book they meet the current form of the Morah, who has the last piece to the windsinger, but they don’t detroy her. This Morah has an army of ‘Zars’ who are and infinite number of young, smilely youths who sing a chant that goes “Kill, kill, kill, kill. Kill, kill, kill, kill…”. They can’t be stopped, if you kill one, hundreds replace them. They have no thought apart from killing. It’s scary because at one point Bowmen and Mumpo become a Zar and they have no fear, and are purely happy. Because they’re not afraid, I suppose that’s what makes them strong, and that's what make many communtities weak.

The first book is all about bringing peace to the city of Aramanth, because they way they are running it is wrong (and controlled by the Morah). It’s hard to agree with rulers of the story because the characters that are against the way the city is run are so strong.

I can see how Aramanth would have got to where it is, the way they control people and their status. They needed people to run the place, and they needed wealthy, healthy civilians. But the also needed workers to do the lowly jobs like street cleaners, and whatnot. So by getting people to complete tests all their lives and to follow the rule “We strive harder, and reach higher to make tomorrow better than today” the people who do fine are well off and don’t complain, and the people who don’t do well naturally sink to the bottom, and in the end, feel like they deserve it, so they wont complain. So no one thinks about there being another way to live, and if they did, they would be too scared to say anything. In this way, everything moves smoothly. But really the people are being compressed. They all have to wear their status colours, and there is no room to breath, no freedom of choice. People get graded as soon as they’re two, and after that, every year of the rest of their life. Though the government originally meant well, they are actually not letting people do their best. Lots get tested on things they don’t understand, and though they may be a fantastic seamstress, they are pushed down. People should decide more how they want to live, and then there can be a stronger, kinder community.

‘The Wind Singer’ is a great book, and I like it because not only is it a good and gripping story, it also has a lot of depth and meaning behind the story.