tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7599694547610525912024-03-25T06:57:38.032-07:00A Level Revision Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-91597955611227428782016-05-18T10:49:00.001-07:002016-05-18T10:49:57.111-07:00May '16<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
hey everyone,<br />
<br />
I'm really glad that this blog is still helping people out, 3 years after I wrote it. I've just been accepted onto UEA's Creative Writing: Poetry MA, which means I'm becoming less and less au fait with Henry VII's domestic reforms, or what some dude thought about the weaknesses of natural moral law. So I'm sorry I'm a bit crap at answering those comments. If you have any questions about writing poetry, I'll happily answer those ones. But they probably won't get you that A*/A/B/C (I'm trying to cover all bases here).<br />
<br />
Props to the guy who invited me for a pint because he liked these posts so much. It's nice to know there's at least one total stranger several years younger than me that would buy me a beer.<br />
<br />
Good luck in all your exams! I hope you all do really well. But if you don't, oh well. It's really not the end of the world. Schools like mine tried to tell us it was the be-all and end-all. Don't listen to anyone telling you that. It's a load of crap.<br />
<br />
Jake</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-87079424288261859282015-03-19T09:26:00.002-07:002015-03-19T09:26:37.564-07:00thanks!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Wow. Isn't all this a bit ridiculous. I'm in my second year of uni now, and these were written when I was in years 12/13. My thanks to everyone for their kind comments; I'm really glad these things are useful to at least some people.<br />
<br />
For those of you who have commented with corrections, particularly on the RS side, you're probably right. All I did was take my notes and try and make them readable. A couple of times I probably wrote down information incorrectly or misread something, and if that's resurfaced here then that's my bad! If you check in the comments there may be a wiser person than me correcting me. If so, I'd probably listen to them instead.<br />
<br />
Thanks again. It's so nice to see the odd comment coming up in my email inbox. A worrying number of people have said something along the lines of 'thank you so much! my teacher is SHIT!' which is pretty rubbish. Sorry if you're those guys.<br />
<br />
All the best!<br />
Jake</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-14432937686727442052014-04-01T08:04:00.001-07:002014-04-01T08:04:33.888-07:00New Blog<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
66,000 views! Wow. Thanks, everyone.<br />
<br />
My new blog has been up and running for a couple of months now. <a href="http://jakeareynolds.wordpress.com/">Feel free to check it out here</a> - hopefully it's a bit of a break from the slog of revision.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<br />
Jake</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-47602750981558626932014-01-30T10:11:00.005-08:002014-01-30T10:11:59.070-08:00Thank you!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This blog has now had over 45,000 page views. That's mental. Thank you.<br />
<br />
Someone actually told me on Twitter that my blogs are helping their RS class, which really is sort of baffling. It sort of implies that at least one teacher out there has truly hit rock-bottom in terms of looking for class resources. That's okay - I'm cool with being that rock-bottom resource.<br />
<br />
So yeah - whether you study RS or English Lit, I hope these are helpful, and thanks for the kind words. I don't do A Levels any more - I'm at uni now, studying English Lit w/ Creative Writing.<br />
<br />
Obviously that means there won't be any more posts on this page. I do like all this learning business but I don't think I'm going to teach myself more A Level courses to expand the content on here... I should get back into blog-writing, though, just because it's a good thing to do.<br />
<br />
Anyway, thanks again. I hope you don't fail your A Levels because of me. Wouldn't that be awkward?</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-19866023537689103412013-06-02T08:32:00.000-07:002013-06-02T08:32:27.964-07:00A2 English Literature: Narrators in Wuthering Heights<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I think it's possible (but what do I know) that a section a question on <i>Wuthering Heights</i> could ask about the importance of narrators in the novel. Considering we've got two narrators, whose styles differ dramatically, there's a decent amount of stuff to talk about. Are the narrators reliable? Are they observers or participators? Do they tell us about the context of the time the novel was written? Do they omit/speculate/judge?<br />
<br />
In a way, the <b>narrative structure</b> of <i>Wuthering Heights</i> is somewhat similar to the narrative structure of <i>Frankenstein</i>. The whole story is told by Lockwood, whose narrative includes Nelly's <b>embedded narrative</b>. In turn, Nelly's narrative itself contains smaller embedded narratives, some of which take <b>epistolary form</b> (such as Isabella's letter).<br />
<br />
Lockwood is, universally, seen to be a bit of a wally. He's your typical city gentleman, and the fact that he is totally out of place in the uncivilised and untempered world of Wuthering Heights says something about civility and how it doesn't necessarily apply to Wuthering Heights. Lockwood is very set in his ways (it's all in the name. 'Lock' implies that he is something of a closed system. A 'wood' is usually well maintained and basic - compare the latter to 'heath' in Heathcliff's name) and appears to be quite self-centred.<br />
<br />
Lockwood's narration is presented as something of a diary, and starts at the very end of the story, which is not only confusing for the reader but confusing for him too. So we learn about the story through Lockwood; if we feel confused, at least we're not as confused as him. He misjudges things so often that it becomes embarrassing for him and for us to read.<br />
<br />
Lockwood refers to himself as a misanthropist, but it appears as though he openly desires attention and companionship, similarly to how Walton desires companionship in <i>Frankenstein</i>. It is also interesting to note that Lockwood has fled his previous residence because his own love story is a failed one. He was interested in a girl he used to know until she returned his affections with a slightly flirtatious look, to which he "<i>shrunk icily into myself, like a snail</i>", leading to the sudden departure of the girl and her mother.<br />
<br />
So Lockwood, who modestly calls himself "<i>tolerably attractive</i>", is single and appears to be interested in Cathy. The fact that his romantic interests are coupled alongside his incidents with the "<i>heap of dead rabbits</i>", "<i>possessed swine</i>" and "<i>villainous old guns</i>" is interesting to say the least. Is Lockwood focusing on what's really important?<br />
<br />
Lockwood's judgement is also quite flawed. He calls Heathcliff a "<i>capital fellow</i>" in chapter one, yet a chapter later he says, "<i>I no longer felt inclined to call Heathcliff a capital fellow.</i>" Perhaps Lockwood is too easy to judge and make decisions. This is coupled with his cripplingly awkward social skills and awareness. Considering Lockwood is a typical gentleman of the city, his presentation is somewhat farcical and <b>juxtaposes</b> what we would expect. Perhaps Brontë is praising the natural countryside and what goes along with it - is she subtly damning city life? He notes feeling "<i>out of place</i>", which he really didn't need to spell out for us.<br />
<br />
Not only does Lockwood appear intrusive in entering Wuthering Heights and discussing personal affairs, he even picks up the late Catherine's diary and starts reading it. This suggests that he is not simply an observational narrator, because if he hadn't taken such an action we wouldn't start to understand the story until much later. By relating the <b>embedded narrative of Catherine's diary</b> to us, the readers, we are given an insight into a character's life that Lockwood couldn't possibly be a part of.<br />
<br />
Then we get an incredibly gothic image while Lockwood is having a dream (or is he? It's never revealed) and he sees Catherine's "<i>spectre</i>" arrive at the window. Here we have Lockwood, the city gentleman, on the inside while the ghastly spectre is on the outside. Perhaps Lockwood represents rationality here. Either way, it's quite shocking when he tells us how he "<i>pulled its wrist on to the broken pane, and rubbed it to and fro till the blood ran down and soaked the bed-clothes</i>". What the hell, Lockwood? What's that all about? It may be interesting to argue that Wuthering Heights is inherently a violent place - Lockwood has been there long enough and is starting to adapt to the ways of the house?<br />
<br />
Lockwood's style as a narrator can be a little hard to unravel at times. Because he is oh-so-well-educated, he is quite verbose in his narration. His sentences are long-winded, often comprising of several clauses and featuring hyphens and semicolons all over the place. Yet although Lockwood's writing style is sophisticated, it doesn't mean that he's as well-suited to the 'real world' that he has been immersed into.<br />
<br />
In contrast, Ellen Dean is a housekeeper, and describes herself as a "<i>steady, reasonable kind of body</i>". We go from hearing from a high-flying city guy to a lowly servant at Thrushcross Grange, and it is through Nelly that we learn of most of the novel's events. Nelly is both an observer and an active participator in the novel's events, and is closely linked to many characters. She is Isabella's correspondent, Heathcliff's carer and, at one point, a maternal figure to Cathy. She is far more involved with the people than Lockwood, since she remembers it all and relives the story to him - and us - as though it had happened just the other day. Lockwood actually refers to her as a "<i>very fair narrator</i>".<br />
<br />
However, because Nelly is so deeply involved in so many of the characters, her judgement (while usually fair) changes, which could be used to support the argument that she is an unreliable narrator. She sways between supporting Heathcliff and Edgar in their major conflict, and both approves and disapproves of Cathy's actions when she enters a 'relationship' with Linton. Sometimes her disapproval leads to various plot changes - she is the one who burns Cathy's letters from Linton, for example. She is the one who makes the important decisions for Cathy when Edgar falls ill. She is like a firm but fair mother figure, whose moral stance is, like anyone's, never quite in one place. She is biased in some respects, but that's what we're given so we just have to take it at face value.<br />
<br />
Nelly's style of narration employs more dialogue than Lockwood's, and we get the feeling that she's truly bringing the characters to life as best she can - props to her for nailing Joseph's accent. Conversely, Lockwood appears to include pivotal dialogue but it always seems a little stale, mainly because it all relates back to him and his long-winded sentences.<br />
<br />
The use of narrators in the novel allows for two perspectives - one from an outsider, the other from an insider. The dramatic difference in the two narrative styles suggests just how 'alien' the world of Wuthering Heights must be when one is not originally part of it.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the fact that there is no third-person omniscient narrator means that there are certain things that we never learn. We never learn how Heathcliff got all of his money, for example, or what it was he did in his mysterious three-year absence. But perhaps it's better that way.</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-65647705608585807372013-06-02T05:02:00.000-07:002013-06-02T05:02:12.834-07:00A2 English Literature: Frankenstein Example Essay (Monstrosity)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Below is an example essay I did a while ago on Frankenstein (not under timed conditions). My teacher didn't give me a mark for this one, and just wrote 'Top A/A*'. Hope it helps!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans in Frankenstein are more monstrous than the 'monster'?</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Mary Shelley's 'monster', presented through the eyes of Victor Frankenstein as a "miserable wretch", is arguably not as monstrous as the presentation of humans in the novel. The word 'monster' itself has Latin roots, referring to the verb to 'demonstrate' or 'warn'. In this respect, the creature may stand as a warning to society following Victor's 'monstrous' act of assembling the creature from human corpses. The journey the creature embarks upon sees influences through art, culture and literature, and while the creature may initially appear monstrous, it is fair to deduce that the cruelty and barbarity of humans within the novel present them as more monstrous than the 'monster' first appears to be.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
From his conception, the creature comes across many humans who act barbarously towards him, but none more so than Victor, his creator. Victor's initial idea for such an experiment can be viewed as monstrous in itself; the act of taking body parts from the dead in order to assemble a brand new creature is from the outset a horrific and very Gothic image, as well as an example of a Gothic protagonist going to extreme lengths to achieve a certain goal or aim. However, it is Victor's rejection of his own creation that presents him as such a monstrous character. Upon seeing the creature, animated for the first time, Victor notes that "a breathless horror and disgust filled my heart". It is interesting to note that Victor's disgust comes purely from the physical appearance of the creature. Shelley juxtaposes a sense of ugliness and beauty in the form of the creature; while it possesses a "shrivelled complexion", Victor still notes "lustrous black" hair and "teeth of a pearly whiteness." Victor's conflicted use of language may suggest that the creature is physically repellent as a liminal stage not only between life and death, but between beauty and monstrosity. It is possible to view Victor's rejection of his creature as being a comment made upon society by Mary Shelley; the creature is beaten, fled from and rejected simply for what it looks like. In life, this is often the case for those who are presented as physical outsiders, something which Shelley may be criticising.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Developing the potential critique on society, it is interesting to view the 'humanity' of the creature in the novel. Despite being initially violent and clumsy, the creature picks up certain aspects of culture and the arts in order to fashion himself into a character who is far more human than first suspected. As the creature recounts his tale in the embedded narrative, the story of his discovery of fire is told. He ponders the contrasts of the warmth and pain that the fire offers: "how strange, I though, that the same cause should produce such opposite effects!" This may be interpreted as a 'rediscovery' of fire and it is arguable that the creature is similarly presented as a new version of humanity, presenting him as more uniquely human as opposed to the barbarity of humans in the novel. The fire may also represent the myth of Prometheus, especially considering the novel was originally referred to as 'The Modern Prometheus'. The myth tells the story of Prometheus, a Titan who steals fire from the Gods in order to create life. Despite this sounding as if humanity is presented as God-like, the character of Prometheus had been famed for his cunning intelligence and is punished cruelly by the Gods, just as the creature is punished and preyed upon by humanity in the novel. It is also interesting to note that in Western classical tradition, Prometheus is often viewed as representative of a desperate quest for knowledge. Although this could be applied to the efforts of Victor Frankenstein to further his scientific knowledge beyond the realms of apparent possibility, the character of Prometheus may also be relevant to the creature, considering the thirst for knowledge he has throughout his journeys in the novel.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The knowledge the creature strives for and acquires throughout the novel may also suggest that he is more virtuous and humane than any of the humans in the story. Upon observing the lives of the de Lacey family, the creature begins to acquire a thirst for literature, which leads to his interesting in texts such as Milton's 'Paradise Lost', to which he notes "I often referred the situations ... to my own..." This adds further weight to the interpretation that the creature is viewed as a new and innocent being who is subject to the evils and torment of the world around him. Similarly, after reading Volney's 'Ruins of Empires', the creature ponders how humanity is "at once so powerful, so virtuous and magnificent, yet so vicious and base?" The creature's interest in literature suggests there is a cultured element to his character, and the questions that arise from what he reads presents the humans around him as "vicious", which reinforces the notion that the humans in the novel are more monstrous than the creature appears to be. The matter of the creature being 'virtuous' ties in with the philosophical ideas that William Godwin spoke of. As Shelley's father, it is possible that Godwin's work had some influence on her own; Godwin referred to "universal benevolence", and suggested that humanity was inherently benevolent, yet corrupted by government and its effects upon society. This suggests that the creature is presented as a virtuous and innocent creature, new into the corrupted world in which the monstrous humans are living in. Before the initial creation, Victor even refers to to his creation as pouring "a torrent of light into this dark world". The Gothic oppositions of light and dark often refer to rationality and irrationality respectively, which may suggest that the creature is representative of rationality and knowledge in an otherwise corrupt and clouded world. Furthermore, the creature says of knowledge "of what a strange nature is knowledge! It clings to the mind, when it had once seized on it, like a lichen on the rock." Shelley's use of simile here shows the strength of which knowledge imprints itself on the creature's character; his inspired reaction to literature suggests he is more cultured than any of the humans in the novel.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, it is fair to argue conversely that Victor is also greatly affected by texts, and refers to Agrippa, Magnus and Paracelsus as "the lords of my imagination". Victor's passion for the issues surrounding the works he reads is what leads to his creation of the 'monster'. It is arguable to deduce that Victor's treatment of his own creation is what leads to the creature being branded as a 'monster' to some extent; the creature is born alone and confused into an alien world, and shunned by his own creator. To an extent, the reader may be able to forgive some of the creature's monstrous acts (such as killing William) due to the fact that the creature has both little understanding of the world and a desire to be treated fairly by the man who created him. The fact that both Victor and the creature show such devotion to texts and literature may suggest an element of Gothic doubling between the two, as if they are two sides of one 'being'. When looking for the creature, Victor states that he sees his creation as "nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave". The supernatural language alone suggests that there is an irrational element to Victor, and it is arguable that the creature represents the more rational and perhaps even more human side to Frankenstein's persona, whereas Victor is portrayed as the monstrous character; the nature of the quotation could also suggest that Victor is referring to himself when he speaks of a "depraved wretch", which further the interpretation that he and the creature are more alike than first thought. The language used by both Victor and the creature also suggests a sense of duality between them; in chapter ten, Victor's language appears extreme and melodramatic, whereas the creature's language seems composed and controlled. Victor states "the tortures of hell are too mind a vengeance for thy crimes. Wretched devil!" and threatens the creature with "the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head". Victor's extreme and inflammatory language, speaking of 'hell' and 'vengeance', may present him as something of a vengeful God, who appears enraged at his own creation. This links to the notion of the creature being an 'updated' version of humanity akin to Adam and Eve's story in 'Paradise Lost', victim to an angry God who has brought the creature into a corrupt and monstrous world. The creature's language, in contrast, is eloquently phrased and constructed: "Everywhere I see bliss from which I alone am irrevocably excluded". Shelley's use of contrasting language between the creature and Victor strongly suggests that Victor is far more vengeful and 'monstrous' than the creature.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In conclusion, the humans in Frankenstein definitely appears more monstrous than the creature. Despite the creature's initial monstrous acts, and his connections to animalism and the wilderness due to his association with sublime settings, it must be noted that he is a brand new creature in the world, and shunned by the only man who can answer his questions. As the creature grows from an incoherent beast into a cultured being who respects literature and the arts, he appears to rise above the humans in the novel. Victor's language and the act of his creation present him as a monstrous being in the novel, and as one interpretation suggests as a vengeful God who has unfairly bestowed the innocent creature upon a world populated by unforgiving and in many cases barbaric creatures, who monstrously exclude the creature from society for what he looks like, as opposed to who he is.</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-6289827124316349382013-06-02T03:58:00.000-07:002013-06-02T03:58:16.457-07:00A2 English Literature: Narrative Structure of Frankenstein<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>Frankenstein</i> is comprised of three narrators - Walton, Victor and the creature. The story itself is told through what is referred to as a 'pyramid' or 'Russian doll' structure:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Walton > Victor > Creature > Victor > Walton</b></div>
<br />
This focused structure is arguably one of the most organised aspects of the novel. In a story with vastly ambitious ideas, a huge geographical range and important moral questions and dilemmas, the structure seems to keep all of these ideas and themes well-knit.<br />
<br />
The novel opens with an <b>epistolary form</b> (told through the use of letters). And, in a sense, this continues for the entire novel. It is easy to forget that everything in the novel is told through Walton's letters to his sister. Victor tells him of his own misery and also relates the creature's tale to Walton. This shows how Shelley makes use of <b>embedded narratives</b> in the novel - both Victor's story and the creature's story are embedded within Walton's letters.<br />
<br />
So this sets Walton up as our main narrator and source of information throughout the novel. He's an interesting character, and arguably very similar to Victor. I mention this in more detail in my post about <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-gothic-doubles-in.html">gothic doubling in Frankenstein</a>.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, as we get deeper and deeper into the embedded narratives, we distance ourselves from the original word of Walton, even though he is still guiding the entire novel. By the time we are at the heart of the novel, and the creature is giving us its tale, we are right in the middle of all the embedded narratives. This <b>narrative distancing </b>may be reflective of other 'distances' in the novel; it may reflect the geographical distance and how all three characters are isolated in their own ways, it may reflect the moral distance between Victor and his fellow men or it may reflect Shelley's desire to be distanced from any sort of female voice in the novel - perhaps in fear that a female voice would be seen to reflect her own views and beliefs, which would arguably be frowned upon at the time of writing. By escaping into the multi-layered narratives of three male characters, Shelley is able to tell her tale without fear of discrimination, perhaps?<br />
<br />
It is also interesting to note that, as I said before, the creature's narrative is at the heart of the novel. It is at the very centre. This could be suggestive of many things. Perhaps by having the creature's tale at the heart of the story, Shelley is suggesting that the creature is an integral 'part' of all of us - that everyone is made up of different layers but eventually we come down to a collection of base desires (or, as <b>Godwin </b>would say, "<i>universal benevolence</i>"). Perhaps Shelley is suggesting that the creature reflects the other two characters, and serves as a 'mirror' being slotted in between Victor and Walton's narratives.<br />
<br />
The three narratives are also very similar - they all warn of certain dangers such as over-reaching ambition, and they all appear to highlight male dominance and quests whereas women are pushed to the side. Walton uses the woman in his story - his sister - as his audience. Similarly, Victor relegates Elizabeth to be a correspondent rather than a companion. And the creature yearns for a female companion that he is never given. Considering that Shelley's mother, <b>Mary Wollstonecraft</b>, was an advocate of feminist philosophy, it seems odd that Shelley has mistreated women in such a way in her novel, a theme that is echoed throughout all three narratives. But you could interpret the absence of women as one of the reasons why the males have tragic stories - perhaps men are too hung up on their own ambitions and desires for power. Furthermore, Victor's tale is strangely feminist; it subverts the female role and presents Victor as a warped mother figure.<br />
<br />
The narrative structure of Frankenstein also arguably suspends the reader's disbelief at the seriously unlikely events of the novel. By using embedded narratives and employing these narratives so carefully and delicately, Shelley is able to bridge a significant gap between what is believable and what is not. If this story was told from one long narrative perspective, it wouldn't be long before we start to think 'this is just ridiculous'. But by putting the unbelievable character of the creature against Victor and putting Victor's unbelievable situation against the believable character of Walton, each narrative seems to ease the reader into appreciating what is essentially a hard to believe story.<br />
<br />
And so once we reach the end of the novel, we have Walton reflecting on what he has been told:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>You have read this strange and terrific story, Margaret; and do you feel your blood congealed with horror, like that which even now curdles mines. Sometimes, seized with sudden agony, he could not continue his tale, at others his voice broken, yet piercing, uttered with difficulty the words so replete with agony.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The narrative structure strengthens themes, reflects situations and suspends our disbelief.</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-29333998110061958602013-06-02T03:00:00.000-07:002013-06-02T03:00:04.831-07:00A2 English Literature: Education and Texts in Wuthering Heights<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Throughout <i>Wuthering Heights</i>, texts are referenced frequently - they may serve as part of the narrative structure, they may be an important plot device and, more often than not, they link to power and oppression.<br />
<br />
In the opening chapters, we, like Lockwood, don't really know what's going on. He keeps mistaking people for people's wives and daughters and it's all getting a bit awkward. So when he retires to bed, and stumbles upon Catherine's diary, which he refers to as "<i>a Testament</i>". Although this suggests that Catherine has written her diary in the blank margins of several books (which was typical at the time of writing, since paper was so expensive), it could also have <b>symbolic </b>meaning. By having Catherine's story written in Holy Scripture, what are we told about her 'story'? Are she and Heathcliff Adam and Eve, who "<i>are going to rebel</i>" against the natural order of things?<br />
<br />
More importantly, though, the diary serves as a narrative device that lets us a) overcome some of the confusion of the preceding scenes and b) give us insight into Catherine's character.<br />
<br />
The Bible is also associated with Joseph and Heathcliff. The association with Joseph is easy - he's your typical God-fearing character who appears bitter and callous throughout the entirety of the novel. At one point, Heathcliff's dogs are referred to as "<i>possessed swine</i>". This is a direct quotation from the Bible, and highlights Heathcliff as a demonic figure. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that throughout the novel, Joseph is subservient to Heathcliff. Considering Heathcliff is associated with the devil, what does this say about Joseph? Is he the devil's accomplice, even though he appears to represent religion?<br />
<br />
When Heathcliff and Isabella get married, we are given insight into Isabella's life through her letters to Nelly. This <b>epistolary</b> technique allows for many things. Firstly, it gives us insight into Isabella's isolated nature; the fact that she writes to Nelly, a servant, noting "<i>the only choice left me is you</i>", shows that she really has hit rock-bottom as a 'respectable lady', since she is having to write to a servant.<br />
<br />
It also gives us an insight into Isabella's life without Nelly having to be present in the action itself. Also, Isabella gives us some great language that can be used for describing Heathcliff: "<i>Is Mr. Heathcliff a man? If so, is he mad? And if not, is he a devil?</i>" As well as some great language about the setting of Wuthering Heights: "<i>an ancient castle</i>", "<i>a dingy, untidy hole</i>" and "<i>I remained in the dark.</i>"<br />
<br />
Then, later on in the novel, we understand the 'passion' between Cathy and Linton when we learn that they have been sending letters to one another. The use of letters here is interesting in two ways. Firstly, it suggests that Heathcliff is at least partially dictating Linton's letters ("<i>touches, here and there, which I thought were borrowed from a more experienced source</i>" - or you could argue that this refers to literature and not Heathcliff), which suggests that texts and power go hand in hand with Heathcliff. Secondly, it gives Nelly an active role in the novel - she becomes a participator as opposed to an observer when she burns the letters in the fire.<br />
<br />
Cathy uses texts and education for power when she secretly leaves Thrushcross Grange to visit Wuthering Heights. She notes that "<i>I gave Michael books and pictures to prepare Minny every evening</i>" as well as "<i>he offered, if I would lend him books out of the library, to do what I wished</i>". By using books to more or less bribe her way into getting what she wants, Cathy is effectively using literacy/education as power. Also in this chapter, Nelly asks Cathy to read her a book to make her feel better since she is ill. This suggests that books may have a different sort of power - a power that is replenishing and restorative.<br />
<br />
When we are introduced into the quiet, sulky Hareton Earnshaw, we are alerted of the fact that he cannot read. Considering Heathcliff is 'caring' (I use the word loosely) for Hareton, this is down to him. Yet the fact that Hareton is deprived of education is what appears to give Heathcliff power. Once again, Heathcliff uses the restriction of education/texts to take power from others. This is reversed when Cathy leaves books for Hareton - she remedies Heathcliff's mistreatment.<br />
<br />
I'm sure there are other examples of education and texts being used, but I've just discussed the ones that came into my mind. I can imagine a section a question focusing on texts/education/literacy in the exam, too, since there's so much to talk about. Hope it helps! </div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-67541517068335039752013-06-01T09:15:00.000-07:002013-06-01T09:15:16.459-07:00A2 English Literature: Banquo in Macbeth<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Banquo seems to be to Macbeth what Henry Clerval is to Victor in <i>Frankenstein</i>... except Victor doesn't kill Clerval. Except he kind of does inadvertently. But that's not the point...<br />
<br />
Banquo is sometimes overlooked because people tend to focus more on Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. However, in a question about <b>good v. evil</b> in the play, it is interesting to note that alongside Duncan, Banquo is presented as a kind and virtuous character. This also leads to interpretations that Macbeth and Banquo are <b>gothic doubles</b> of the same character.<br />
<br />
Contextually, you could argue that the only reason that Banquo is presented so virtuously is because he was allegedly <b>loosely related to James I</b>, who was the king at the time of writing and who was a big fan of Shakespeare's stuff.<br />
<br />
We first meet Banquo in act one scene three, alongside Macbeth. Immediately the difference between the two characters is obvious when they are confronted by the witches. Banquo appears cool and collected, challenging them ("<i>You should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret / That you are so.</i>") and shrugging off their prophecy, while noticing how Macbeth is "<i>rapt withal</i>" at the witches' prophecy. Banquo also says the line "<i>why do you start, and seem to fear / Things that do sound so fair?</i>" The fact that Banquo is <b>echoing Macbeth's first line</b>, "<i>So foul and fair a day I have not seen</i>", may suggest that he represents one side of Macbeth - the 'fair' side. Is Banquo fair whilst Macbeth is foul?<br />
<br />
Also, once the witches have disappeared and Angus and Ross turn up, Banquo speaks <b>aside </b>to the audience upon learning that Macbeth has been appointed as the Thane of Cawdor. He questions, "<i>what, can the Devil speak true?</i>" By immediately referring to the witches as being associated with the devil, Banquo appears to be distancing himself from such 'evil' and thus appears to be distancing himself from Macbeth, who was so taken with the prophecy.<br />
<br />
Banquo also appears to be more wary, cautious and perhaps sensible than Macbeth. Macbeth appears instantly taken with the notion that he is destined to be king, whereas Banquo warns him that sometimes "<i>the instruments of darkness tell us truths</i>". Banquo is immediately set up as the opposite of Macbeth; he is loyal, kind and rational - Macbeth, on the other hand, appears to be immediately taken with the "<i>supernatural soliciting</i>".<br />
<br />
Banquo also says to Ross and Angus, "<i>New honours come upon him, / Like our strange garments, cleave not to their mould / But with the aid of use.</i>" This <b>clothing imagery</b> echoes Macbeth's previous line, "<i>why do you dress me / In borrowed robes?</i>" It suggests that Banquo is already aware that Macbeth's new title doesn't sit well with him.<br />
<br />
Banquo also appears alongside Duncan in act one scene six, where both of them admire the castle of Macbeth, basically chatting about how lovely and homely it looks. This brings the use of <b>setting</b> into the <b>theme of deception</b>, and Lady Macbeth's arrival and duplicitous language sets the Macbeths up against Banquo and Duncan; the two virtuous characters are the ones being tricked.<br />
<br />
The beginning of act two sees Banquo alongside his son Fleance. As if we didn't think he was lovely enough already, he's now being presented as a doting father. This <b>normal family dynamic juxtaposes the dysfunctional Macbeths</b> (which sounds like a sitcom). Fleance is also "<i>holding a burning torch</i>" in this scene, which may be <b>symbolic</b> of he and Banquo bringing light (goodness, clarity, rationality) to darkness (supernatural, evil, irrationality).<br />
<br />
Banquo uses religious imagery such as "<i>there's husbandry in heaven</i>" to set him up as a benevolent character, which contrasts with Macbeth's plan to violate the divine right of kings by murdering Duncan. He later pops up in act two scene three with another reference to God: "<i>In the great hand of God I stand</i>". He also mentions a "<i>diamond</i>" in this scene; diamonds were seen at the time to be talismans against witchcraft.<br />
<br />
Macbeth also blatantly lies to Banquo in this scene, saying "<i>I think not of them</i>" when asked about the witches. Does Shakespeare use Banquo as a narrative device for the reader/audience to learn of Macbeth's gradual descent into tyranny and duplicity?<br />
<br />
Banquo is also present at the beginning of act three, and once again makes reference to the "<i>so foul and fair a day I have not seen</i>" quotation by saying, "<i>I fear / Thou play'dst most foully for't</i>". He is suggesting that Macbeth may have achieved his goal through foul aims. He then entertains the idea of being the father of kings, if only for a moment - "<i>If there come truth from them ... may they not be my oracles as well, / And set me up in hope? But hush, no more.</i>" It's only human, I suppose. This is still a relatively selfless desire of Banquo, too - he's interested in the fact that his sons will be kings.<br />
<br />
Banquo's duties to the king appear as strong as ever: "<i>Let your Highness / Command upon me, to the which my duties / Are with a most indissoluble tie / For ever knit.</i>" This <b>juxtaposes</b> Macbeth's loyalty to the divine right of kings, which is a bit sketchy to say the least.<br />
<br />
Then, when Banquo leaves, the audience truly realises the extent of Macbeth's ambition, as he entertains the idea of 'removing' Banquo, to put it nicely. He says to the two murderers that Banquo is their enemy and "<i>so he is mine</i>", and appears focused on the "<i>seeds of Banquo kings!</i>"<br />
<br />
Then, in the act that many would pinpoint as the moment where Macbeth loses most of the audience's sympathy, he tells the murderers to "<i>leave no rubs or botches in the work, / Fleance his son, that keeps him company, / Whose absence is no less material to me / Than his father's, must embrace the fate / Of that dark hour.</i>" The scene ends with a <b>rhyming couplet</b> of: "<i>Banquo, thy soul's flight, / If it find Heaven, must find it out tonight.</i>" This rhyming couplet suggests a sense of confirmation and finality - Macbeth is no longer um-ing and ah-ing over what he wants to do; he's going to have Banquo and Fleance murdered, no matter what.<br />
<br />
In act three scene three, as the murderers attack Banquo and Fleance, it is important to note that one of the murderers "<i>strike out the torch</i>". The light that accompanies Banquo and his son has been extinguished - they have been defeated at the hands of Macbeth. And even as Banquo is struck down, his only concern is for his son: "<i>Fly, good Fleance, fly, fly, fly!</i>"<br />
<br />
Then we see Banquo as a ghost in the next scene - or, rather, Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost. This ghost is often interpreted to be a <b>manifestation of Macbeth's guilt</b> as opposed to any real supernatural ghost. Macbeth has now killed the two most virtuous characters of the play, one of whom he called a "<i>friend</i>" earlier in the play. When comparing this to his earlier scenes with Banquo, we are made aware of the shocking extent of his descent into tyranny.</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-59309296151864128532013-06-01T05:26:00.003-07:002013-06-01T05:26:28.172-07:00A2 English Literature: Macbeth Example Essay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This essay, from the last LITB3 exam, is a section A question on Macbeth. I've typed out my essay below which I wrote under timed conditions for my mock exam, and the essay received 36/40 (band 6) if it helps anyone!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>"Some say he's mad; others, that lesser hate him,</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Do call it valiant fury" (Caithness: Act 5, Scene 2)</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Consider Macbeth as a gothic protagonist in the light of this comment.</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Although William Shakespeare's 'Macbeth' was written in a time before the introduction of the Gothic genre, it is fair to argue that he fits the role typically prescribed to Gothic protagonists. However, the question of whether he is 'mad' or shows actions of 'valiant fury' is a matter open to interpretation.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Sickness and madness are common themes in Gothic texts, and it is arguable to suggest that as a Gothic protagonist, Macbeth is indeed driven to madness. Firstly, his repeated association with various supernatural elements in the play present him as being a character who is perhaps driven by his own mental manifestations; upon seeing a levitating dagger, Macbeth questions whether it is in fact "a dagger of the mind", citing the possibility of his "heat-oppress'd brain" being the factor behind this vision.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, while many Gothic protagonists are associated with elements of the supernatural, that is not to say that they are mad. For example, when Macbeth witnesses Banquo's ghost - "Never shake thy gory locks at me!" - it is perhaps fairer to argue that the ghost is a manifestation of his own guilt as opposed to an outright madness which possessed Macbeth.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Those who argue that Macbeth is mad may relate his madness back to the notion of Gothic protagonists possessing an all-consuming passion or goal which they are determined to reach. In Macbeth's case, this desire is arguably his thirst for power and desire to kill the king. Some critics would refute this point, and argue that Macbeth does not harbour such a passion, and that it is the femme fatale-esque character of Lady Macbeth who taunts Macbeth with demeaning rhetorical language such as "Are you a man?" and "I would be ashamed to wear a heart so white"; there is certainly evidence to suggest that Macbeth's desire to be king does not lead to his madness, and that it is his wife's power that leads him to the first of many murderous acts.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, this interpretation may be too narrow in its analysis, and it is perfectly possible to argue that Macbeth's inherent thirst for power is what leads to his 'madness'. In act one scene four Macbeth expresses quiet dismay at Malcolm's appointment as the Prince of Cumberland, referring to the obstacles in his path to glory as "a step / On which I must fall down, or else o'er-leap". In terms of structure, this scene occurs before Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's onstage discussion, and suggests that Macbeth's madness does indeed stem from the typical Gothic protagonist role as one who is driven to madness or inner conflict by an all-consuming passion. Furthermore, this passion is present even in Macbeth's first meeting with the witches, where Banquo notes that Macbeth is "rapt withal" at the possibility that he "shalt be king hereafter".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Another typical feature of a Gothic protagonist is a high social rank, which "noble Macbeth" certainly adheres to. It may then be in his nature as a worthy warrior to strive for greatness and power; perhaps Macbeth's actions are down to 'valiant fury' after all. Shakespeare's use of adjectives such as "brave" and "worthy" establish him as a high-ranking soldier before he is even introduced; this of course contrasts with the language used to describe him later, where demonic imagery such as referring to him as a "hell-hound" and "something wicked" associates him with inherent evil. In act one scene two, the Captain describes Macbeth's fearlessness and fury on the battlefield, describing how Macbeth ran his sword "from his nave t'the chops" in what is considered an act of bravery. This may lead to the assertion that Macbeth is not 'mad' after all, and that the nature of his character is far more likely to succumb to 'valiant fury', since he is a warrior and, as already mentioned, has the will to kill the king harbouring within him as soon as he hears the witches' prophecy.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, the word 'valiant' suggests a sense of honour and dignity surrounding Macbeth's tyrannical reign. Macbeth's actions may have been valiant, had King Duncan been a cruel and oppressive king. However, Shakespeare presented Duncan as a kind and virtuous character, perhaps to appease King James I, who was the king at the time of writing and admired Shakespeare's work. The fact that Macbeth murders the king is already contrary to the divine right of kings at the time, but the fact that the king was virtuous allowed for little interpretation calling Macbeth 'valiant'. Furthermore, Macbeth's duplicitous nature in the play sets him aside as a character who does not possess 'valiant fury' at all. He openly lies to Banquo, his trusted friend, by replying with "I think not of them" when questioned about the witches, and after Duncan's body is found he delivers a melodramatic and duplicitous monologue expressing his professed grief. The fact that Macbeth is called "noble" and is described indirectly as "a gentleman on whom I built an absolute trust" directly contrasts with his duplicitous and cunning nature.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This contrast is perhaps best explained as the extremes of Macbeth's behaviour as a character, a feature typical of Gothic protagonists. Most Gothic protagonists are caught in a dilemma or inner conflict, which often leads to extremes of behaviour. In Macbeth's case, it is as though he is aware of his own actions and cannot even say the word 'murder', instead making use of euphemisms such as "this bloody business", yet he is also flippant in certain orders, such as the request that Macduff's "wife and babes" should be killed. Therefore, considering his conflicting and deceptive nature, it is indeed possible to refer to Macbeth's actions as fury rather than madness. Valiant fury, however, is perhaps not true; there seems to be almost no honour or nobility in Macbeth's actions and willingness to lie.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Macbeth's alleged madness is often linked to his use of emotive language. For example, the metaphor "full of scorpions is my mind" makes it sound as though Macbeth's mind is poisoned, or out of his control. However, as just one of many instances where Macbeth uses Gothic language, it is not necessarily true to link such metaphors to madness. Instead, it is perhaps likely that Macbeth is referring to the conflicting nature of his mind, and the inner turmoil that he is facing as a Gothic protagonist.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In conclusion, the assertions that Macbeth is either 'mad' or harbours 'valiant fury' both seem to undermine his nature as a Gothic protagonist. Macbeth's 'madness' is perhaps better described as the conflicting nature of any Gothic protagonist, and the notion that Macbeth's fury is 'valiant' contrasts the numerous times where Macbeth's cunning is anything but valiant or noble. Macbeth is indeed typical of a Gothic protagonist but, like many, does not necessarily fall into just one category.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-40876941321865054152013-06-01T04:51:00.002-07:002013-06-01T04:51:23.120-07:00A2 English Literature: The Lady of the House of Love<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Out of all of Carter's stories in this collection, <i>The Lady of the House of Love</i> is my favourite. Which is helpful for me, because you can almost always write about it in the exam.<br />
<br />
One of the interesting things to consider, before tackling the actual story, is the <b>title</b>. The title is arguably ironic considering what actually goes on in the house; innocent men are devoured due to the self-loathing nature of the Countess, the "<i>beautiful queen of the vampires</i>" - that doesn't fit most people's definitions of love. Furthermore, the <b>preposition</b> of 'of' (as in The Lady <i>of</i> the House...) suggests that the Countess has ownership and power. Alternatively, you could argue that by being called the lady of the house she is immediately presented as a typically domestic and passive woman seen in gothic literature.<br />
<br />
On the first page, the Countess is described as being "<i>both death and the maiden</i>". As well as being a play and a quartet, death and the maiden may link more closely to the oil painting of the same name by <b>Hans Baldung</b>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Hans_Baldung_025.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Hans_Baldung_025.jpg" width="176" /></a></div>
This immediately sets up the <b>gothic oppositions of life and death</b> - the Countess is both alive and dead, young and old, beautiful and horrendous, at the same time. She is the predator and the prey. Being "<i>both death and the maiden</i>" is also a nice use of <b>gothic antithesis</b>. If you haven't noticed it already, look at the painting and laugh at how much the 'maiden' looks like Timothy Spall. That kept me entertained for ages.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the Countess adheres to the typical elements of a gothic protagonist is her apparent <b>fascination with the past</b>. Carter calls her actions "<i>her ancestral crimes</i>", and notes that she wears "<i>an antique bridal gown</i>". As well as offering the idea of a fascination with the past, the mention of marriage is also <b>liminal</b>. In fact, ceremonies such as marriage are the first places whereby the word 'liminal' was actually used; when one is getting married, they are in the liminal stage between who they were when they were unmarried and who they will be when they are married.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the notion of a strange woman living alone in an old house wearing "<i>an antique bridal gown</i>" lends to the gothic elements of <i>Great Expectations</i>, and in particular the mysterious character of Miss Havisham. Below are three quotations from <i>Great Expectations</i> with similar quotations from this story to enforce this particular kind of intertextuality:<br />
<br />
<b>Great Expectations</b>: "<i>no glimpse of daylight was to be seen in it</i>"<br />
<b>LotHoL</b>: "<i>closely barred shutters ... keep out every leak of natural light</i>"<br />
<br />
<b>Great Expectations</b>: "<i>satins, and lace, and silks</i>"<br />
<b>LotHoL</b>: "<i>hung with black satin</i>", "<i>burgundy velvet</i>", "<i>red plush cloth</i>"<br />
<br />
<b>Great Expectations</b>: "<i>bridal flowers in her hair</i>"<br />
<b>LotHoL</b>: "<i>antique bridal gown</i>"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8012/7410296518_b4af6ee8f3_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8012/7410296518_b4af6ee8f3_z.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Furthermore, time doesn't move on for either character. The links between the two appear to be more than coincidental.<br />
<br />
Also, this story has elements of <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> within it, demonstrating once again how Carter takes influence from fairy tales and extracts the "<i>latent content</i>" (as she puts it) from them in order to fuse them with the gothic genre. Both Sleeping Beauty and the Countess need some kind of release and are 'trapped' in their particular situations. To be more specific, both characters are released with a kiss - it releases Sleeping Beauty from her entrapment and it releases the Countess from life. If this wasn't enough for you, Carter later says that "<i>a single kiss woke up the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood.</i>"<br />
<br />
There are also <b>intertextual references</b> to <i>Jack and the Beanstalk</i>: "<i>Fee fie fo fum / I smell the blood of an Englishman.</i>" This contrasts the <b>allusions</b> made to <i>Sleeping Beauty </i>- the Countess is not just a trembling victim, she is also a monstrous predator. She is both the protagonist and the antagonist - this links back to the quotation about the Countess being "<i>both death and the maiden</i>".<br />
<br />
The characterisation of the Countess is particularly interesting and is great for both AO2 and AO3, because there is rich language to suggest that she is innocent and helpless (the maiden) as well as animalistic and fearsome. The fact is that she is both - which isn't a total surprise in gothic literature. She is the victim and the vixen, the predator and the prey.<br />
<br />
The <b>simile</b> "<i>her hair falls down like tears</i>" presents the Countess as the typical <b>trembling victim archetype</b> of gothic women, as does the fact that during the day she can be heard "<i>sobbing in a derelict bedroom.</i>" Later, Carter makes reference to her "<i>finely veined, nervously fluttering eyelids</i>", which enforces the language used to make her seem passive and helpless. Later, she is described as "<i>a girl with the fragility of the skeleton of a moth</i>" and as being "<i>so delicate and damned</i>".<br />
<br />
However, amongst this Carter manages to bring in <b>animalistic and monstrous imagery</b> to make the Countess seem like a hideous beast. In a quotation that links almost directly to the wolf in <i>The Company of Wolves</i>, it is noted that "<i>her claws and teeth have been sharpened</i>" and that she also has "<i>taloned hands</i>". Furthermore, just like a wolf, it is said that "<i>the Countess will sniff the air and howl.</i>" She is described as being "<i>all claws and teeth</i>" and is described as being "<i>like a fox</i>".<br />
<br />
Carter also uses language to link the Countess to the <b>supernatural </b>and to highlight the conflicting nature of her character. She is described as "<i>a closed circuit</i>", which highlights her <b>self entrapment</b>, and it is said that "<i>she is so beautiful she is unnatural; her beauty is an abnormality</i>". Here Carter is tackling extremes head-on - the Countess is not just beautiful, she is so beautiful it's horrendous. This could be seen as a subversion of the typical beauty that is present in many fairy tales, particularly <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. It is asked "<i>How can she bear the pain of becoming human?</i>" which of course highlights the human/monster dynamic that is common of the collection, and links to <b>gothic extremes</b>, <b>liminality </b>and <b>metamorphosis</b>. The use of a <b>rhetorical question</b> may also reflect how Carter is questioning boundaries. Another use of <b>gothic antithesis</b> refers to the Countess as a "<i>beautiful and ghastly lady.</i>"<br />
<br />
The Countess also keeps birds trapped in her house with her, similar to what the Erl-King does in the story of the same name. She asks the question, "<i>'Can a bird sing only the song it knows or can it learn a new song?'</i>" This question is repeated twice in the story, and appears to be indicative of the Countess's situation; will she only live the life she knows how to live, or will she ever break free of it? Furthermore, it is said that she "<i>likes to hear it announce how it cannot escape.</i>" This presents her as a typical <b>femme fatale-esque character</b>: malicious, heartless and cruel. She can't escape from her situation, so why should anything else?<br />
<br />
The fact that the story has a fixed setting in time is also interesting, because many of Carter's stories in this collection appear time-free or time-ambiguous (which is genuinely a phrase I just made up, don't use it). Carter <b>modernises the gothic genre</b> by placing her story in Eastern Europe during the First World War. By violating the fairy tale genre and placing it in a time period associated with war and death, she is sure to draw out the dark side to otherwise pleasant tales. Carter also takes the gothic genre and places it in a time of modern horror; we know that although the bicyclist survives this story, he probably won't survive for very long.<br />
<br />
In this story, there is no young female virgin who becomes the victim of the male predator. Instead, Carter <b>subverts gender roles in both fairy tales and gothic literature</b> by making the predator female and having a male virgin appear on the scene. The young bicyclist appears to represent reason and rides on a bicycle which Carter refers to as "<i>the product of pure reason applied to motion</i>" and a "<i>two-wheeled symbol of rationality</i>". It is the soldier's rational nature that stops him from fearing the supernatural qualities of the Countess. He is a young man on the eve of war, and he is the 'prince charming' who releases her from her self-loathing state. It is as though the bicyclist is bringing the 20th Century to the Countess, who is referred to as "<i>the timeless Gothic eternity of the vampires, for whom all is as it has always been and will be, whose cards always fall in the same pattern.</i>" The soldier brings her out of this timeless state - just another example of how Carter is bringing the gothic genre forwards into the modern world.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://dggsa2literature.wikispaces.com/file/view/kelo1.jpg/97242942/kelo1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://dggsa2literature.wikispaces.com/file/view/kelo1.jpg/97242942/kelo1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Through the soldier's eyes, we really do see everything rationally. He observes the Countess as "<i>a great, ingenious piece of clockwork</i>".<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Carter pays particular attention to virginity again (surprise, surprise) by stating that the soldier "<i>has the special quality of virginity</i>". His virginity is also referred to as a "<i>pentacle</i>", a word which is also used to describe the girl's virginity in <i>The Company of Wolves</i>; once again it suggests a mystical power to the <b>liminal state of virginity</b>. And like the protagonist in <i>The Company of Wolves</i>, the soldier is logical and not afraid of the supernatural. The line "<i>laughing, he sets out on his adventure</i>" links to the moment in <i>The Company of Wolves</i> where the girl laughs in the wolf's face.<br />
<br />
An interesting thing to consider regarding the soldier is whether he is presented as a masculine hero or a feminine character. He is described as "<i>blond</i>" and "<i>blue-eyed</i>", which are used to describe both typically heroic men and typically passive women. He is also associated with virginity, which in this collection is often more associated with woman. Yet he is also rational and logical, which is typically (unfairly, yes, but typically) associated with masculinity.<br />
<br />
As the soldier walks towards the Countess's house, Carter uses overbearing <b>sensory description</b> which links the Countess to the Marquis in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>: "<i>A great, intoxicated surge of the heavy scent of roses blew into his face</i>", "<i>Too many roses...</i>". Flowers are mentioned throughout the story, and at one point Carter talks of the Countess's "<i>red lips like the obese roses</i>". Roses are also what have "<i>grown up into a huge, spiked wall</i>" around the Countess's castle, and appears to be what traps her inside. Roses are usually <b>symbols </b>of love and/or beauty, yet here Carter violates that symbol, just as the Countess's beauty is violated into a "<i>deformity</i>".<br />
<br />
When the soldier enters the house, we learn a little more about the setting and we are made aware of how gothic it is. The soldier sees his bicycle disappear into "<i>the dark entrails of the mansion</i>"; by using such language, which links to dismemberment, the place is given a horrific and gory feel, as though the Countess will prey upon him as she does the other men. Carter also notes the "<i>lightless, cavernous interior of the place</i>" and refers to it as "<i>dismal</i>" and "<i>ruinous</i>". It is also noted how "<i>the painted eyes of family portraits briefly flickered as they passed</i>", a typical gothic trope also used in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> to suggest that in gothic literature the protagonist is always being watched, as though he/she cannot possibly escape. The Countess is also referred to as part of the setting: "<i>she herself is a haunted house.</i>" This links to how the Erl-King is both the antagonist and the setting - another example of blurring boundaries.<br />
<br />
In the bedroom, Carter once again uses role reversal when the bicyclist kisses the Countess's wound "<i>as her mother ... would have done</i>". This can be linked to the role reversal in The Erl-King, where the protagonist is referred to as "<i>mother</i>" once she has killed the titular character.<br />
<br />
Before she dies, after being released into death by the soldier's kiss, Carter changes <b>tense</b> and we hear the Countess's perspective: "<i>the dark, fanged rose I plucked from between my thighs</i>". Once again<b> rose imagery is violated</b> and even 'fanged' as though it is as vampiric as the Countess herself.<br />
<br />
The rational bicyclist appears to 'triumph' in the story, although really the Countess was never a true predator because she was a victim of her own nature. Rationality beats the supernatural, and "<i>the boy in the fairy tale</i>" aims to "<i>turn her into the lovely girl she is; I will cure her of all these nightmares.</i>"<br />
<br />
So it seems the heroic soldier has a somewhat happy ending. He releases the Countess from the tortures of life and the final line is "<i>next day, his regiment embarked for France.</i>" But really this isn't a happy ending at all, as the young man is about to face an even greater horror that is simply part of our history - the Great War. Is Carter suggesting that, no matter how horrific vampires and spooky houses may be, nothing in gothic literature can live up to the insurmountable horror of war?<br />
<br /></div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-20040077960877158472013-05-27T07:55:00.003-07:002013-05-27T07:55:40.387-07:00A2 English Literature: Frankenstein Example Essay (Monstrosity)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Another one mainly for the people on TSR - this is an essay I did back before Christmas on Frankenstein. It received a middle band 6 mark (I wasn't told what mark exactly, just that it was mid-band 6) and wasn't done in timed conditions:<br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></b>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans in Frankenstein are more monstrous than the ‘monster’?</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<br />
Mary Shelley’s ‘monster’, presented through the eyes of Victor Frankenstein as a “miserable wretch”, is arguably not as monstrous as the presentation of humans in the novel. The word ‘monster’ itself has Latin roots, referring to the verb to ‘demonstrate’ or ‘warn’. In this respect, the creature may stand as a warning outside of humanity following Victor’s monstrous act of assembling the creature from human corpses. The journey the creature embarks sees influences through art, culture and literature, and while the creature may initially appear monstrous, it is fair to deduce that the cruelty and barbarity of humans within the novel present them as more monstrous than the ‘monster’ first appears to be.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>From his conception, the creature comes across many humans who act barbarously towards him, but none more so than Victor, his creator. Victor’s initial idea for such an experiment can be viewed as monstrous in itself; the act of taking body parts from the dead in order to assemble a brand new creature is from the outset a horrific and very Gothic image, as well as an example of a Gothic protagonist going to extreme lengths to achieve a certain goal or aim. However, it is Victor’s rejection of his own creation that presents him as such a monstrous character. Upon seeing the creature, animated for the first time, Victor notes that “a breathless horror and disgust filled my heart”. It is interesting to note that Victor’s disgust comes purely from the physical appearance of the creature. Shelley juxtaposes a sense of ugliness and beauty in the form of the creature; while it possesses a “shrivelled complexion”, Victor still notes “lustrous black” hair and “teeth of a pearly whiteness”. Victor’s conflicted use of language may suggest that the creature is physically repellent as a liminal stage not only between life and death, but between beauty and monstrosity. It is possible to view Victor’s rejection of his creature as being a comment made upon society by Mary Shelley; the creature is beaten, fled from and rejected simply for what it looks like. In life, this is often the case for those who are presented as physical outsiders, something which Shelley may be criticising.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Developing the potential critique on society, it is interesting to view the ‘humanity’ of the creature in the novel. Despite being initially violent and clumsy, the creature picks up certain aspects of culture and the arts in order to fashion himself into a character who is far more human than first suspected. As the creature recounts his tale in the embedded narrative, the story of his discovery of fire is told. He ponders the contrasts of the warmth and pain that the fire offers: “how strange, I thought, that the same cause should produce such opposite effects!” This may be interpreted as a ‘rediscovery’ of fire and it is arguable that the creature is similarly presented as a new version of humanity, presenting him as more uniquely human as opposed to the barbarity of humans in the novel. The fire may also represent the myth of Prometheus, especially considering the novel was originally referred to as ‘The Modern Prometheus’. The myth tells the story of Prometheus, a Titan who steals fire from the Gods in order to create life. Despite this sounding as if humanity is presented as God-like, the character of Prometheus has been famed for his cunning intelligence and is punished cruelly by the Gods, just as the creature is punished and preyed upon by humanity throughout the novel. It is also interesting to note that in Western classical tradition, Prometheus is often viewed as representative of a desperate quest for knowledge. Although this could also be applied to the efforts of Victor Frankenstein to further his scientific knowledge beyond the realms of apparent possibility, the character of Prometheus may also be relevant to the creature, considering the thirst for knowledge he has throughout his journeys in the novel.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The knowledge the creatures strives and acquires throughout the novel may also suggest that he is more virtuous and humane than any of the humans in the story. Upon observing the lives of the De Lacey family, the creature begins to acquire a thirst for literature, which leads to his interest in texts such as Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’, to which he notes “I often referred the situations (…) to my own…” This adds further weight to the interpretation that the creature is viewed as a new and innocent being who is subject to the evils and torment of the world around him. Similarly, after reading Volney’s ‘Ruins of Empires’, the creature ponders how humanity is “at once so powerful, so virtuous and magnificent, yet so vicious and base?” The creature’s interest in literature suggests there is a cultured element to his character, and the questions that arise from what he reads presents the humans around him as “vicious”, which reinforces the notion that the humans in the novel are more monstrous than the creature appears to be. The matter of the creature being ‘virtuous’ ties in with the philosophical ideas that William Godwin spoke of. As Shelley’s father, it is possible that Godwin’s work had some influence on her own; Godwin referred to “universal benevolence”, and suggested that humanity was inherently benevolent, yet corrupted by government and its effects upon society. This suggests that the creature is presented as a virtuous and innocent creature, new into the corrupted world in which the monstrous humans are living in. Before the initial creation, Victor even refers to his creation as pouring “a torrent of light into this dark world”. The Gothic oppositions of light and dark often refer to rationality and irrationality respectively, which may suggest that the creature is representative of rationality and knowledge in an otherwise corrupt and clouded world. Furthermore, the creature says of knowledge “of what a strange nature is knowledge! It clings to the mind, when it has once seized on it, like a lichen on the rock”. Shelley’s use of simile here shows the strength of which knowledge imprints itself on the creature’s character; his inspired reaction to literature suggests he is more cultured than any of the humans in the novel.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>However, it is fair to argue conversely that Victor is also greatly affected by texts, and refers to Agrippa, Magnus and Paracelsus as “the lords of my imagination”. Victor’s passion for the issues surrounding the works he reads is what leads to his creation of the ‘monster’. It is arguable to deduce that Victor’s treatment of his own creation is what leads to the creature being branded as a ‘monster’ to some extent; the creature is born alone and confused into an alien world, and shunned by his own creator. To an extent, the reader may be able to forgive some of the creature’s monstrous acts (such as killing William) due to the fact that the creature has both little understanding of the world and a desire to be treated fairly by the man who created him. The fact that both Victor and the creature show such devotion to texts and literature may suggest an element of Gothic doubling between the two, as if they are two sides of one ‘being’. When looking for the creature, Victor states that he sees his creation as “nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave”. The Gothic language alone suggests that there is an irrational element to Victor, and it is arguable that the creature represents the more rational and perhaps even more human side to Frankenstein’s persona, whereas Victor is portrayed as the monstrous character; the nature of the quote could also suggest that Victor is referring to himself when he speaks of a “depraved wretch”, which furthers the interpretation that he and the creature are more alike than first thought. The language used by both Victor and the creature also suggests a sense of duality between them; in chapter ten, Victor’s language appears extreme and melodramatic, whereas the creature’s language seems composed and collected. Victor states “the tortures of hell are too mild a vengeance for thy crimes. Wretched devil!” and threatens the creature with “the fierce vengeance of my arm wreaked on your miserable head”. Victor’s extreme and inflammatory language, speaking of ‘hell’ and ‘vengeance’, may present him as something of a vengeful God, who appears enraged at his own creation. This links to the notion of the creature being an ‘updated’ version of humanity akin to Adam and Eve’s story in ‘Paradise Lost’, victim to an angry God who has brought the creation into a corrupt and monstrous world. The creature’s language, in contrast, is eloquently phrased and constructed: “Everywhere I see bliss from which I alone am irrevocably excluded”. Shelley’s use of contrasting language between the creature and Victor strongly suggests that Victor is far more vengeful and ‘monstrous’ than the creature.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>In conclusion, the humans in Frankenstein definitely appear more monstrous than the creature. Despite the creature’s initial monstrous acts, and his connections to animalism and the wilderness due to his association with sublime settings, it must be noted that he is a brand new creature in the world, and shunned by the only man who can answer his questions. As the creature grows from an incoherent beast into a cultured being who respects literature and the arts, he appears to rise above the humans in the novel. Victor’s language and the act of his creation present him as a monstrous being in the novel, and as one interpretation suggests as a vengeful God who has unfairly bestowed the innocent creature upon a world populated by unforgiving and in many cases barbaric creatures, who monstrously exclude the creature from society for what he looks like, as opposed to who he is.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-46283945228002791222013-05-27T07:48:00.003-07:002013-05-27T07:48:52.187-07:00A2 English Literature: The Company of Wolves<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>The Company of Wolves</i> opens with the story of a hunter who tries to kill a wolf that has been terrorising his local town, and then the story of a man who is presumed killed by a wolf and later returns to his family, turning back into the wolf when he sees that his wife has remarried.<br />
<br />
The main body of the story, however, starts with a "<i>strong-minded child</i>" who aims to take "<i>delicious gifts to a reclusive grandmother</i>"; the parallels with <i>Little Red Riding Hood</i> are obvious and yet another example of how Carter aims to extract the "<i>latent content</i>" from typical fairy tales.<br />
<br />
Carter pays special attention to the fact that the girl is a virgin. She refers to her virginity as an "<i>invisible pentacle</i>"; this <b>mystical imagery</b> suggests an element of inexplicable power surrounding her virginity - her virginity is both<b> liminal</b> and <b>cannot be explained</b>, two prominent features of gothic literature. This also continues Carter's <b>recurring motif</b> of virginity. The narrator in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> is a virgin, as are the characters in <i>The Courtship of Mr Lyon</i>, <i>The Tiger's Bride</i> and <i>The Erl-King</i> to name a few. Furthermore, in <i>The Lady of the House of Love</i>, the young bicyclist's virginity is also referred to as a "<i>pentacle</i>" - so perhaps it is not female virginity that Carter is highlighting, but virginity itself.<br />
<br />
The girl's virginity in this story appears to keep her strong as she walks through the wolf-ridden forest: "<i>she is a closed system; she does not know how to shiver. She has her knife and she is afraid of nothing.</i>" There's no doubt at this point that the girl is presented as a strong character. The same cannot be said for the girl in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, however. Furthermore, it is said that the girl "<i>knew she was nobody's meat.</i>" This directly contrasts with the treatment of the girl in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, who is inspected as "<i>cuts on a slab.</i>"<br />
<br />
I'm not going to go through the story moment by moment and focus on AO2 with <i>The Company of Wolves</i>, because I think it is more important to tackle the AO3 aspects of this story. The story ends with the girl meeting with the wolf who has devoured her grandmother. She removes her clothes and willingly loses her virginity to the wolf - and this appears to be what empowers her. By submitting sexually to the wolf, her life is spared.<br />
<br />
This can be argued either way - some will argue that by doing this the ending is feminist and liberating. Others will argue that this belittles the girl's strength and reduces her to nothing more than an object. Perhaps Carter is likening the naked male form to terrifying beasts that prey on the innocent. Are men to be feared and submitted to?<br />
<br />
Alternatively, it is possible to argue that Carter is saying that sexuality shouldn't be feared, but embraced. The other characters who become victims of the wolf also seem to be 'victims' of some kind of oppression:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The woman in the first tale is attacked by the wolf whilst straining macaroni - perhaps she is attacked because she is oppressed by her role as a <b>passive, domesticated woman</b> (an archetype that fits with the gothic and fairy tale genres)</li>
<li>The hermit who is killed by the wolf appears to be oppressed by his servility to God - is the wolf a <b>symbol of freedom or self-realisation</b>, attacking those who are not able to free themselves?</li>
<li>The woman who remarries an abusive man is beaten by her husband after he kills a wolf (symbolic of the oppressive man killing the woman's hope at freedom, perhaps). She is servile to her husband</li>
<li>The girl's grandmother is servile to God and to domesticity - when the girl enters her grandmother's house, it is interesting to note how Carter pays attention to the fact that "<i>the Bible lay closed on the table</i>"</li>
</ul>
<div>
Yet the girl is not tied down by domesticity, femininity or religion; she is her own person and she makes her own decisions. She even laughs in the face of the wolf as she undresses herself. She is the only character in the story who adapts to the situation in order to survive; she becomes a woman at the hands of the wolf and this arguably <b>reverses the predator/prey dynamic</b> that is so often prevalent in fairy tales. Carter reinvents the fairy tale genre by giving the young child the power to overcome the beast.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One interpretation is that the wolf is a symbol of something that we are all greeted with in life; the chance to realise our own freedom and break free of any restricting forces. Some take the opportunity while others do not. Alternatively, the wolf may be a <b>symbol of humanity's carnal desires</b> (this certainly links to <i>The Tiger's Bride</i> where the titular character becomes a beast by embracing her desires). Therefore the argument that the girl is a strong character seems to have more weight than the argument suggesting that she objectifies herself by using her virginity to survive. </div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-21597482542857862782013-05-26T05:10:00.004-07:002013-05-26T05:10:44.776-07:00A2 English Literature: The Bloody Chamber Example Essay<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Below is an essay on happy-ever-after endings in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> (a question made up by my teacher and not taken from any past papers). I know some of the guys on TSR in particular were interested in examples of band 6 essays; whether you can take anything from this or not I'm not sure, but I thought I'd put it here in case it helps anyone! This essay received full marks:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>Carter's stories have happy ever after endings, although these endings are somewhat unconventional. To what extent are the endings feminist in their message?</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
As a feminist, it is almost to be expected that many of Angela Carter’s happy ever after endings will strike the reader with a bold feminist message. However, in The Bloody Chamber, this is not necessarily the case. Although there are several feminist messages in the stories’ resolutions, these messages are not always presented in the way one would expect, and not every female protagonist is presented as a feminist character. By taking the roles of typically Gothic women and toying with the presentation of female characters, many of Carter’s feminist messages are not as one would expect.<br />
The eponymous story The Bloody Chamber ends with a sense of resolution, love and happiness. The antagonist of the story is no more, and the narrator is able to live a happy and fulfilling life with Jean-Yves. Whether the ending is truly feminist, however, is open to discussion. In one respect, the actual resolution to the story is all down to the narrator’s mother, who is presented at the story’s climax as an incredibly powerful female figure. Carter uses masculine and bestial imagery to describe the mother, in a way that is not dissimilar to earlier imagery to describe the Marquis. The narrator refers to her mother’s hair as “her white mane”; just as earlier she had referenced the Marquis’s “dark mane”. The juxtaposition between light and dark here is a typical example of Gothic extremes; while the Marquis seems to represent darkness – the supernatural and evil – the mother is associated with the colour white, which often symbolises purity, innocence and rationality. She also refers to her mother as a “wild thing”. Carter also uses the setting to complement the powerful image of the narrator’s mother riding to her rescue. The backdrop of the sea is referred to as “savage”, like “the witnesses of a furious justice”. In Gothic literature it is common for great expanses of nature such as oceans or moors to be referred to in the sublime sense; in this instance, the great power of the sea is merely witnessing the justice that the mother is delivering. It is as though her power is greater than nature itself. Furthermore, the sea is used earlier in the story when the narrator describes the Marquis’s voice as “like the soft consolations of the sea”. It appears as though the male and female dynamics have been shifted with these two direct links to the sea; the Marquis is the one associated with softness and docility whereas the mother seems to be the one commanding the sea and bringing about its true power. In this respect, she is certainly a strong female figure who arguably brings about a feminist happy ever after to the story.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>However, the strength of the mother is not the be-all and end-all of the story. Firstly, it is interesting to note that particular attention is paid to the fact that the mother holds the narrator’s “father’s service revolver”. The male figure is therefore not necessarily as absent as one might think; the actual tool that is intended to kill the Marquis is explicitly referred to as the item of a man. Furthermore, it is important to note that the narrator does very little to secure her own safety, and the main resolution of the story is placed in the mother’s hands. The narrator is presented as a very passive character in the denouement of the tale; she is simply saved by her mother and is then able to live out her life in happiness. In this respect it is arguable to suggest that she is not a strong female character or, at least, she is not as strong as the reader may have hoped. Carter also highlights the contrasts between the narrator and her mother. The narrator notes that “on her eighteenth birthday, my mother had disposed of a man-eating tiger”, and juxtaposes this with “here I was, scarcely a penny richer, widowed at seventeen in the most dubious circumstances”. In this respect, the ending is not particularly feminist at all; although the narrator has been saved and is given a happy ending, her role in the climax of the story appears to be similar to that of a typically passive Gothic female character. She is also physically tarnished by the events of her past, noting that “no paint or powder (…) can mask that red mark on my forehead”. Despite the resolution and the fiercely powerful actions of the mother, the narrator is still objectified even after the Marquis’s death; she is branded with his mark, as though she was never really a woman in her own right.<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The ending of The Company of Wolves, however, is arguably the story with the strongest feminist message. The girl survives her ordeal with the wolf by embracing the power of her own sexuality, which in turn saves her life and reverses the predator/prey dynamic of herself and the wolf. Even when allowed into the forest where countless others have been killed, the girl “has her knife and she is afraid of nothing”. When the girl arrives at the house of the wolf at the end of the story, she reacts in a way that none of the other victims have acted. She is defiant in her actions and even mocks the wolf; “the girl burst out laughing; she knew she was nobody’s meat”. The fact that the girl does not fear the monstrous and supernatural beast before her is just one reason why the ending of the story is overtly feminist.<br />
Unlike those before her, the girl is free and liberated thanks to her own sexual awareness. Carter pays special attention to her virginity, and uses mystical imagery such as referring to it as a “pentacle” and a “magic space” to attach a sense of power to it. Unlike the wolf’s previous victims, the girl embraces freedom and liberation. The typically Gothic servile woman who is killed by the wolf is arguably killed because of her position as a stereotypical female; this interpretation is enforced by the fact that she is killed whilst straining macaroni in a typically domestic setting. The hermit is arguably killed because of his servile nature to God, and the grandmother is also servile to both religion and the domestic setting that she appears bound to. The girl, however, is servile to nothing and nobody. Her virginity is not a weakness in the end, but a weapon. When she embraces it, she seems to take on a role that is stronger than the wolf. Carter notes how just the sight of her makes the wolf “slaver”, and she also actively undresses the wolf as well as herself. It is arguable to suggest that the way in which the girl liberates herself is demeaning, however she does not obey the wolf’s orders out of fear or duty; it is as though Carter is saying that sexuality should not be feared, but embraced. The very last line of the story calls the wolf “tender”, and shows the girl sleeping in the bed with the wolf. She is the only one to have survived the wolf, and has done this through allowing him to liberate her – something that the previous victims were unable to do. In this respect, the happy ever after ending to this story presents a strong feminist message.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, Carter’s stories often have an element of a feminist message to them, whether this is the mother being presented as the heroine in The Bloody Chamber, the girl embracing her sexuality and the power alongside it in The Company of Wolves, or other similar instances of females either being able to bring out the humanity of beasts through compassion, such as in The Courtship of Mr Lyon, or embracing their own primal nature, such as in The Tiger’s Bride. However, that is not to say that all of Carter’s stories have a feminist ending. The main character of The Bloody Chamber seems passive in the story’s ending and the mark that stays upon her forehead does not allow for a true sense of catharsis at the end of the story. Carter’s stories are never black and white; there are feminist qualities to many of the happy ever after endings, but not necessarily in the way one would expect.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-43601385778534111852013-05-26T04:58:00.008-07:002013-05-26T04:58:59.292-07:00A2 English Literature: Gothic Protagonists - Victor Frankenstein<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Is Victor a Gothic protagonist? Well, yes. And out of <i>Wuthering Heights, Macbeth, The Bloody Chamber</i> and <i>Frankenstein</i>, I'd argue he's the most obvious Gothic protagonist.<br />
<br />
These features are often discussed when one talks about a Gothic protagonist:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>an absolute goal or aim</li>
<li>a fascination with the past</li>
<li>extremes of behaviour</li>
<li>a tragic flaw</li>
<li>linked to the supernatural</li>
<li>harbouring a huge inner conflict</li>
<li>a high social ranking</li>
</ul>
<div>
Victor undoubtedly had <b>an absolute goal or aim</b> - to answer questions of natural philosophy, further modern science and, more specifically, to assemble a living being from dead body parts. This goal appears incredibly important to Victor, and he tackles this ambition of his with "<i>ardour</i>". No boundaries appear to hinder him in completing his task; he refers to it as "<i>the subject in which my interest was so terribly profound.</i>" The utter devotion Victor has in doing what he does is typical of a Gothic protagonist; nothing will stop him. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This links to <b>the tragic flaw which Victor possesses</b>; his over-reaching ambition. Victor is so obsessed with carrying out his goal, it gets the better of him. In his ambition to create the creature he seems to ignore any possible consequences that may greet him. And, as we know, his ambition doesn't account for the deaths of his friends and family at the hands of his own creation. Victor is perhaps too ambitious in wanting to create life. This links to the notion that Victor has a God complex and also breaks many boundaries of moral and social norms, as discussed in the blog post on <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-transgression-in.html"><b>transgression</b></a>. Victor's ambition also links to Walton, who frames the entire novel. It is possible to interpret Walton as an earlier version of Victor, a version who isn't yet consumed with the ambition that leads to his demise.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Victor also has a <b>fascination with the past</b>. Natural philosophy, the area in which he is so interested, is dismissed by his father and university professor because it is so outdated. He fuses ideas from the past with contemporary scientific branches of though such as <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/frankenstein/galvanism.html">Galvanism</a>. Agrippa and Paracelsus are the "<i>lords of his imagination</i>", and Victor's obsession with these past thinkers leads to his absolute goal and his fatal flaw.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Extremes of behaviour</b> aren't exactly rare in Victor's case. He doesn't really seem to do anything in moderation; everything is obsessive and/or extreme. He talks of Elizabeth obsessively ("<i>my more than sister, since till death she was to be mine only</i>"), he is "<i>trembling with passion</i>" as he assembles his creature, he uses <b>melodramatic language</b> ALL THE TIME ("<i>a blight had come over my existence</i>", "<i>filled my soul with anguish</i>" and "<i>these thoughts possessed me</i>" to name a few) and a lot of his language is contradictory (compare "<i>inexpressible pleasure</i>" with "<i>my sorrowful and dejected mind</i>", for example). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Victor is also <b>linked to the supernatural</b> through the creature. In fact, the strong evidence which suggests that Victor and the creature are <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-gothic-doubles-in.html">doubles of one another</a> strengthens the association that Victor has with the supernatural. He is also <b>from a high social rank</b>, with many <b>Marxist critics</b> comparing him to the bourgeoisie to the creature's proletariat. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then, of course, there is the <b>mass inner conflict</b> that often provides the main hook in Gothic literature. Victor faces many inner conflicts, the greatest of which may be the issue of whether he should create a female companion for his creature, which may lead to "<i>a race of devils</i>", or face more death and sorrow at the hands of the creature. The fact that this conflict, as with many others, is inescapable gives way for a true Gothic protagonist.</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-61047192452037901432013-05-26T04:20:00.002-07:002013-05-26T04:20:24.973-07:00A2 English Literature: Frankenstein - Philosophical Context<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Before I write all this, I should make it clear that knowing a philosophical context of the novel <b>is not required</b>. It just turns out to tie in AO3 and AO4 nicely if you can apply it to the novel.<br />
<br />
<b>Jean-Jacques Rousseau</b> believed that "<i>man is born free but everywhere he is in chains</i>" (<i>The Social Contract</i>). By this, he meant that every human lives their life in a prison of sorts - society is what chains us down. Like many ideas in the novel, Rousseau's beliefs were revolutionary at the time. He believed that the key to freedom lay in individual realisation and emotion. Rousseau also argued that people are at their happiest when they are in their natural state. He said that man should live as a "<i>noble savage</i>".<br />
<br />
Is the creature a 'noble savage'? It could be argued that the creature is happiest when he is in his natural state (bounding over mountainous terrain and the like). It could also be argued that Victor is often happiest in his natural state; he frequently isolates himself from others and takes pleasure in placing his solitude within natural or sublime landscapes: "<i>solitary grandeur</i>", "<i>sublime and magnificent scenes</i>", "<i>sublime ecstasy</i>", "<i>terrifically desolate</i>", "<i>perfect solitude</i>", "<i>perfectly solitary</i>" etc.<br />
<br />
However, you could conversely argue that although Victor may seem happiest in his natural state, this is not so. Sometimes nature fills Victor with insuperable dread: "<i>I looked upon the sea, it was to be my grave.</i>" You could also suggest that Victor is in fact at his 'happiest' in his "<i>workshop of filthy creation</i>"; the place where he trembles with passion and is full of "<i>ardour</i>" - a place far from nature.<br />
<br />
Rousseau thought that people should be brought up learning how to live with others and contribute towards a common good, and Shelley may be doing something similar with her presentation of the creature. It is as though the creature is a modern version of the 'first man'; as though society-oppressed humanity is given a chance to start again. The fact that the creature memorably discovers fire at one point in the novel alludes to the early days of mankind. Perhaps the creature is given the chance to start again, but is chained down by the neglectful nature of his creator and the torment of society who persecute him because of his appearance alone. This may link to Rousseau referring to himself as a "<i>frightful creature</i>" when people reacted to his philosophy aggressively, deeming it to be politically threatening.<br />
<br />
<b>John Locke</b>, a philosopher frequently associated with the <b>Enlightenment</b>, argued that everyone's life starts as a '<b>blank slate</b>'. According to Locke, experiences are 'written' upon this slate and eventually form our personalities. Locke stated that people learn through sensation and reflection - "<i>all ideas come from sensation or reflection.</i>"<br />
<br />
Locke's ideas seem to fit very well with the nature of the creature in <i>Frankenstein</i>. As a bit of AO4 to enforce the Locke view, you can mention the fact that in the winter of 1816-17, Shelley did in fact read Locke's work.<br />
<br />
It is coherent to argue that the creature is born as a 'blank slate'; he has no real personality or experiences to draw upon. Then, when we think of his earliest experiences, it makes sense to argue that these experiences (being neglected by his creator and shunned by local villagers) help shape his tormented personality, and perhaps lead to his murderous streak.<br />
<br />
The creature's 'blank slate' is overloaded with desires and sensory information - the creature is arguably not monstrous at all, but in fact very human in his development. He 'discovers' fire, as mentioned above, and even looks at his own reflection in water (as Eve does in <i>Paradise Lost</i>) - this links to a very literal reading of 'sensation or reflection'.<br />
<br />
However, although we can argue that the creature is a product of experiences, this doesn't necessarily explain his act of kindness in collecting wood for Felix and Agatha de Lacey without showing himself. The creature has had no positive experiences to fall back on, so why did he show such an act of kindness? Perhaps the creature is inherently benevolent, which links to the William Godwin view.<br />
<br />
Locke's philosophy doesn't just apply to the creature, however; it can also apply to Victor. It can be argued that Victor's desire to assemble his own creature comes from past experiences. Specifically, the experiences of doubt expressed by his father and M. Krempe alongside his experiences of "<i>Cornelius Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, and Paracelsus ... the lords of my imagination.</i>"<br />
<br />
<b>William Godwin</b> arguably has his philosophy referenced in the novel, since he was in fact Shelley's father. Godwin, like Rousseau, believed that the government was corrupt; this certainly ties in with the unjust execution of Justine and Victor's criticism of "<i>laws and governments</i>" when he's locked up himself. Godwin also believed that mankind harboured "<i>universal benevolence</i>" and inherently shows love and pity. This clears up the issue of the creature's benevolence in Locke's philosophy; Godwin would argue that we are all born as peaceful, loving creatures. Perhaps Victor is the creature's corrupting force?</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-75446801242209263822013-05-25T04:46:00.007-07:002013-05-25T04:46:50.037-07:00A2 Religious Studies: Miracles<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i>What is a miracle?</i><br />
<br />
<b>Augustine</b> called a miracle:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>The operation of a higher law overriding the natural law.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Aquinas</b> referred to them as:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>A violation of natural law.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>C. S. Lewis</b> defined them as:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>An interference with nature by supernatural power.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>David Hume</b>, however, completely rejected the idea of miracles. He stated that:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In his argument against miracles, Hume proposed five main points:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Firstly, he said that <b>miracles are impossible to prove</b>. One miracle, he argued, is not enough to logically disprove the laws of nature - <b>there is always another explanation</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Brian Davies</b> criticises this point. He says that when man walked on the moon, that too was one instance of what was previously impossible - but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue</li>
</ul>
<div>
Hume also argued that a miracle has <b>never been witnessed by a sufficient number</b>.</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Peter Vardy</b> questions this point, asking what number Hume considers to be sufficient. He also criticises Hume for dealing with reports of miracles, unfairly judging them since he had never experienced a miracle himself</li>
</ul>
<div>
Thirdly, Hume argued that religious people have a <b>psychological need to believe in miracles</b>; they are biased, and suspend reason in favour of belief:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>A religionist may imagine he sees what has no reality.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Richard Swinburne</b> attacks this point, saying that belief doesn't affect sight - if you genuinely see something, it doesn't reflect your faith</li>
<ul>
<li><b>Freud</b> would criticise this point and agree with Hume, arguing against miracles from human psychology</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
Furthermore, Hume argued that miracles happen amongst:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Ignorant and barbarous nations.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Swinburne also criticises this point, calling Hume arrogant</li>
</ul>
<div>
Finally, Hume proposes his <b>conflicting claims</b> argument; if two miracle stories conflict, they cancel one another out.</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>But two conflicting claims may still leave one 'correct' claim?</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Theologian <b>Richard Swinburne</b> argues that there are three types of historical evidence to support miracles:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Memories</li>
<li>Stories of others</li>
<li>Physical traces</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>Peter Vardy</b> supports Swinburne's argument, criticising Hume by arguing that people don't just believe in a faith because of a miracle.</div>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>But surely the whole Christian faith is based on miracles such as Jesus's birth and resurrection?</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>John Polkinghorne</b> also supports Swinburne, arguing for an <b>interventionist God</b>. This is rejected by <b>Peacocke </b>and <b>Wiles</b>.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>R. F. Holland</b> argues that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>A coincidence can be taken religiously.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Maurice Wiles</b> is another important name in this topic; although he was religious, he rejected the idea of miracles. This is because he <b>disputed the idea of an interventionist God</b> (a God who intervenes in the laws of nature). Instead, Wiles called creation:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>One single act of God.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Wiles argued that God is <b>transcendent</b>, and that an interventionist God conflicts with the notion of<b> free will</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If God intervenes, Wiles argued, why does he only intervene in rare, bizarre cases? Why didn't he intervene in Auschwitz or Hiroshima? He simply calls an interventionist God:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Implausible and full of difficulty.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>However, Wiles's beliefs are <b>inconsistent with certain Biblical stories</b> such as Joshua 10</li>
<li><b>Peter Vardy</b> says it is arrogant for us to judge God on what we don't understand</li>
<li>Wiles may have missed the point of miracles - they may just be signs of God's existence</li>
<li><b>Swinburne</b> uses the <b>analogy of God being a parent</b> who sometimes bends the rules (in this case the rules of nature) to benefit his children</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>John Hick</b> stated that <b>we cannot have miracles by definition</b>. He argued that if we change the laws of nature to suit a miracle, the miracle no longer 'breaks' the laws of nature, so it is no longer a miracle.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He responded to the apparent miracles in the <b>Old Testament</b> by referring to them as natural occurrences interpreted religiously. He called the resurrection story, however, a complete myth.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Biblically, <b>Joshua 10</b> is important to consider when discussing miracles. In the story, miracles occurred as Joshua fought the <b>Gibeonites</b>. It is simply stated that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>The Lord listened to a man.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The story includes such miracles as giant hailstones falling from the sky and the sun standing still. But are these necessarily miracles?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Hailstones - a natural occurrence interpreted religiously?</li>
<li>Sun standing still - a basic astronomical mistake?</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Luther</b>, however, a <b>fundamentalist</b>, argued that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Whereas <b>Bultmann</b> holds a more liberal view, interpreting the events of Joshua 10 as symbolic/metaphorical. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Arguments for miracles</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Some things appear to have no natural explanation, supported by reasonable evidence</li>
<li>If we believe God to be the <b>God of Classical Theism</b>, it is reasonable to accept miracles</li>
<li>The <b>Apparent Coincidence argument</b> states that coincidences may explain one-off events, but not repeated reports of miracles</li>
<li>The <b>Falsification Principle</b> states that we should accept miracles to be true until they can be definitively disproven</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b><u>Arguments against miracles</u></b></div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Lack of empirical evidence</li>
<li>Assumption that God exists</li>
<li>They defy the laws of nature</li>
<li>Interferes with free will (<b>Wiles</b>)</li>
<li>May be a human way of dealing with the unexplained</li>
<li><b>Placebo argument</b></li>
<li><b>A. N. Wilson</b> refers to miracles as natural events interpreted religiously</li>
<li><b>Gareth Moore</b>, an <b>anti-realist</b>, simply states that "<i>God is nothing.</i>"</li>
<li><b>Bultmann</b> referred to miracles as myths</li>
<li>Miracles lead to the <b>problem of evil</b> - is God random or biased? How can he allow innocent people to suffer if he is an interventionist?</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b><u>Miscellaneous</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The following bits are just quotes I researched for a project - they're not necessary, but one or two might be useful to throw in to back up a point...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Lemony Snicket</b> said that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree on what they are made of, where they come from, or how often they should appear.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Writer <b>Fyodor Dostoyevsky</b> argued that:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>It's not miracles that generate faith, it's faith that generates miracles.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Paul Coelho</b>:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Miracles only happen if you believe in miracles.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Hypatia of Alexandria</b> once said that:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Miracles are poetic fantasies.</i>"</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-44339004873609881322013-05-23T07:29:00.004-07:002013-05-23T07:29:53.643-07:00A2 Religious Studies: Religious Experiences<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>Richard Swinburne</b> believes that religious experiences help prove the existence of God. He believes that it is important to categorise the two types of experience:<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Public experiences</b></li>
<ol>
<li>Ordinary, interpreted experiences such as the beauty of the sky</li>
<li>Extraordinary experiences, such as Jesus walking on water</li>
</ol>
<li><b>Private experiences</b></li>
<ol>
<li>Experiences that are describable in normal language</li>
<li>Experiences that are <b>ineffable</b> (cannot be explained in language)</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<div>
More importantly, Swinburne puts forward two principles to support the argument for religious experience:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>The Principle of Credulity</u></b> - if someone appears to be present, it makes logical sense to say that they are so, unless the observer is under particular circumstances (intoxicated, has a mental illness etc.)</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>However, some argue that religion itself is a particular circumstance, and that you are more likely to see things which aren't there if you belong to a religious group</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<b><u>The Principle of Testimony</u></b> - it makes sense to believe what people tell you, since the majority of people tell the truth.</div>
<div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>However, this can be criticised as a view that is far too optimistic and idealistic for mankind</li>
</ul>
<div>
Swinburne also argues for the <b>priory probability argument</b>, whereby he states that the probability of the existence of a <b>cosmological God</b> is higher than that of, say, the existence of UFOs, so the likelihood should be taken seriously</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Antony Flew</b> criticises Swinburne's prior probability argument, accusing him of simply adding up theories to create a '<b>cumulative case</b>'. Using the <b>analogy of ten leaky buckets</b>, Flew stated that arguments for God make a 'bucket', but the flaws of all these arguments put holes in the buckets; it is pointless trying to fill up a bucket with holes in it!</li>
</ul>
<div>
Another big advocate (and one who should always be mentioned) was <b>William James</b>, who wrote <i>Varieties of Religious Experience</i>. He broadly defined religious experiences as:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>The feelings, acts and experiences of individual men.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
James, like <b>William Alston</b>, argued that <b>something is real if it has real effects</b>. We can't really deny that religious experiences have effects on people, so James goes one step further and uses the effects as evidence for the existence of God.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
James summed up religious experiences by giving four distinct descriptions (<b>PINT</b>):</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>P: passivity </b>- you are not in control of the experience</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>I: ineffable</b> - the experience cannot be described in human language</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>N: noetic</b> - the experience leads to a greater understanding</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>T: transient</b> - the experience is temporary</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is similar to the <b>Martin Buber</b> belief; Buber spoke of "<b>I-thou</b>" experiences, calling all experiences personal one-to-one conversations with God</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Nicholas Lash</b> rejects James's view that experiences are directly personal, arguing that experiences are about experiencing God through <b>pattern setters</b></li>
<ul>
<li><b>Peter Vardy</b> rejects this view, calling him an <b>anti-realist</b></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
<b>William Alston</b> argued that experiences are <b>non-sensory</b>; God is spiritual, and cannot affect people physically. Similarly, <b>R. Otto </b>argued for <b>numinous experiences</b>, saying that God is<b> transcendent </b>and so he can only affect us by filling us with a sense of awe. He called this:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Mysterium tremendum</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Kant</b> criticised this view, stating that we cannot use our senses to experience God, since he is in the <b>noumenal world</b> whereas we're stuck in the <b>phenomenal world</b></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
A major criticism on the argument from religious experience is the <b>argument from psychology</b>, advocated largely by <b>Sigmund Freud</b>. Freud called religious experiences wish fulfilment, referring to religion as:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>A universal, obsessional neurosis.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
He argued that religious experiences stem from the <b>primal horde theory</b>. This theory states that every society consists of a 'primal horde' of people who gather around a single dominant male. Freud argued that the male will inevitably be killed out of jealousy, leading to feelings of guilt. These guilty feelings pass down through history into people's <b>unconscious minds</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
According to Freud, males focus their guilt onto a <b>totem</b> animal. They pray to this totem and sacrifice animals to appease it in order to gain a sense of atonement for what they have done. Freud likened his totem idea to the act of <b>communion</b>, and said that God is the ultimate totem.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Freud also outlined the structure of the psyche: the <b>id</b> (primitive desires), <b>ego</b> (rationality and reflection) and <b>superego</b> (moral compass). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
He drew a comparison between religion and his famous <b>Oedipus complex</b>, in that God acts as a replacement father figure. He also suggested that people turn to religion out of a fear of death, an argument supported by evolutionary biologist <b>Richard Dawkins</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Michael Palmer</b> criticises Freud, asking how the Oedipus complex applies to religions where people believe in multiple gods. He says that in Freud's argument:</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>All evidence is discredited.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Paul Vitz</b> takes Freud's logic and argues that atheists are simply rejecting their father figure by not believing in God</li>
<li><b>Anne Marie Rizzuto</b> argues that Freud has not removed the illusion with religion, but has replaced religion with an illusion</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>Carl Jun</b>g, another psychologist, also argued that religious experiences were not evidence of God's existence. However, Jung differed from Freud and argued that, as an <b>agnostic</b>, religion is actually positive. He referred to God as a <b>universal archetype</b>, and said that a belief in God is part of the <b>collective unconscious </b>which all humans share. He called religious experiences <b>natural processes</b>, and argued that faith can help combat psychological problems.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Antony Flew </b>proposed the <b>vicious circle argument </b>in opposition to the argument from religious experience. He argued that everything which we are is based on something else; x leads to y, which in itself enforces x. A religious belief, Flew said, enforces a religious experience, and vice versa. </div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>However, this doesn't account for a) people of one religion having religious experiences relating to different religions or b) people converting to religion without having a religious experience</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b>David Hume</b> put forward the <b>conflicting claims argument</b> to oppose the argument from religious experience. He simply argued that two opposing religious experiences cancel one another out and discredit them. He called this:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>A triumph for the sceptic.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>But two conflicting religious experiences still leaves the possibility of one being correct</li>
<li><b>J. Smart </b>argues that all experiences come from the same God, but are merely interpreted differently</li>
</ul>
<div>
Criticising the argument from religious experience, <b>Karl Marx </b>put forward the <b>sociological argument</b>, stating that religion is merely a way to oppress and alienate lower classes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Marx gave four particular images to enforce his argument:</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Humans are in flower-covered chains</b> - religion oppresses us, even if it seems to comfort us</li>
<li><b>Religion is a false sun</b> - it appears to give light and clarity, but does not</li>
<li>Religion is "<i>the opium of the people.</i>"</li>
<li>Religion is "<i>the sigh of the oppressed.</i>"</li>
</ol>
<div>
Similarly, <b>Edwin Starbuck</b> argued that religious experiences are often down to social pressures.</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>However, Marx's argument was proposed in a time where many religious organisations were corrupt, which arguably doesn't apply to modern world religion</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>Corporate and Individual Experiences</u></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the exam, a question may ask about how valid corporate or individual religious experiences are. Corporate experiences are experiences that happen in public places to several people. One of the best examples of this is the <b>Toronto Blessing of 1994</b>, whereby many people who visited a <b>Pentecostal church</b> went through strange religious experiences, from speaking in tongues (<b>glossolalia</b>), to laughing hysterically, to barking like dogs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>Strengths</u></b></div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Corporate experiences are <b>more numerically valid</b></li>
<li>They often show shared feelings and responses, which are more valid than individual experiences</li>
<li>Suggests that experiences come from God, not individual imaginations</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b><u>Weaknesses</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Taking the Toronto Blessing as an example - why would God show himself by making people laugh hysterically and bark like dogs?!</li>
<li><b>Hank Hanegraaff</b> argues that such phenomena are the result of mass hypnosis</li>
<li><b>William Sergeant</b> argued that mass religious conversions are down to conditioning</li>
<li>Christian psychiatrist <b>John White</b> refers to corporate experiences as:</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>learned patterns of behaviour</i>"</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Individual Experiences</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Individual experiences are self-explanatory... they relate to the Swinburne and James view.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><u>Strengths</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Corporate experiences can be described as being down to 'mass hypnosis'</li>
<li>They can be authenticated personally</li>
<li>They are less likely to be conditioned</li>
</ol>
<div>
<b><u>Weaknesses</u></b></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Don't appear as valid as corporate experiences</li>
<li>There are often no witnesses to these experiences</li>
<li>Lack of empirical evidence</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>Speaking in Tongues/Glossolalia</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is a particularly well-known form of religious experience, whereby people slip into an indistinguishable language (adhering to the view that such experiences are <b>ineffable</b>) and appear possessed by God's grace.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Biblically, speaking in tongues wasn't uncommon. It happened to the <b>Gentiles</b> and the<b> Disciples</b>. </div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Emil Kraepelin</b> referred to people who speak in tongues as <b>schizophrenic</b>, calling it unhealthy</li>
<ul>
<li>This is refuted by <b>John Kildahl</b>, who said that glossolalia is actually good for stress relief</li>
</ul>
<li><b>Goodman</b>, who studied glossolalia, argued that when people speak in tongues, they are simply in a trance</li>
<ul>
<li>This is refuted by <b>Samarin</b>, who criticised Goodman for only looking at one group in his study</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
In 2006, the <b>Newburg's Study</b> was founded to investigate the phenomenon of glossolalia. But don't get too excited, because the study eventually deduced that the experience is real to the person (so James would argue it is therefore real) but not necessarily real in itself. <b>Newburg</b> himself said:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>The question is still left open.</i>"</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-43766886860914491662013-05-22T13:28:00.004-07:002013-05-23T04:49:34.107-07:00A2 English Literature: Liminality in Gothic Literature<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Liminality is a significant element of Gothic literature, and comes from the Latin word 'limen', meaning 'threshold'. And, as the translation suggests, it refers to someone or something being on a boundary between two things - often two extremes. It's like a transitory, 'in-between' state between two things. <b>Manuel Aguirre</b> (<i>Liminal Terror: The Poetics of Gothic Space</i>), a literary critic, cites liminality as a defining feature of Gothic literature.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Liminality in Wuthering Heights</u></b><br />
<br />
Heathcliff is an incredibly liminal character. Even the latter half of his name, 'cliff', is a liminal <b>setting</b>: a place between land and sea. Furthermore, the name Heathcliff is not his own, but the name of a deceased child in the Earnshaw family. The fact that this unknown stranger is given the name of somebody who is dead immediately presents Heathcliff as a character who is between life and death. Also, Heathcliff is often seen as an <b>antihero</b>, as are many Gothic protagonists. This very title is liminal; is he a hero or is he a villain?<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Heathcliff is referred to as a "<i>gypsy</i>". Gypsies are typically outsiders, and Heathcliff appears to be an outsider as well as an 'insider'; he literally spends much of his time indoors in the latter stages of the novel, and aims to usurp Wuthering Heights.<br />
<br />
When Lockwood first encounters Cathy, who he seems to be mildly obsessed with, it can be argued that he describes her in liminal terms, since she is "<i>scarcely past girlhood</i>". Furthermore, he notes how her eyes "<i>hovered between scorn and a kind of desperation.</i>" Cathy, like her mother, never appears to fit into one category or another.<br />
<br />
The moors, which are mostly associated with Heathcliff and Catherine, are a liminal setting, since they lie between Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange; a neutral place for the characters.<br />
<br />
The use of Nelly as a narrator and character is liminal, since she both observes and participates in a lot of the novel's action.<br />
<br />
Throughout the novel, windows are presented as liminal boundaries. Not only are windows liminal in that they are between the inside and outside, they are also <b>symbolically liminal</b> in the novel. Lockwood encounters Catherine's spectre as "<i>a child's face looking through the window</i>". This arguably presents the window as a liminal symbol between life and death, or the natural and supernatural. Later, Heathcliff tells Nelly of how he and Catherine observed the opulent interior of Thrushcross Grange by peering through a window; here the window may be symbolic of the liminal stage in-between civility (Thrushcross Grange) and incivility (Heathcliff and Catherine). Later, Heathcliff expresses how he had "<i>intended shattering their great glass panes</i>"; an example of how, as a Gothic protagonist, Heathcliff wishes to break boundaries and cross thresholds.<br />
<br />
Isabella asks Nelly, "<i>Is Mr. Heathcliff a man? If so, is he mad? And if not, is he a devil?</i>" This puts Heathcliff on the liminal stage between man and monster. Which is he? This particular sense of liminality is also covered heavily in Carter's <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>.<br />
<br />
Catherine dies and Cathy is born in spring. Spring could be argued to be a liminal season that celebrates the transition between death and new life, which can be linked to the two characters.<br />
<br />
When Cathy calls Hareton a "<i>dunce</i>", she describes his facial expression in a liminal way that mirrors the liminal description Lockwood employs when talking about her in the opening chapters: "<i>The fool stared, with a grin hovering about his lips, and a scowl gathering over his eyes ... whether it were not pleasant familiarity, or what it really was, contempt.</i>"<br />
<br />
Lockwood simply states that, "<i>I should hardly know who was dead, and who was living.</i>" This sums up liminality within the novel; the boundaries between life and death are blurred, and many characters sit on the fence between the two, it seems.<br />
<br />
When Catherine is on the brink of death after starving herself, she cries out, "<i>'the clock is striking twelve! It's true, then; that's dreadful!'</i>" By 'that's true', she's referring to an earlier assertion that the room is haunted. As a time, midnight is as liminal as it gets; not quite one day, not quite the other.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Liminality in Frankenstein</u></b><br />
<br />
Frankenstein's creature is certainly liminal in nature; he is between life and death as well as the natural and supernatural. In fact, when Victor first starts creating the creature, he is subject to very liminal thoughts. He states that "<i>life and death appeared to me ideal bounds</i>", and notes how "<i>sometimes, on the brink of certainty, I failed.</i>" The creation is neither a success nor a failure; it didn't go how Victor had planned, but it didn't fail catastrophically since he was able to create life from assembled body parts.<br />
<br />
Another character who is on the boundary between life and death at one point is Justine: "<i>The poor victim, who on the morrow was to pass the awful boundary between life and death...</i>"<br />
<br />
Victor is often closely linked to the Gothic convention of the <b>sublime</b>; as <b>Edmund Burke</b> notes in <i>On the Sublime and Beautiful</i>, sublime landscapes can often fill a protagonist with feelings of awe and dread. When Victor refers to "<i>the awful and majestic in nature</i>", this adheres to the sublime as well as liminality; Victor's perception of the world around him seems influenced by his own inner turmoil.<br />
<br />
And Victor's inner turmoil is very liminal in itself. Throughout the novel, Victor never really falls into one extreme; he usually hops between two extremes like a typical Gothic protagonist. Is Victor good or evil? He certainly thinks he's aiding the world when he makes he creature, yet at the same time he neglects the sentient being that he creates. If Victor was inherently good or evil, the novel wouldn't be as interesting. It certainly wouldn't be as Gothic. The fact that he falls between the two mirrors his inner conflict; the conflict that is typical of Gothic protagonists.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the creature is never either good nor evil. We often sympathise with him, since he is alone, neglected and tormented for his appearance. But at the same time he isn't totally innocent; he still murders young William, Henry and Elizabeth. And when he murders Elizabeth, he appears take genuine joy in doing so - this is confirmed when he basically tells Walton what a laugh it was killing Victor's bride. The creature refers to himself as "<i>thy Adam</i>", but also notes that "<i>I considered Satan the fitter emblem of my condition</i>". So which is he?<br />
<br />
Furthermore, like in <i>Wuthering Heights</i>, Shelley uses the <b>motif of windows to symbolise liminality</b>. The creature is seen grinning through a window on two notable occasions: when Victor is assembling the female creature and just after the creature has killed Elizabeth. The grin itself is a motif of the creature's, but the windows seem to represent the liminal barrier between Victor and the creature. Do the windows act as a mirror, highlight the notion that <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-gothic-doubles-in.html">the two are doubles of one another</a>? It is also interesting to note that in the latter case, the window is open, just as the window is left open when Heathcliff falls to his death at the end of <i>Wuthering Heights</i>. What does this mean? Is the barrier broken between Victor and the creature? Are they now as 'one'?<br />
<br />
The setting whereby Victor assembles the female creature is also liminal, since it is between the land and sea. Referring to the sea as an "<i>insuperable barrier</i>", Victor later dumps the body parts of the creature's companion in the ocean. He also spends a lot of time out at sea, referring to the scene as "<i>perfectly solitary</i>". This is linked more closely to the sublime, but it's still an interesting setting that mirrors Victor's liminal state.<br />
<br />
Finally, as the creature bids Walton farewell, Walton notes a "<i>sad and solemn enthusiasm</i>" in his voice. The creature is both miserably alone and triumphant - he stands between the two.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Liminality in Macbeth</u></b><br />
<br />
Macbeth opens with three very liminal characters - the witches. Although the witches are inherently supernatural, they seem to rest on the liminal line between worldly and otherworldly/male and female. In 1,3, Banquo notes that the witches "<i>look not like th'inhabitants o'th'earth, / And yet are on't</i>". He also points out that "<i>You should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret / That you are so.</i>" The witches seem to lie between all the extremes. They're between what is human and inhuman; if one argues that the witches are merely a product of Macbeth's innermost desires, we could draw links between their liminal nature and the liminal nature of Macbeth's character.<br />
<br />
Macbeth himself, like Victor and Heathcliff, is a liminal character because he is never quite inherently good or evil. He may seem evil at times, but we still have excuses to fall back on - Lady Macbeth's influence, perhaps, or the fact that Macbeth's most unforgivable crimes coincide with his descent into madness. He is hugely conflicted, and nothing is black and white: "<i>This supernatural soliciting / Cannot be ill; cannot be good.</i>"<br />
<br />
Lady Macbeth is also a very in-between character. She rests between the natural and supernatural, especially when she pleads with the spirits to "<i>unsex me here</i>". She's not as blatantly supernatural as the witches, for example, but she's not your average rooted-in-the-natural-world Lady Macduff, either.<br />
<br />
The walls of Macbeth's castles can also be considered liminal. The outside world is one of order and justice; battles are fought fairly, nature is in its place and everything's peachy. Within the castle, however, we've got schemes, duplicity, deception, the supernatural, ghosts, apparitions, murder and all sorts. The actions of what happens within the castle (such as Duncan's murder) influence what happens in the natural world (such as the violation of nature).<br />
<br />
<b><u>Liminality in The Bloody Chamber</u></b><br />
<br />
A lot of the liminality presented in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> links directly to the Gothic convention of <b>metamorphosis</b>. The metamorphoses typically presented show the transformation between man/beast or character/setting in the collection. Often, characters appear to be stuck within the liminal stage between the two extremes.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-bloody-chamber_21.html"><i>The Bloody Chamber</i></a>, the Marquis certainly appears to be in the liminal stage between man and beast. His "<i>leonine</i>" head and "<i>dark mane</i>" make him sound as though he is part lion, and yet his eloquence and personable qualities seem to show a more human side to him. It is as though Carter is exploring the 'beast' within mankind; perhaps the leonine aspects of the Marquis are representative of his carnal desires. This is certainly true of <i>The Tiger's Bride</i>, whereby the transformation the female protagonist goes through into a tiger herself seems to be representative of her embracing her true beast-like nature.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-bloody-chamber.html"><i>The Erl-King</i></a>, the titular character seems to be part-character, part-setting, since he is both a physical being and the forest in which he lives. Carter uses personification such as "<i>the stark elders have an anorexic look</i>" to draw comparisons between his character and the setting, highlighting how he is neither one nor the other.<br />
<br />
<i>The Lady of the House of Love</i> tells the story of the Countess, the "<i>beautiful queen of the vampires</i>", who seems to be both a predator and a victim. At night she hungers for men, but by day can be heard "<i>sobbing in a derelict bedroom</i>". She is a victim to her own condition. This is very liminal; we have sympathy for her character because she cannot help who she is or what she does. She is beautiful yet horrific at the same time: "<i>she is so beautiful she is unnatural; her beauty is an abnormality</i>". Furthermore, Carter describes her as "<i>both death and the maiden</i>"; the Countess covers two extremes, resting between the two to provide us insight into a tormented life. </div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-84748563417903780672013-05-22T11:41:00.001-07:002013-05-22T11:41:37.485-07:00A2 English Literature: Transgression in Gothic Literature<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A key feature of the Gothic genre, and one that applies to all four texts I'm covering (<i>Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein, The Bloody Chamber</i> and <i>Macbeth</i>) is <b>transgression</b>. Transgression, put simply, is the violation of a particular societal, moral or natural law. Put simply, it is breaking boundaries - or breaking rules of society. Gothic fiction frequently deals with transgressive protagonists, and many Gothic themes stem from transgression. <b>Miller</b> (critic) refers to transgression as "<i>the dissolving of normative boundaries</i>".<br />
<br />
Wikipedia (don't knock it) defines transgression as:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>a genre of literature that focuses on characters who feel confined by the norms and expectations of society and who break free of those confines in unusual and/or illicit ways. Because they are rebelling against the basic norms of society, protagonists of transgressional fiction may seem mentally ill, anti-social, or nihilistic.</i>"</div>
<br />
<b><u>Transgression in Wuthering Heights</u></b><br />
<br />
In <i>Wuthering Heights</i>, there's a lot of boundary-breaking. Certain characters exceed what is usually expected of them in society.<br />
<br />
It can be argued that Catherine is a transgressive character, since she breaks the boundary that was expected of women in her time. Catherine is presented as a violent character considering that she is a lady of the early Victorian era; when she is a child she asks her father for a whip as a gift, and when she is older she 'boxes' her soon-to-be husband Edgar and bites Nelly's hand. This behaviour is both <b>extreme</b> (an aspect of the Gothic) and transgressive, since it shows her as breaking the boundary of what is expected of women at the time. Yet it is also interesting to consider how obsessed Catherine appears to be with her status in society, marrying Edgar because he is wealthier than Heathcliff. On the one hand, she adheres to society's norms. On the other, she rebels against what society expects of her.<br />
<br />
It can also be argued that Cathy, her daughter, is a transgressive character, which may also link to the theory that Cathy is another 'version' of Catherine, as though one lives on through the other. Stating, "<i>'I gave him a cut with my whip'</i>", the <b>symbol</b> of a whip is seen to apply to both characters and highlights Cathy's violent nature. Furthermore, just as Catherine attacks Edgar, Cathy pushes Linton. This behaviour is not expected of either character, and shows how they are breaking free from societal norms.<br />
<br />
Heathcliff is probably the most important character to focus on when discussing transgression. Heathcliff breaks several boundaries throughout the novel. His very nature is transgressive; he is by no means gentlemanly, even after his mysterious three-year absence. Heathcliff is wild and untempered, as well as incredibly violent. When he hangs Isabella's dog, for example, he is breaking the boundaries of what is expected not just from a gentleman of the time, but from any moral and rational human being.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Heathcliff and Catherine both break a significant boundary: the boundary of death. Their love (which breaks boundaries in itself, since Heathcliff is named after Catherine's dead sibling and is raised as her brother) is so powerful it <b>transcends death</b> (as we learn when stories are told about people seeing the two as ghosts wandering the moors) - a typical example of how powerful transgression is in the novel. This transgressive love also leads to more transgressive behaviour from Heathcliff. Heathcliff breaks many societal and moral boundaries when he "<i>disturb[s] the dead</i>", as Nelly states. Opening Catherine's coffin and claiming her face is "<i>hers yet</i>", Heathcliff immediately breaks boundaries of what is expected at the time. And digging up your dead girlfriend certainly wasn't expected at the time, for some reason.<br />
<br />
And the end of the novel, though, as with many Gothic novels, the transgression appears to be resolved, and natural order is restored. People are at peace, Cathy and Hareton are happy, and Heathcliff and Catherine also seem to have found peace in death.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Transgression in Frankenstein</u></b><br />
<br />
One of the greatest types of transgression that applies to this novel is Victor's moral transgression, by rebelling against God. By creating his creature and using science to create life, Victor is actively going against what people at the time believed to be God's work. This relates to Shelley's use of <b>intertextuality</b> with Milton's<i> Paradise Lost</i>, whereby the creature refers to himself as Adam - "<i>I ought to be thy Adam...</i>" and likens Victor to a vengeful God.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the means in which Victor assembles the creature (grave robbing, more or less) links to the societal transgression seen when Heathcliff disturbs Catherine's grave in <i>Wuthering Heights</i>. Victor's actions also demonstrate a sense of scientific transgression - the fact that he uses science as the means to an immoral end. His transgressive personality also links to his <b>excessive and extreme behaviour</b>, which are other typical elements of a Gothic protagonist.<br />
<br />
Also, throughout the novel Victor appears to neglect his family and his creature, which could arguably be another example of breaking the normal family ties that are to be expected of such a man. He even neglects his soon-to-be-wife, treating her as a correspondent rather than a companion, as <b>Veeder</b> argues.<br />
<br />
The creature also breaks many boundaries - by murdering William, Henry and Elizabeth he breaks a hell of a lot of moral boundaries, for starters. More implicitly, though, the creature breaks boundaries by default of his nature. He is on the <b>liminal</b> boundaries between life and death and the natural and supernatural.<br />
<br />
The novel also appears to be something of a warning against transgression. Think of where Victor's transgressive nature takes him; he dies alone and bitter after his family and friends have been killed at the hands of his own creation. Nothing good comes from his transgression whatsoever, and it is the core of what makes the novel so Gothic in nature.<br />
<br />
It's important to remember that the novel has the subtitle of <i>The Modern Prometheus</i>; Prometheus was famously punished for exceeding boundaries, namely by being tied up and having his liver pecked out by an eagle every day, only for it to grow back. Victor also warns against transgression when he sees something of himself in Walton and tells him the dangers of over-reaching ambition, which once again links to the <b>intertextual</b> references made to Samuel Taylor Colderidge's <i>The Rime of the Ancient Mariner</i>; Victor is cursed, and warns others against what he did.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Transgression in The Bloody Chamber</u></b><br />
<br />
There is a lot of transgression in Angela Carter's collection, mostly thanks to the violently sexual nature of many of the stories. Several characters break moral and societal boundaries thanks to their obsession with death, sex or both.<br />
<br />
In <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, the Marquis breaks moral and societal boundaries by fusing erotic love with death (a literary device called <b>Liebestod</b>). His bloody chamber, a "<i>room designed for desecration</i>", hides the corpses of his previous lovers. By murdering people, he breaks a significant boundary. By combining a sexual element with death, he expands his transgressive nature and tackles several taboos head-on. The way in which he breaks free from society is disturbing and unnatural to say the least. Yet, as with many Gothic stories, his evil is punished when he is murdered by the protagonist's mother, and a sense of resolution is present at the end of the story.<br />
<br />
In <i>The Snow Child</i>, the Count breaks more boundaries, and in a more disturbing way, than perhaps any other Gothic character across the four texts. Once the child of his desire is dead, he has sex with her corpse. This fuses rape, incest, necrophilia and paedophilia in just a matter of sentences. The Count's carnal desires lead to this shocking and horrifying sense of transgression. This is also an example of how Carter takes transgression and modernises it, as she does with the Gothic genre itself; we are, as readers, more liberal than we were hundreds of years ago, so digging up bodies and seeing women being violent isn't as shocking to us nowadays. By tackling modern taboos, however, taboos that earlier texts daren't cover, Carter is sure to reinvent the Gothic to make it all the more horrifying for us. Interestingly, the Count isn't punished in this short tale; the only punishment he seems to get is the fact that the omniscient narrator snidely remarks "<i>he was soon finished</i>" (don't mention that in the exam, it's just a funny little 'owch!' moment. Carter is once again modernising the Gothic, and in a way just being realistic; the villainous, transgressive characters aren't always punished.<br />
<br />
In <i>The Lady of the House of Love</i>, however, the transgressive titular character despises her own nature. She breaks moral boundaries by murdering young men, and is by nature resting on the boundary between what is natural and what is supernatural: "<i>she is so beautiful she is unnatural.</i>" The Countess is 'punished', but only by her own conscience. Death seems to be a release for her when she is kissed by the young bicyclist.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Transgression in Macbeth</u></b><br />
<br />
Macbeth himself breaks obvious moral boundaries when he orders the killing of many innocent people, such as Lady Macduff and her son. Yet before his reign of terror begins, Macbeth violates a much greater boundary at the time of writing: the divine rights of kings. By killing Duncan, Macbeth is indirectly rebelling against God, which links to the moral transgression explored in <i>Frankenstein</i>. Macbeth appears to break any and every boundary in order to achieve his own aim: to have power.<br />
<br />
Lady Macbeth is also a transgressive character. She actively defies what is expected of her as a woman of her time by being involved with supernatural forces, patronising and condescending her husband, manipulating her husband, being blatantly duplicitous and getting involved with Macbeth's scheming. Yet it is arguable to suggest that Lady Macbeth is somewhat redeemed in the reader's eye before her death; her transgressive nature is immoral to some, yet she does seem to show genuine remorse and guilt when she descends into madness. Macbeth, on the other hand, is punished when he is killed, yet his sense of redemption is arguable. As a Gothic protagonist (in a pre-Gothic text), we should feel a slight bit of sympathy for him even at the end of the play, and to an extent, we do. Both characters are punished, and the play ends with a sense of the natural world being restored as Malcolm is given his rightful seat on the throne.<br />
<br />
<br />
Yet it is important to remember that transgression isn't necessarily a sign of an inherently evil character. Heathcliff, Catherine, Victor, the creature, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and the Countess all still have aspects of their characters that we can sympathise with, even once they've broken their various boundaries.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-16576787717455936372013-05-22T08:06:00.002-07:002013-05-22T08:06:43.474-07:00A2 English Literature: Women in Macbeth<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In this post, as with pretty much all posts about <i>Macbeth</i>, I will of course be relating certain things back to typical Gothic conventions. However, whenever you talk about Macbeth you have to make sure that you tell the examiner that you are aware that Macbeth is a <b>pre-Gothic text</b>. This post primarily focusses on Lady Macbeth and also briefly considers Lady Macduff's role in the play.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Lady Macbeth</u></b><br />
<br />
In typical Shakespearean tragedies, female main characters aren't always treated brilliantly. In <i>Hamlet</i>, Ophelia goes down the "<i>I shall obey, my lord</i>" route. In <i>Othello</i>, Desdemona goes down the "<i>To you I am bound</i>" route. Yet in <i>Macbeth</i>, this isn't quite the case. The most important female figure is Lady Macbeth, a cunning and manipulative woman who is associated with the <b>supernatural</b>. Instantly it can be argued that Lady Macbeth fits in with the later idea of certain Gothic women being 'sinister predators', or '<b>femme fatales</b>'.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Ellen_Terry_a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://www.jssgallery.org/Paintings/Ellen_Terry_a.jpg" width="202" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dame Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Lady Macbeth has been the subject of much debate for hundreds of years. Her role in the play is incredibly important and she is the subject of various interpretations.<br />
<br />
Her first appearance in the play is in act one, scene five. She opens by reading Macbeth's letter; instantly this seems to present her as a typical Shakespearean woman (when I say typical, I mean typical in terms of main female characters in tragedies being passive), since her first words are that of her husband's, as though she is bound to him. Then she stops reading the letter, and we start to realise that she isn't at all typical.<br />
<br />
She instantly states that Macbeth will be "<i>what thou art promised</i>", which shows a determination and strength of will that we may not have been expecting. She goes on to criticise her husband's nature, since he is "<i>too full o'th'milk of human kindness</i>". A wife criticising her husband's nature, whether she is alone or not, wouldn't be hugely popular in Shakespeare's time, let alone in medieval Scotland where the play is set.<br />
<br />
The phrase "<i>I may pour my spirits in thine ear</i>" seems very witch-like, and there are many critics who argue that Lady Macbeth is something of a 'fourth witch'. This interpretation is enforced by what is possibly her most well-known speech, whereby she pleads "<i>you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here</i>". This links Lady Macbeth to the witches, who, as Banquo notes, "<i>should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret / That you are so.</i>" I cover the role of the witches in more detail <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-macbeth-witches.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The witches seem to <b>blur the boundary between male and female</b>, just as Lady Macbeth is blurring boundaries by asking spirits to remove her gender so that she can persuade Macbeth to kill Duncan and seek greatness. As soon as she does this, typical <b>female imagery is violated</b>: "<i>Come to my woman's breasts, / And take my milk for gall...</i>" - this also <b>juxtaposes</b> the "<i>milk of human kindness</i>" that is used to describe Macbeth.<br />
<br />
Lady Macbeth's <b>association with the supernatural</b> violates her expected role as a domesticated and passive woman; she is immediately going against all socially expected norms, adhering to the later Gothic convention of <b>transgression</b>. But the fact that Lady Macbeth seems to have to call upon spirits to remove her gender suggests that the role of women at the time is restrictive - no 'ordinary' woman could do what Lady Macbeth tends to do, so she must call upon supernatural forces for help.<br />
<br />
Her language in this speech is interesting, and characterises her as strong-willed and determined, contrasting Macbeth's "<i>rapt</i>" nature and his various asides in the preceding scenes. Shakespeare includes various <b>imperatives</b> in Lady Macbeth's language, such as "<i>come</i>", "<i>stop</i>" and "<i>take</i>", suggesting that she has control over her situation. Some of her language is typically gory and Gothic in nature: "<i>make thick my blood</i>", "<i>pall thee in the dunnest smoke of Hell</i>".<br />
<br />
Then, Macbeth enters, and Lady Macbeth echoes the words of the witches; this gives weight to the interpretation that she is a 'fourth witch'. In 1,3, the witches say:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis! /</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>All hail, Macbeth! Hail to thee, Than of Cawdor! /</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>All hail, Macbeth! That shalt be King hereafter!</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In 1,5, Lady Macbeth says:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Great Glamis! Worthy Cawdor! / Greater than both, by the all-hail hereafter!</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Furthermore, these words are the first words that Macbeth hears from the witches and his wife in the play. They speak immediately to his desires - there's really no holding back.</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://content8.flixster.com/photo/13/95/78/13957822_ori.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://content8.flixster.com/photo/13/95/78/13957822_ori.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kate Fleetwood as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
When Macbeth starts talking to his wife, Shakespeare's use of indents when Lady Macbeth speaks suggests that she is interjecting him - something that would be frowned upon at the time. It is as though she has power over not just their conversations, but their relationship. This presents her as even more powerful, considering Macbeth is the "<i>brave</i>" and "<i>noble</i>" warrior who can do all sorts of nasty stuff on the battlefield. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Lady Macbeth tells her husband to "<i>look like th'innocent flower, / But be the serpent under't.</i>" This immediately brings in the theme of <b>appearance versus reality</b>, and highlights Lady Macbeth's duplicitous nature. Furthermore, this quotation has <b>contextual significance</b>; after the quashing of Guy Fawkes's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot">Gunpowder Plot</a>, King James I was awarded with a medal that presents a serpent hiding beneath a flower. By comparing Lady Macbeth to such a contemporary atrocity, Shakespeare is sure to present her as villainous. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Furthermore, the word 'serpent' has <b>Biblical connotations</b>, and relates to the serpent in Genesis - the serpent that tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and as a result leads to the downfall of mankind. Is Lady Macbeth the serpent? If so, is Macbeth Eve? A subtle reversal of gender roles could be argued for here, a violation of both fixed boundaries and social norms.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But why? Why does Lady Macbeth seem so interested in persuading Macbeth to kill Duncan? Is it for her own benefit or for his? This whole aspect of her character is great for AO3:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Perhaps Lady Macbeth is a selfish, power-driven villain who manipulates Macbeth so that she can attain greatness and become the queen</li>
<li>Perhaps she wants the best for her husband, and manipulates him into murdering Duncan so that he can become the king, which he deserves</li>
<li>Perhaps she notices that Macbeth secretly desires to be king, and persuades him to seek out his desires and fulfil his ambition? (this is the interpretation that I usually go for)</li>
</ul>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Victoria-Hill-as-Lady-Macbeth-in-Arclight-Films-Macbeth-6-650x433.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://wodumedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Victoria-Hill-as-Lady-Macbeth-in-Arclight-Films-Macbeth-6-650x433.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Victoria Hill as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
In 1,7, Macbeth expresses doubts about murdering Duncan (fair play, divine rights of kings and all), and Lady Macbeth comes along and pretty much tells him how ridiculous he's being. She opens with a <b>rhetorical question</b> that is condescending in nature: "<i>Was the hope drunk / Wherein you dressed yourself?</i>" This demeaning attitude is really not what was expected of women at the time - and if that's not bad enough, she openly challenges his manhood:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>When you durst do it, then you were a man; / And, to be more than what you were, you would / Be so much more the man.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then, she mentions that "<i>I have given suck</i>", letting the audience know that Lady Macbeth has at one point been a mother. Shakespeare's use of violent and shocking imagery distances us even further from Lady Macbeth:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>I would, while it was smiling in my face, / Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums, / And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you / Have done to this.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
By presenting Lady Macbeth as a maternal figure, and then violating this role so horrifically, Shakespeare is <b>warping the expected roles of women</b>. This also suggests that her "<i>unsex me here</i>" speech has been successful; what true mother could say such a thing about her child? Surely the spirits must have succeeded in removing her gender?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9T1zQoAtrVN69eCZ7AK1zM55wEAjFmNNgQyeMyJPU7MHb3baBIG-JNgBTsTw_9yP9iWsFXXf_xgE-5KwZWTGCycu0SXo6J8YNUfEVtIVGEwVzSeHFnxZH3_cAH5mAeWr0-iDdDCnRdLeB/s640/aislin-mcguckin-macbeth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9T1zQoAtrVN69eCZ7AK1zM55wEAjFmNNgQyeMyJPU7MHb3baBIG-JNgBTsTw_9yP9iWsFXXf_xgE-5KwZWTGCycu0SXo6J8YNUfEVtIVGEwVzSeHFnxZH3_cAH5mAeWr0-iDdDCnRdLeB/s320/aislin-mcguckin-macbeth.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Aislín McGuckin as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
2,2 is an interesting scene in developing Lady Macbeth's character. She continues to be the leading force in her relationship with Macbeth; Macbeth's first four lines in the scene are questions - it is his wife who gives the answers. She continues to demean him, saying "<i>A foolish thought, to say 'a sorry sight'</i>" in response to Macbeth, and she condescends him by saying "<i>I shame / To wear a heart so white.</i>" </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As the play goes on, Lady Macbeth seems less and less in control of the situation herself and her husband are in. In 3,2 there is an absence of her <b>rhetorical language</b> and <b>evocative imagery</b>. She seems to be consoling her husband, telling him "<i>what's done, is done</i>" and speaks to him as though she is more of a typical wife of the time than a cruel villainess: "<i>Gentle my lord, sleek o'er your rugged looks, / Be bright and jovial among your guests tonight.</i>" </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
It could also be interpreted that this is the moment in the play where Macbeth actually takes over the power in his relationship. He is now the one dismissing his wife condescendingly, calling her "<i>dearest chuck</i>" and telling her to "<i>be innocent of the knowledge</i>". This presents the two as more of a typical couple of the time. Lady Macbeth also speaks less in this scene, which contrasts the amount of speech assigned to both characters in previous scenes.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In 3,4, Lady Macbeth appears to be demeaning her husband again, challenging his manhood by asking, "<i>Are you a man?</i>" However this time, Macbeth's answer is more assertive: "<i>Ay, and a bold one, that dare look on that / Which might appal the Devil.</i>" This scene is pivotal because we are made aware of the extent of Macbeth's guilt and inner conflict through the presentation of Banquo's ghost. Is this the point of no return for Macbeth? Perhaps his wife's influence on him is now redundant. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/TheFlowerGirl/Macbeth/LadyMacbeth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/TheFlowerGirl/Macbeth/LadyMacbeth.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Francesca Annis as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The first scene of act five feature a Doctor and an Attendant. The two characters are discussing the fact that Lady Macbeth has been sleepwalking, something the Doctor puts down to "<i>a great perturbation in nature</i>" - this links to Macbeth violating the divine rights of the king. In literature, <b>sleep is often associated with innocence,</b> which is unlike what we've seen of Lady Macbeth so far. The Attendant tells the Doctor that she will not tell him what Lady Macbeth says when she sleepwalks, which suggests that she may be confessing her guilt regarding her role in Macbeth's usurpation. Sleepwalking is inherently very Gothic: it has connotations of <b>madness, surpasses the boundary of sleep and is liminal </b>in nature - not quite awake, not quite asleep.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Lady Macbeth enters, in her sleepwalking state, "<i>holding a taper</i>" (a taper being a long, thin candle). Perhaps this is <b>symbolic</b> of Lady Macbeth bringing light to the situation. By bringing light into darkness (two Gothic <b>extremes</b>), is Shakespeare suggesting that Lady Macbeth is expressing guilt? The Attendant notes that "<i>she has light by her continually</i>"; perhaps there is an element of innocence behind the apparently villainous character. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then we hear Lady Macbeth uttering the infamous line, "<i>Out, damned spot; out, I say!</i>" as she tries to scrub invisible blood off her hands. To highlight the fact that she has now descended into madness, Shakespeare puts Lady Macbeth's speech in <b>prose</b> - which is often associated with lower class or mad characters. Everything she does here <b>juxtaposes</b> her earlier presentation; she is not in control. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
She openly seems to express guilt for the death of innocent people: "<i>The Thane of Fife had a wife: where is she now? / What, will these hands ne'er be clean?</i>" The blood of Macbeth's victims is on her hands. Even if some argue that Lady Macbeth 'bullies' her husband into murdering Duncan, is it fair for her to carry the guilt for his other murders? </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Her attitude here directly links to line said by Macbeth in 2,2. Macbeth says:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand?</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHp6tZPPXAqxurv9EKilkKJkCBklXeLzOZbisVLoY7aopbEimwXrN74E2EPRs0UrehsoRDrzVHFNemoodlwbjP5Nsm-mt1Rv8IG4dCCg7UvwqgIWVLOP0uDkS0SAGGBRY89jr6xQdY2cE/s1600/Judi-Dench-as-Lady-Macbet-010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHp6tZPPXAqxurv9EKilkKJkCBklXeLzOZbisVLoY7aopbEimwXrN74E2EPRs0UrehsoRDrzVHFNemoodlwbjP5Nsm-mt1Rv8IG4dCCg7UvwqgIWVLOP0uDkS0SAGGBRY89jr6xQdY2cE/s320/Judi-Dench-as-Lady-Macbet-010.jpg" width="208" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Judi Dench as Lady Macbeth</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Both characters experience their guilt at different times. Macbeth, however, carries on, assuming that a reign of tyranny will rid him of his guilt and help establish his power. Yet for Lady Macbeth, the guilt consumes her; it makes her ill, mad and, if one reads her ambiguous death in a certain way, suicidal.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
When Macbeth learns of his wife's death, he says "<i>Out, out brief candle!</i>" This contrasts Lady Macbeth's desire to have light by her side in the scene before her death. Perhaps this is what separates the two: Lady Macbeth ended up trying to bring light (clarity, rationality) to the world, whereas Macbeth is merely interested in extinguishing light (obscurity, irrationality, taking people's lives). </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In Malcom's final speech, Lady Macbeth is referred to as a "<i>fiend-like Queen</i>". A couple of exams back, the Macbeth question focussed on this phrase. Is Lady Macbeth truly a fiend-like Queen?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Yes - her selfish desire for power inadvertently causes the deaths of many</li>
<li>No - she merely persuaded Macbeth to seize his desires, and was unfairly caught up in the repercussions of his actions</li>
<li>Somewhat - she initially desired power, but later openly regretted her actions and motives (something that arguably cannot be said for her husband)</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>Lady Macduff</u></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The other main female character in the story is Lady Macduff, who appears to be the Gothic archetype of a '<b>trembling victim</b>'; a passive woman who seems to be the opposite of Lady Macbeth. Seen only in one scene, Lady Macduff refers to herself as "<i>the poor wren / (The most diminutive of birds)</i>". This <b>bird imagery</b> roots Lady Macduff in the natural world and also presents her as a weak, passive character. She also calls her son "<i>Poor bird!</i>" The mother/son relationship here is obvious, visual and loving. Yet Lady Macduff's role as a mother comes in one grotesque line, where she tells Macbeth she would dash her newborn son's brains out for his love.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Lady_Macduff_and_Son.JPG/220px-Lady_Macduff_and_Son.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Lady_Macduff_and_Son.JPG/220px-Lady_Macduff_and_Son.JPG" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Peggy Webber as Lady Macduff</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Lady Macduff is killed as soon as her scene is over, albeit off-stage. Is the Macduff family relationship only included by Shakespeare to contrast with the dysfunctional Macbeths? (Dysfunctional is putting it lightly.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I mentioned above, the witches also come into the 'women' category in the play (just), and my post on them can be found <a href="http://jakedoesrevision.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a2-english-literature-macbeth-witches.html">here</a>.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-72979062273595165712013-05-22T04:54:00.008-07:002013-05-27T07:17:12.526-07:00A2 English Literature: The Erl-King<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The folklore behind <i>The Erl-King</i> isn't as obvious as it is with some of the other stories in the collection (I had no idea who or what the Erl-King was, even after reading the story over and over again). Yet the origin(s) of the character appear to be rooted in German and Scandinavian folklore. Typically, the Erl-King was portrayed as a malevolent creature who haunts forests and carries off travellers to their deaths, which sounds very Carter. Particularly in Scandinavian folklore, the Erl-King was seen as a female spirit. Carter arguably incorporates certain elements of both genders into her presentation of the character. Although the Erl-King is objectively male in this story, it is noted that "<i>he is an excellent housewife</i>".<br />
<br />
The Erl-King has been included, or at least alluded to, in two poems: <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/126/55.html">'La Belle Dame sans Merci' by John Keats</a> and<a href="http://www.online-literature.com/donne/1648/"> 'The Erl-King' by Goethe</a>. In Keats's poem, the Erl-King is a "<i>faery</i>" who strikes down a male traveller. In Goethe's poem, the Erl-King is portrayed as a villainous elf (the phrase 'villainous elf' was just written in my notes on its own and I felt I had to include it) who preys upon children.<br />
<br />
The Erl-King has roots elsewhere, though; it is suggested that the character may come from the symbol of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man">The Green Man</a>, a motif found in many cultures, and a character who is related to nature and rebirth.<br />
<br />
The opening of the story is disconcerting and generally a bit weird. Carter uses <b>dense description</b> - perhaps to mirror the setting of the dense forest - and it can be a bit hard to unravel. Carter toys with <b>tense and perspective</b> in the opening paragraphs. One sentence starts "<i>you step...</i>" while another starts with "<i>there was...</i>" This alternation between tenses gives the story a timeless and confusing quality, similar to many other stories in the collection where time seems to be in flux and is rarely clearly defined. This sense of confusion mirrors the <b>liminal</b> nature of the Erl-King himself - a being who is half-human, half-forest. The antagonist's very nature also links to the <b>Gothic convention of metamorphosis</b>; the Erl-King is a blurring of boundaries.<br />
<br />
One of the first things Carter does in the story is set up a <b>paradox</b>: "<i>perfect transparency is impenetrable.</i>" This paradoxical phrase relates to the disorientating nature of the forest and is also a feature of the Gothic - boundaries are broken and expectations of what is possible are toyed with.<br />
<br />
Carter makes more use of <b>intertextuality</b> in the opening - the line "<i>light is sufficient to itself</i>" is directly taken from <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Light_is_sufficient_to_itself_%E2%80%94">a poem by Emily Dickinson</a> (a hugely interesting and important poet if you ever get the chance to look her up).<br />
<br />
As for the Erl-King himself, Carter isn't black and white in his description of him. There are references that make the Erl-King appear malevolent and monstrous:<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>Erl-King will do you grievous harm</i>"</li>
<li>"<i>you sink your teeth into my throat</i>" - relates to <b>vampiric imagery</b> seen in <i>The Lady of the House of Love</i> and briefly in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i></li>
<li>"<i>white, pointed teeth with the spittle gleaming on them</i>" - links to the wolf in <i>The Company of Wolves</i> - a monstrous nature to the Erl-King</li>
</ul>
<div>
However, there are certain references that suggest another side to the Erl-King. It's like Carter is saying 'leave him alone! You don't even know him!' but in a more eloquent, literary way. She seems to be adhering to both the Keats/Goethe perspectives of the character as well as considering the roots the character may have in the Green Man stories:</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>He showed me...</i>" "<i>He told me...</i>" - the actual quotes are far too long to remember, but several sentences start like this, and usually consist of the Erl-King showing the female protagonist the ways of the forest, as though he is a kindly and wise spirit</li>
<li>"<i>It is only because he is kind to me that I do not fall still further</i>" - this can of course be criticised when weighing up interpretations, because as we learn from the story <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, doting kindness doesn't always rule out the possibility of your husband wanting to murder you </li>
<li>"<i>He is an excellent housewife</i>" - this is Carter's typical technique of <b>reversing and warping gender roles</b>. By presenting the Erl-King as maternal we think of him - if only for a moment - as protective and motherly</li>
</ul>
<div>
It should also be remembered that the Erl-King is part-forest, and so Carter uses <b>personification</b> a few times to give life to seemingly inanimate objects:</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>the trees stir with a noise like taffeta skirts</i>"</li>
<li>"<i>the stark elders have an anorexic look</i>"</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
A recurring <b>motif</b> in this story is the presentation of the Erl-King's eyes. The fact that the protagonist pays so much attention to his eyes suggests that they are perhaps bewitching in one way or another. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"<i>Eyes green as apples. Green as dead sea fruit.</i>" This quotation starts off by linking the Erl-King to nature, before <b>juxtaposing</b> - or violating - nature with death. The Erl-King is alive and natural yet also dead and decaying. Carter draws once again upon the two perspectives of the Erl-King's origins in order to create a character who is more complex than in the usual fairy tales. Furthermore, the two <b>extremes</b> presented here are adherent to the Gothic genre; the Erl-King is not just one thing - his character is presented in extremes, he breaks boundaries, he is alive and dead at once.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The narrator also notes again how his eyes are "<i>quite green</i>". The <b>connotations</b> surrounding the colour green extend from nature to envy. There also seems to be a hypnotic element to the Erl-King's eyes: "<i>if I look into it long enough, I will become as small as my own reflection</i>". This quotation may be saying something about the female role in the story; she is framed by the Erl-King, and only sees herself as she appears in his own eyes. You could possibly relate this to the <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory">'male gaze' theory</a></b> as put forward by film theorist and feminist <b>Laura Mulvey</b>. Mulvey argues that, in films, women are often presented as being 'framed' by the men; they are there merely to appeal to a male audience as a visual. By having the Erl-King frame the girl in his eye, Carter may be alluding to Mulvey's theory. This also emphasises the Erl-King's power and the protagonist's insignificance all at once. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"<i>Your green eye is a reducing chamber</i>" - this is another example of how the Erl-King appears to be both hypnotic and oppressive. The use of the word 'chamber' suggests <b>entrapment</b>, a key feature of Gothic literature. This is not the hypnotic gaze we're used to in typical fairy tales... Carter warps things and makes them more horrifying and sinister. This enforced by the simple and memorable quote "<i>some eyes can eat you</i>". All this attention paid to the Erl-King's eyes relates to the Marquis's eyes in <i>The Bloody Chamber; </i>in this story, the protagonist refers to "<i>the black vortex of your eye</i>", whereas in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, the Marquis's eyes have "<i>an absolute absence of light</i>".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Perhaps the most important and intriguing <b>symbol</b> in the story is the fiddle. At first "<i>the strings are broken</i>", but the protagonist later restrings the bow with the Erl-King's hair (which he has just been strangled with) and starts playing it. Beforehand, the music of the fiddle has been associated with the Erl-King trapping the women he has lured into his hut and turning them into birds - the music has been beautiful yet deadly (yet another instance of two Gothic extremes acting alongside one another). Yet now, once the birds have been freed, the female protagonist gives herself the power to restring the bow, as if she is taking over the music of the woods.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But does she? In what is one of the strangest endings in this collection, the fiddle begins to play itself, and the strings of the Erl-King's hair cry out "<i>Mother, mother, you have murdered me!</i>" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A lot can be said regarding interpretations here, both to suggest that the Erl-King is stronger than the female protagonist and vice versa:</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Is Carter suggesting that the Erl-King cannot die, and lives on through his music? Perhaps killing the being is only half the job when the character is part-forest - has the Erl-King won after all? Does he <b>transcend death</b>, a typical feature of how Gothic characters can exceed such boundaries?</li>
<li>Does the protagonist get her power by mothering the Erl-King? At one point she combs his hair as he lays beside her, which creates a typically <b>maternal image</b> for the reader. Although the Erl-King once had certain maternal qualities - such as being "<i>an excellent housewife</i>" - a more powerful mother figure has perhaps resisted his sexual advances and destroys him with such power</li>
</ol>
<div>
Finally, there are two particular phrases in the story which capture the <b>Gothic antitheses </b>surrounding the Erl-King perfectly:</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>tender butcher</i>" - this <b>oxymoronic phrase </b>is memorable and presents both extreme sides to the Erl-King in just two words</li>
<li>"<i>his touch consoles and devastates me</i>" - this phrase can be used to relate the Erl-King to the Marquis in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> - is Carter saying something about sexual psychology? Do we have any control as to who we are attracted to?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
Obviously far more can be said about the story, so I just focussed on what I found interesting and narrowed things down to quotes which are hopefully relatable to points and easily remembered. I hope it helps! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-2287359132389858782013-05-21T07:27:00.000-07:002013-05-21T07:27:04.937-07:00A2 Religious Studies: God's Omnibenevolence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Omnibenevolence often conflicts with certain definitions of <b>omnipotence</b> and <b>omniscience</b>. For example, if God is all-powerful, he cannot be omnibenevolent, since he doesn't stop suffering. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he cannot be omnibenevolent, since suffering hasn't been stopped. Furthermore the <b>inconsistent triad</b> highlights the issue between the following three facts:<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Evil exists</li>
<li>God is omnipotent</li>
<li>God is omnibenevolent</li>
</ol>
<div>
The Christian understanding is that God is omnibenevolent in the Old and New Testaments. God is <b>intrinsically loving</b>; it is part of his nature and is not caused or influenced by humanity. </div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>This brings about the issue of how God can be loving if he is <b>immutable</b>, something I covered when discussing God's omnipotence. </li>
<ul>
<li>The most frequent response to this criticism is that God possessed love as a quality; he isn't responding to anything so he doesn't have to change. </li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
The<b> analogy of the diamond</b> is relevant here (as well as pretty much everywhere else); God is one thing, but can be interpreted in many different ways. God doesn't love people differently, people just interpret his intrinsic love differently. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even if we reject God's love, Christians would argue that God's love is still unconditional. God is like a parent in this way. But, like any loving parent, God doesn't spoil us; he doesn't always give us what we want.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In<b> Hosea 11</b>, God loves Israel as if its people were his children. When they turn their backs on God, however, it upsets him. So God asked Hosea to marry <b>Gomer</b> in order to show his love for Israel; but Gomer had cheated on Hosea. The Bible is all very <i>Eastenders</i> when you think about it. Gomer kept cheating on Hosea and Hosea kept forgiving her. God used this relationship to describe his relationship with Israel; they were worshipping other idols, but God kept forgiving them. This highlights God's omnibenevolent nature:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Woe to them because they have strayed from me.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
When people rebel against God, he often uses destruction to teach them a lesson - according to many, this act is loving.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>This can be easily criticised - the destruction of whole towns and cities in the Bible doesn't seem too loving. Didn't God have any other ideas?</li>
</ul>
<div>
To be omnibenevolent, though, Christians stress that God has to punish people. God's love doesn't change, our responses change depending on how we approach God.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact that God suffers when he is rejected by the Israelites suggests that he is <b>not impassible</b>. This also links to <b>Aquinas</b>'s view on omnipotence - that God can only do what it is logically possible for a perfect God to do. This also links to the notion of an <b>everlasting</b> God; his knowledge changes as the future unfolds. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Furthermore, certain Psalms place emphasis on the reliability of God's love.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Psalm 62</b> refers to God's "<i>steadfast love</i>"; love that is committed, reliable and trustworthy. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Psalm 63</b> also refers to this:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Your steadfast love is better than life, I will praise you.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Psalm 118</b> gives thanks to God for his eternal love.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In these Psalms, God's love seems reliable, trustworthy and unconditional. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>This contrasts with his destructive love in the story of Hosea - which love actually best describes God?</li>
<ul>
<li>Christians may argue that the two examples are different because the people of Israel sinned, and punishing sin is part of being loving. God punished the people of Israel people he wanted them to be the best that they could be</li>
<ul>
<li>But the Jews were also important to God, yet he didn't help them when millions died in the Holocaust - so how can God be truly loving? Was he not powerful enough or not loving enough? </li>
</ul>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
<b>The resurrection of Christ</b> is often seen as God's ultimate expression of <b>agape love</b>, because he forgives humanity's sins. This links to the view that God is <b>everlasting</b>, since he took on human form and entered our world to die for our sins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>John Stuart Mill</b> openly criticised the idea of an omnibenevolent God, attacking the <b>design argument </b>in particular. Mill stated that God cannot be loving if he created a world where animals had to kill each other in order to survive. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Aquinas</b>, however, states that we cannot judge the seemingly unjust world around us, because we do not know God's '<b>master plan</b>'. Events may seem to cause suffering, but there may be a greater outcome. This is similar to the belief of <b>Peter Vardy</b>. <b>Immanuel Kant</b> also argues that God's omnibenevolence is redeemed in heaven, and links this to his <b>moral argument </b>for the existence of God. Aquinas also said that God understands our suffering and can empathise with us; this links to the idea of God being <b>everlasting</b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Overall, it is widely accepted that in order to be loving, God has to:</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Change - he cannot be immutable</li>
<li>Respond, empathise and interact</li>
<li>Be with us and love us</li>
<li>Feel pain to understand us - he cannot be impassible</li>
</ol>
<div>
Once again, this fits with the idea of an <b>everlasting</b> God. This also means that <b>an omnibenevolent God surely cannot be timeless</b>, since:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>A timeless God is immutable (<b>Plato</b>)</li>
<li>He cannot respond to us or answer prayers</li>
<li>He is outside our timeline</li>
</ol>
<div>
So is there a way of having a timeless and omnibenevolent God?</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Descartes </b>says that there is. Since God can do the <b>logically impossible</b>, he can be with us even if he is outside time. He is immutable but he can still love.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Boethius</b>, however, who argues for a timeless God, states that God has <b>uncausal knowledge</b>. His knowledge makes the future <b>necessary</b>, which suggests that God cannot answer prayer - so he cannot be omnibenevolent. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So if God is omnibenevolent, surely he must have limited omniscience? Because if he knows everything then he must know the future. And if God knows the future, how can he be omnibenevolent? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This goes against <b>Anselm</b>'s view that God is:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>That than which nothing greater can be conceived</i>."</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, <b>Aquinas</b> argued that God can still be omnipotent, because he can do what is logically possible. Since a perfect God can answer prayer, Aquinas is sorted.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The traditional God of Christianity is as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Descartes's definition of omnipotent</li>
<li>Omniscient in that he knows the past, present and future</li>
<li>Timeless eternal nature</li>
<li>Omnibenevolent</li>
</ol>
<div>
Although this mix may appear incoherent, it is still possible if God can do the logically impossible; what seems contradictory to us may not be so to God. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-31433474353683965382013-05-21T06:47:00.005-07:002013-05-21T06:47:43.284-07:00A2 Religious Studies: God's Omniscience<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
When discussing God's omniscience, it always helps to know some Biblical examples. What does scripture tell us about God's all-knowing nature?<br />
<br />
Genesis is the most obvious example. In <b>Genesis 3</b> we are told that God has <b>perfect knowledge</b> of everything, including good and evil.<br />
<br />
In <b>Job 38</b>, God pretty much boasts about his own omniscience, asking:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"Do you know the laws of the heavens?"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In <b>2 Samuel, David</b>'s attempt to hide his affair from God proves to be futile - because God already knows.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Psalm 139</b> states the following about God's omniscience:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>You knit me together in my mother's womb"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"You know when I sit and when I rise"</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"Such knowledge is too wonderful to me</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Similarly, in <b>Jeremiah 1</b> God states that:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Before I formed you in the womb I knew you</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Does this conflict with the idea of <b>free will</b>?</li>
<li>Does this mean that all evil and suffering is down to God?</li>
</ul>
<div>
As with omnipotence, there is more than one definition of omniscience.</div>
<div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>God knows absolutely anything and everything. He has unlimited knowledge of all time - this links to God being<b> timeless</b></li>
<li>God has limited knowledge, because he cannot know the logically impossible or the future. Knowledge changes and is gained through time - this links to God being <b>everlasting</b></li>
</ol>
<div>
<b>Anselm</b> gives a nice and simple quote, calling God:</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Supremely perceptive</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But if we take the first definition, that God knows everything, how can we have free will? If God knows the future, it must be <b>necessary</b> - so nothing we do can change that. Also, it implies that <b>we do not have moral responsibility for our actions</b>, since our decisions are already known by God and cannot change. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Kant</b> says that:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Without freedom, there can be no moral choices.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
However, many Christians refute this idea, arguing that we still have free will. <b>Schleirmacher</b> argues that God's knowledge is akin to a parent's knowledge of their child. He can accurately predict how people will act, but this doesn't make his knowledge <b>causal</b>. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Boethius</b> also tries to overcome this apparent problem, arguing that in order for free will and omniscience, God has to be able to see everything at once:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>As though from a lofty peak</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This way, our past, present and future comes together to form one '<b>eternal present</b>' to God. To God there is no future, only a simultaneous present of all time. So we are still free as we move into our future.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>But how can Boethius's timeless God see things that haven't yet happened? Surely this is illogical, and we are still determined to go a certain way in life?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759969454761052591.post-4570814417071072782013-05-21T05:14:00.001-07:002013-05-21T05:14:14.728-07:00A2 English Literature: The Bloody Chamber (story)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The opening of <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> gives us a certain impression of the nameless female narrator we are greeted with. Or, at least, it gives each person a certain impression; the fact that Carter allows for differing impressions is already great for AO3. In terms of the opening of the story, is the narrator "<i>cute but essentially helpless</i>", as critic <b>H. Bertens</b> says of Gothic women, or is she in fact strong-willed and independent?<br />
<br />
<b><u>'Cute but essentially helpless'</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>I had, in some way, ceased to be her child in becoming his wife.</i>" Here Carter is playing with <b>gender roles</b> - something she does frequently throughout the text. The <b>possessive use</b> of "<i>her child</i>" and "<i>his wife</i>" suggests that the narrator is not a woman in her own right; she is merely passed from person to person like an object</li>
<li>"<i>A starburst of lights spattered the drawn blinds as if the railway company had lit up all the stations through which we passed in celebration of the bride.</i>" Here the narrator arguably seems naive in assuming that stations are lit up for her. Her evocative language is reminiscent of <b>Romanticism or Romantic idealism</b> - something that the original Gothic genre was closely associated with</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>Strong-willed and independent</u></b></div>
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>"<i>bridal triumph</i>" - this <b>victorious imagery</b> suggests that the narrator's imminent status as a bride empowers her</li>
<li>"<i>away from girlhood</i>" - Carter is presenting the narrator as within the <b>liminal stage</b> between girlhood and womanhood - many of her female protagonists are on this border, and it usually seems to empower them</li>
<li>"<i>the pounding of my heart mimicking that of the great pistons ceaselessly thrusting...</i>" - this one can go either way. Initially, it's interesting to note that Carter's use of <b>dominant language</b> ("<i>pounding</i>", "<i>thrusting</i>") is actually used, all sexual imagery aside, to compare to the racing of the girl's heart. Her life force is as strong and powerful as the engine of the train. However, it's also possible to argue that the blatant sexual <b>metaphor </b>shows how the narrator is merely a victim to the dominating sexual power of the Marquis which oppresses and endangers her - perhaps it <b>foreshadows</b> the loss of her virginity later in the story</li>
<li>The narrator states that her mother "<i>beggared herself for love</i>", and actively goes against her mother's word. The narrator isn't satisfied in mimicking the lives of her family - she is strong-willed in going off on her own</li>
</ul>
<div>
The introduction of the Marquis is also incredibly interesting, and great for AO2. Carter uses <b>animal imagery </b>and <b>multi-sensory description</b> to create a character who seems overbearing in more ways than one. The narrator refers to "<i>the dark, leonine shape of his head</i>", he has a "<i>dark mane</i>" and "<i>heavy eyelids</i>" and has an "<i>opulent male scent of leather</i>". The <b>bestial imagery</b> presents the Marquis as a lion - brave and deadly. Yet at the same time he smells of leather; he is very much alive and yet his scent is that of dead animal. This subtle touch suggests something is not quite right about the Marquis - the <b>Gothic juxtaposition</b> of life and death is already being suggested.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's also interesting about the Marquis's animalistic nature is how Carter is using the Gothic techniques of employing <b>transgression</b> and <b>metamorphosis</b>. The Marquis seems to be mostly human but not quite - there is a touch of beast about him. Metamorphosis is common in the collection, and also applies to <i>The Courtship of Mr Lyon</i>, <i>The Tiger's Bride</i>,<i> The Erl-King</i> and <i>The Company of Wolves</i> to name a few. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The setting of the story is also interesting. Upon arrival, the castle (already pretty Gothic) is referred to as "<i>that magic place</i>". This is, of course, before we meet the Marquis, and may tell us something about the naive nature of the narrator. She calls it a "<i>fairy castle whose walls were made of foam</i>", and yet later this very castle traps her and almost seals her fate. The way in which it is initially described seems to adhere to the typically fantastical castles seen in fairy tales; this is surely not a coincidence, since Carter takes all of these stories from fairy tales or folklore - this story in particular being reminiscent of <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard">Bluebeard</a></i>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, even after the girl has been subject to the Marquis's oppressive character, she still speaks fondly of "<i>sea; sand; a sky that melts into the sea - a landscape of misty pastels...</i>" These soft, feminine colours contrast with the bold reds and whites often used in association with the Marquis. She praises the "<i>faery solitude</i>" of his castle and "<i>its turrests of misty blue</i>", as though for her this fairy tale image is a form of escapism from her life with the Marquis. The castle is also presented as a<b> liminal setting</b>; it is "<i>at home neither on the land nor on the water</i>", and is referred to as an "<i>amphibious place</i>". Everything about the Marquis seems uneasy and slightly off; even his residence isn't fixed; it always has the sense of drifting between one thing and another.<br />
<br />
When the narrator later goes off to investigate the castle at night, she notes that above her bed she can see "<i>the sardonic masks of gargoyles</i>" watching her. Gargoyles are a typical feature of <b>Gothic architecture</b>, and it is as though the Marquis is constantly watching her.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The<b> multi-sensory description</b> is thick and dense, and really gives us an impression of just how overpowering and overbearing the Marquis really is. "<i>A bouquet of hot-house flowers</i>" give a visual artificiality to the place, and "<i>a box of marrons glacés</i>" gives off a brilliant - yet fake - red. His eyes have "<i>an absolute absence of light</i>" (link this to <i>The Erl-King</i> where the protagonist refers to "<i>the black vortex of your eye</i>"), and the narrator notes how "<i>that perfume of spiced leather always betrayed him.</i>" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And, of course, when discussing the sensory description associated with the Marquis it would be stupid not to mention the <b>symbol of the lilies</b>:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"He seemed to me like a lily. Yes. A lily. Possessed of that strange, ominous calm of a sentient vegetable, like one of those cobra-headed, funereal lilies whose white sheaths are curled out of a flesh as thick and tensely yielding to the touch as vellum."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In literature, lilies are often presented as <b>symbols or omens of death</b>. They are associated with funerals for this reason and the fact that the overpowering scent of lilies is associated with the Marquis throughout the story is no coincidence.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
By referring to lilies as "<i>cobra-headed</i>", Carter is exploring the 'venomous' nature of the Marquis, whilst possibly alluding to the serpent from the Bible. Furthermore, 'vellum' is animal skin. The Marquis is not just animalistic, he is associated with dead animals. First the smell of leather, then vellum.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Later, the narrator notes how the Marquis's flesh has "<i>too much in common with the armfuls of arum lilies</i>", and refers to the lilies in her bedroom as "<i>undertakers' lilies</i>". The "<i>heavy pollen</i>" adds weight (literally) to the overbearing presence of the Marquis, and the narrator notes how they remind her of him: "<i>The lilies I always associate with him; that are white. And stain you.</i>" The image of the narrator being 'stained' by the lilies directly relates to how she is 'stained' by the Marquis; he treats her like an object and brutally takes her virginity. And later, of course, he literally stains her by pressing the blood-soaked key to the bloody chamber to her forehead.<br />
<br />
After the Marquis leaves her with the keys, the narrator notes that "<i>the perfume of the lilies weighed on my senses</i>". This enforces the notion that the lilies are very overbearing and 'heavy'. Not long after this, she refers to the lilies as "<i>distorted</i>", saying how "<i>they looked like arms, dismembered arms</i>". This links the symbol of lilies to death and perhaps <b>foreshadows</b> the means in which the Marquis intends to murder the narrator. Furthermore, the <b>motif</b> of dismemberment links to how the Marquis's cigar is "<i>fat as a baby's arm</i>". The lilies link back to him, as does the sense of dismemberment. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Marquis is undoubtedly very powerful. He is referred to as "<i>a force I might not withstand</i>" and in front of him the girl regresses into admitting "<i>I knew nothing of the world</i>". So what is it that attracts her towards the sinister Marquis?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Is it his power? Is Carter suggesting that for certain women anything and anyone can be attractive if they possess a typical male dominance?</li>
<li>Is Carter implying that sexual psychology cannot be explained, and that being attracted to someone is purely random and instinctive?</li>
<li>Is Carter suggesting that the animalistic side to the Marquis is representative of humanity's primal instincts and base desires - something that we are all attracted to?</li>
</ul>
<div>
The ruby choker, or "<i>the bloody bandage of rubies</i>", is also an interesting <b>symbol</b> in the story. The "<i>flashing crimson jewels round her throat</i>" represent the narrator's oppression and the Marquis's ownership, whilst also <b>foreshadowing</b> the means in which the Marquis intends to murder her. The <b>simile</b> "<i>bright as arterial blood</i>" isn't a coincidence - the "<i>red ribbon like the memory of a wound</i>" deliberately looks like a slit throat. And if you didn't get that already, Carter actually refers to it as "<i>an extraordinarily precious slit throat</i>". Later, as the narrator fears her imminent execution, she refers to the choker as being "<i>coiled like a snake about to strike</i>" - another possible reference to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, leading to connotations of evil and sin.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As soon as the narrator starts wearing this, her oppression is evident. The Marquis objectifies her like a "<i>connoisseur inspecting horseflesh</i>", looking at her as though she were "<i>cuts on a slab</i>". His treatment of her as though she is meat gives him even more power and dominance as her oppressor. His treatment of her is lustful yet violent - just one example of how Carter intertwines sex and violence (and in this case, sex and violence with meat and feasting), two <b>Gothic extremes</b> that become all the more horrifying when placed alongside one another. Violence and dismemberment are associated with the Marquis later, when his cigar is described as "<i>fat as a baby's arm</i>". This horrific <b>simile</b> conjures up images of grotesque dismemberment, and acts as just another example of how everything around the Marquis seems to relate back to his power, overbearing presence and/or violent nature.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When the Marquis takes the girl's virginity, it is as though she is 'initiated' into the sexual aspect of her relationship - the only aspect the Marquis seems to care about. Although Carter appears to present the girl's loss of virginity as something that belittles her and makes her feel "<i>infinitely dishevelled</i>", it can be argued that the loss of her virginity actually empowers her. It is interesting to note that once the Marquis has done his stuff, he breathes heavily "<i>as if he had been fighting with me</i>"; perhaps the loss of her virginity is empowering in a sense - it momentarily takes power away from the Marquis, who is lying like an "<i>oak</i>". Here Carter takes something natural - an oak - and warps it ever so slightly. The actual quotation, referring to him as "<i>felled like an oak</i>", suggests once more the death of something natural. And, to an extent, this is at the hands of the narrator. Furthermore, the narrator notes that during intercourse the Marquis loses his "<i>deathly composure</i>", and she "<i>had heard him shriek and blaspheme at the orgasm</i>". It is as though the power of virginity weakens the Marquis, if only for a moment; his defences are down and he becomes a radically different person. It reveals a part of him that couldn't be revealed in any other way.<br />
<br />
I mentioned the Marquis being described as an "<i>oak</i>", but that's not where the comparisons end between his character and the natural world. The narrator notices how "<i>his voice buzzed like a hive of distant bees</i>" and uses a <b>simile</b> to compare his voice to "<i>the soft consolations of the sea.</i>" In particular, the latter quotation has a sense of the <b>sublime</b> to it.<br />
<br />
Once more, there are scattered lines throughout the story that suggest different things about the nature of our narrator: is she strong-willed or is she passive? There is no doubt that the Marquis treats her like a child or object; she is made to "<i>perch on his knee</i>" and compares him giving her a bunch of keys to "<i>giving a child a great, mysterious treat</i>". He even calls her his "<i>Baby</i>". So does the narrator succumb to his condescending language or does she defy it?<br />
<br />
At one point she states, "<i>I was only a little girl, I did not understand.</i>" Later, she somewhat echoes this line, saying, "<i>I was only a baby.</i>" Instantly this suggests that our narrator is as naive, childish and helpless as we may have thought. However, on closer inspection that may not be so; it is interesting to note that Carter uses the <b>past tense</b> here. Now, of course, the whole story is more or less in the past tense, so it's not extraordinary by any means - but there is still the possibility that she is referring to herself back in the early stages of her relationship with the Marquis. We can assume that she is telling us the story from a later stage in her life. Who are we to call her meek and helpless if she is merely reflecting on how she has grown since that time?<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the narrator's<b> characterisation</b> seems to be slightly laced with cunning. She is fully aware that "<i>it must have been my innocence that captivated him</i>", and knows that "<i>my naivety gave him some pleasure</i>". This suggests that she is more intelligent than we may have first thought; she is completely aware of why she is attractive to the Marquis, and arguably hides behind a facade to please him. She even admits that "<i>I was not afraid of him</i>" (link to<i> The Company of Wolves</i> where the girl is "<i>scared of nothing</i>"), and later the use of the word "<i>demanded</i>" suggests that her confidence is growing when she addresses the Marquis.<br />
<br />
The Marquis gives our narrator a bunch of keys before he disappears, and the narrator notes that she "<i>must take care of them all</i>". This is brilliant for AO3. Why does he give her the keys...?<br />
<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>Because she fits into the role of a typical domesticated woman in Gothic literature? - weak</li>
<li>Because he trusts her to be a guardian of the majestic castle? - strong</li>
</ol>
<div>
The narrator states that she is "<i>not afraid of him; but of myself</i>". The line "<i>I felt as giddy as if I were on the edge of a precipice</i>" is a perfect example of how Carter uses the typical Gothic aspect of <b>liminality</b> to represent the inner turmoil of her protagonist. So why exactly is the narrator afraid of herself?</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Does she feel more in-tune with the Marquis after she loses her virginity to him?</li>
<li>Is she concerned with who she has become - an objectified partner to a hulking savage?</li>
<li>Is she still unaware of why she finds the Marquis attractive? Is she scared of the ineffable nature of sexual psychology? She notes that "<i>I longed for him. And he disgusted me.</i>" Does this link to Carter's exploration of the Gothic notion that some things cannot be explained?</li>
</ul>
<div>
Soon, of course, the narrator comes across the bloody chamber itself; the room that is so important it lends its name to the story as well as the entire collection. Yet as she walks down the "<i>winding corridor</i>", she stresses that "<i>still I felt no fear</i>". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As soon as she enters the "<i>room designed for desecration</i>", Carter appears to be stressing the literary device of <b>liebestod</b>, a German word referring to <b>erotic love and death</b> being alongside one another. The Marquis's sexual fantasies relate directly to death - if that's not Gothic, nothing is. Later, the narrator refers to the whole situation as the Marquis's "<i>game of love and death.</i>"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Upon entering the chamber, the narrator calls herself "<i>a spoiled child</i>" but says that "<i>my mother's spirit drove me on</i>"; the Gothic trope of <b>absent mothers</b> isn't necessarily true in this story. Not only do we see her at the end as a heroine, we also get references to her throughout the story.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The walls of the chamber "<i>gleamed as if they were sweating with fright</i>". Carter's use of <b>personification</b> here takes the narrator's fear to the extreme. Everything in the room adheres to the Gothic conventions of <b>extremes and excess</b>. Furthermore, the "<i>funerary urns, of great antiquity</i>" relate back to a<b> fascination with the past</b> that is typical of Gothic protagonists and/or villains, as does the line: "<i>at the centre of the room lay a catafalque, a doomed, ominous bier of Renaissance workmanship...</i>"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then, after looking around initially, the narrator confuses us all by saying:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>I was almost consoled, then, and almost persuaded myself that I might have stumbled only upon a little museum of his perversity that he had installed these monstrous items here only for contemplation.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
What?! is what I originally thought. But if you think about it, this is quite a human reaction. If you were to stumble across a room like this, would your first fully formed thought be 'this must be the room where my partner tortures all of his victims?' Not necessarily, no. You'd try to make sense of it - to make excuses to rid yourself of the crippling fear that such a place instils. And alongside all of the torture racks and Iron Maidens Carter still makes sure to link back to her favourite symbol: "<i>an armful of the same lilies with which he had filled my bedroom</i>".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then, of course, we have the grotesque reveal of the dead bodies in the bloody chamber. All of this is terribly Gothic. Yet what makes it all the more disturbing is how death is closely linked to the beautiful: "<i>the dead lips smiled.</i>" We also can't forget the fact that she refers to a skull as "<i>beautiful</i>". Death is terrifying in itself, but when fused with beauty and the erotic love that the Marquis desires, it is made all the more chilling.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
At this point, it seems that the narrator has a true sense of self-realisation:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>My first thought, when I saw the ring for which I had sold myself to this fate, was, how to escape it.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then, when the narrator needs help, she turns to the same person; her mother. Despite criticising her at the beginning of the story, the narrator seems to fall back on her mother as a figure of strength and reassurance:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>Assistance. My mother. I ran to the telephone; and the line, of course, was dead. Dead as his wives.</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Carter's use of <b>fragmented sentences</b> here shows us exactly what is going on in the protagonist's head, second by second. Her mother is the character she can go to in times of need. And, as we soon learn, her mother is the character who saves her life.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Although she is terrified, when she thinks that the Marquis is entering the room, the narrator states, "<i>I rose to my feet; fear gave me strength. I flung back my head defiantly.</i>" Now of course we soon learn that it is in fact Jean-Yves approaching, not the Marquis. Nonetheless, her attitude her is incredibly courageous. Furthermore, she seems to calm herself by finding solace in rationality when she plays the piano, seeking peace in "<i>the harmonious rationality of its sublime mathematics</i>", making particular reference to "<i>Bach's equations</i>". Typically, in Gothic literature of the 18th century, we'd expect rationality and <b>mathematical language</b> to be linked to strong and intelligent male protagonists. Yet in Carter's 20th century collection of modern Gothic stories, this role has been subverted; it is the young, female victim who is finding peace in rationality.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then there is a short section of the story where Jean-Yves comes along as the kind and gentle boy whose kindness causes the protagonist to faint. She feels comforted in his arms - something she could never say about the Marquis.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The Marquis soon enters, and the narrator realises the situation that she is in: "<i>I had played a game in which every move was governed by a destiny as oppressive and omnipotent as himself...</i>" The language used here is typical of the old Gothic convention of how characters deal with <b>forces that cannot be reckoned with</b>. The Marquis's power is compared to some kind of force, or 'destiny', and the word 'omnipotent' (all-powerful) is often associated with God. Is the Marquis a dreadful violation of the power of God? When he speaks to her, she notes how his voice has "<i>the timbre of certain great cathedral organs that seem, when they are played, to be conversing with God.</i>" Furthermore, there is an interesting snippet of dialogue between the narrator and Jean-Yves:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"'I only did what he knew I would.'</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>'Like Eve,' he said."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Is the protagonist the Eve to the Marquis's God?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then, Carter reintroduces the horrible language used before to describe the Marquis: "<i>his tongue ran over red lips already wet</i>", "<i>he half-snarled</i>", "<i>his curling mane was disordered</i>". Now we've seen the bloody chamber, the <b>animalistic imagery</b> is all the more horrifying. He's not just an animal, he's a predator. And he intends to kill her. He calls the bloody chamber his "<i>kingdom of the unimaginable</i>" (delusions of grandeur much) and presses the blood-stained key into the narrator's forehead, leaving a heart-shaped mark that never leaves. He marks her - she is his object. This links directly back to the <b>foreshadowing</b> when she notes that he, like the lilies he is associated with, "<i>stain you</i>".</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Carter employs some typical <b>phallic imagery</b> when the Marquis brandishes his ceremonial sword: "<i>The heavy sword, unsheathed, grey as that November morning, sharp as childbirth, mortal.</i>" The phrase 'sharp as childbirth' isn't something that we hear everyday. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Then, the Marquis talks to the girl as though she is meat, combining sex, death and feasting in a morbid triad that seems all to prevalent in this story:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"<i>'Do you think I shall lose appetite for the meal if you are so long about serving it? No; I shall grow hungrier, more ravenous with each moment, more cruel...'</i>"</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And as he admires the beauty of her neck, he likens it to "<i>the stem of a young plant</i>". This may link back to the symbol of the lilies. The lilies which foreshadow death; by beheading her, it is as though he is beheading the lilies, as though their use as a device for foreshadowing is over - there's nothing more to foreshadow, since it appears that her death has arrived.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
But, of course, it doesn't arrive. In a slight violation of Prince Charming riding to the castle to save the damsel in distress, the narrator's previously absent mother rides to the castle and kills the Marquis. This act of feminine power subverts the typical Gothic trope of a) women being passive and b) mothers being absent. This section is particularly interesting. Below is a section of an essay I wrote concerning the arrival of the mother, where I consider whether the arrival of the mother helps secure a feminist ending to the story:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'<i>In one respect, the actual resolution to the story is all down to the narrator’s mother, who is presented at the story’s climax as an incredibly powerful female figure. Carter uses <b>masculine and bestial imagery </b>to describe the mother, in a way that is not dissimilar to earlier imagery to describe the Marquis. The narrator refers to her mother’s hair as “her white mane”; just as earlier she had referenced the Marquis’s “dark mane”. The juxtaposition between light and dark here is a typical example of <b>Gothic extremes</b>; while the Marquis seems to represent darkness – the supernatural and evil – the mother is associated with the colour white, which often<b> symbolises</b> purity, innocence and rationality. She also refers to her mother as a “wild thing”. Carter also uses the setting to complement the powerful image of the narrator’s mother riding to her rescue. The backdrop of the sea is referred to as “savage”, like “the witnesses of a furious justice”. In Gothic literature it is common for great expanses of nature such as oceans or moors to be referred to in the <b>sublime</b> sense; in this instance, the great power of the sea is merely witnessing the justice that the mother is delivering. It is as though her power is greater than nature itself. Furthermore, the sea is used earlier in the story when the narrator describes the Marquis’s voice as “like the soft consolations of the sea”. It appears as though the male and female dynamics have been shifted with these two direct links to the sea; the Marquis is the one associated with softness and docility whereas the mother seems to be the one commanding the sea and bringing about its true power. In this respect, she is certainly a strong female figure who arguably brings about a feminist happy ever after to the story.<br /><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>However, the strength of the mother is not the be-all and end-all of the story. Firstly, it is interesting to note that particular attention is paid to the fact that the mother holds the narrator’s “father’s service revolver”. The male figure is therefore not necessarily as absent as one might think; the actual tool that is intended to kill the Marquis is explicitly referred to as the item of a man. Furthermore, it is important to note that the narrator does very little to secure her own safety, and the main resolution of the story is placed in the mother’s hands. The narrator is presented as a very passive character in the denouement of the tale; she is simply saved by her mother and is then able to live out her life in happiness. In this respect it is arguable to suggest that she is not a strong female character or, at least, she is not as strong as the reader may have hoped. Carter also highlights the contrasts between the narrator and her mother. The narrator notes that “on her eighteenth birthday, my mother had disposed of a man-eating tiger”, and <b>juxtaposes</b> this with “here I was, scarcely a penny richer, widowed at seventeen in the most dubious circumstances”. In this respect, the ending is not particularly feminist at all; although the narrator has been saved and is given a happy ending, her role in the climax of the story appears to be similar to that of a <b>typically passive</b> Gothic female character. She is also physically tarnished by the events of her past, noting that “no paint or powder (…) can mask that red mark on my forehead”. Despite the resolution and the fiercely powerful actions of the mother, the narrator is still objectified even after the Marquis’s death; she is branded with his mark, as though she was never really a woman in her own right.</i>'</blockquote>
<div>
Without meaning to sound like a colossal douche (which is hard, I've been trying to word this for about 10 minutes now), what I've put here is stuff that an examiner will like, since my teacher kindly gave the essay full marks. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, I've put together some links to other stories:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><u>The Company of Wolves</u></b></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>The narrator in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i> "<i>was not afraid of him</i>", and the girl in<i> The Company of Wolves</i> is "<i>scared of nothing</i>"</li>
<li>It can be argued that for both girls the loss of their virginity empowers them (but this depends on your interpretation regarding <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>)</li>
<li>Both stories arguably feature unconventional happy endings</li>
<li>Both the Marquis and the wolf are very animalistic and seem to crave sexual gratification</li>
<li>Both girls are in the latter stages of puberty and are virgins when the stories begin</li>
<li>Both girls find the bestial characters strangely attractive</li>
<li>Sex and feasting/devouring are frequently placed alongside one another</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>The Erl-King</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>References are made in both stories to the eyes of the antagonists</li>
<li>Both antagonists trap/oppress their victims</li>
<li>Both antagonists appear to be in-tune with the natural world</li>
<li>Both antagonists have a 'bloody chamber'; for the Erl-King it is his hut where he imprisons his victims</li>
<li>Both protagonists are virgins at first</li>
<li>Both settings of the stories are <b>liminal</b></li>
<li>Both antagonists are liminal in nature and link to the Gothic idea of <b>metamorphosis</b></li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>The Lady of the House of Love</u></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Both antagonists have a 'bloody chamber'; for the Countess it is the room in which she murders her victims</li>
<li>Both protagonists are virgins at first</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>The Courtship of Mr Lyon</u></b></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li><b>Mirrors</b> feature heavily in both stories - there are mirrors all around the protagonist's room in <i>The Bloody Chamber</i>, and the protagonist of <i>The Courtship of Mr Lyon</i> becomes obsessed by her own image in the mirror</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<b><u>The Tiger's Bride</u></b></div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Both the Beast and the Marquis view the protagonist as a pornographic image at one point or another</li>
<li>Both protagonists are virgins at first</li>
<li>Both protagonists are considered as objects or property at one point or another</li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><u>The Snow Child</u></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Both male characters view the girls as objects to be desired </li>
<li><b>Liebestod</b> is present in both stories</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jake Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04125708316501504556noreply@blogger.com8