The characters of Mrs. Elton and Emma are extremely similar: they both are overly concerned with outward appearances, place too much value on social status, tend to treat others as their play things, and are quick to judge. They think very highly of themselves and hold themselves as pinnacles of their societies. The two women are so similar one could argue that if their positions were reversed, they would hold the same positions in the story. However, for all their negative similarities, it is the small differences that makes one superior to the other—not only as a person, but as a friend.

Although Mrs. Elton tends to believe herself to a member of gentile society, her manners and mannerisms are a cheap limitation: she has a tendency to place herself on an equal footing with others who are social superior to herself. Although a biased source, quickly Emma judges her to be a vain and self-satisfied who attempted to be superior, but “with manners which had been formed in a bad school [and] drawn from one set of people” (213). Further evidencing the low origin of Mrs. Elton’s manners is how impressed she is by Mrs. Weston’s and Mr. Knightley’s manners: Emma takes their manners for granted and to her, it seems obvious that their manners would be impeccable because of the society of which they are members (218). Mrs. Elton also oversteps herself by referring to people by their given or Christian names without honorifics—even when they are of a superior social class like Mr. Knightley—while Emma would never even consider this even though the families are long-term friends and nearly equal (218).

Emma, unlike Mrs Elton, is aware that her family’s status in society is that of “the younger branch of a very ancient family” whose landed property is relatively small (108). Although she has a tendency to be snobbish and exclusive, she is able to put these feelings aside when pressured by her friends to do what is right. When the middle-class Coles were in a position to invite Emma to a dinner party, she almost gleefully prepared to rebuke them for being so presumptuous, but when the invitation actually came, she allowed the Westons to convince her to attend without argument (163). Even though she believes in the exclusivity of her class, she realizes that it is not practical to insulate herself from the other classes when she should be accepting of them. However, her egalitarian views do not extend beyond casual relations: she was very quick to refuse Mr. Elton’s advances on social status alone, and even though she was correct to do so, she did not see that the relationship she tried to create between Mr. Elton and Miss Smith was similar to Mr. Elton marrying herself. According to Emma, Mr. Elton only proposed to “aggrandize and enrich himself,” and although he “understood the graduations of rank below him [he was] blind to what rose above” (107). This evidences Emma’s flaw in oversimplifying the lives of others through her habit of lumping the middle-class into one rather than seeing it as stratified.

Mrs. Elton is very insecure about her background and tends to speak frequently of her brother-in-law’s estate comparing every aspect of it to Hartfield and claiming as its equal; however, as Emma points out, those with wealth are not impressed with people who are equally wealthy, so Mrs. Elton’s comparison serves more to show how little societal standing she has. She also judges others of similar backgrounds harshly: mentioning a family that lives near Maple Grove who are an annoyance “from the airs they give themselves” without realizing it is the same way others view her (244).

Emma is very blind to the thoughts and the feelings of the people around her to the point that she projects all of her own feelings onto people and then expresses shock when she is wrong. Events like her blindness regarding Mr Elton’s advances, her insistence that Miss Fairfax is in love with the happily married Mr. Dixon, or her belief that Miss Smith was superior to the Martins show just how little she understands the core personalities of the people around her. However, although she can be strong-headed, she does accept correction—mostly by Mr. Knightley—when she is wrong, so her weakness is less glaring than it could be.

Emma and Mrs. Elton play off each other well: they both have similar personalities and levels of intelligence, but where Emma is born rich and gentile, Mrs. Elton’s only claim to high society is a sizable dowry and a wealthy brother-in-law. Emma and Mrs. Elton are both flawed individuals, but Mrs. Elton has all of Emma’s flaws but few of her good qualities, and Mrs Elton’s one-dimensional nature is such that she seems incapable of growing as a person; however, Emma does learn from the lessons she receives, albeit slowly, and respects the opinions of others; therefore, although both individuals have their flaws, Emma would make a far better friend.

Bookmark

Notes:

1. Page Numbers are for the Riverside Edition edited by Lionel Trilling

Madison Washington represents the human face of a slave: his every attribute reflects the fear abolitionists felt when faced with the images of Nat Turner. Washington is presented as being “[t]all, symmetrical, round, and strong [with an] appearance betokened Herculean strength; yet there was nothing savage or forbidding in his aspect [and a voice] full and melodious” (28). Later, he is shown to be a good Christan man who, after attaining his freedom, risks his own life to free his family from captivity. He is always presented as being in command of himself, eloquent, and a leader of men. This melodramatic point-of-view leaves the reader with no choice but to sympathize with Madison Washington and by extension all good people who happened to have been ill-fortuned enough to be born both black and into slavery.

While one can feel pity for Madison, slave characters like Babo illicit no sympathy for themselves, but they raise philosophical questions about the effects of slavery on the individual. Melville never suggests that Babo was ill-treated or abused as a slave, and only describes him as a “small Negro Senegal [who spent] some years among the Spaniards” (93). It is obvious from the story that Babo is vastly intelligent which begs the question: why should someone as intelligent as Babo be confined to an institution of slavery and what happens to such an individual? Melville answers both parts of the question by stating resolutely that such a mind would not be held within an cage no matter how gilded, and that one such as Babo, while being moral to a point, would quickly leave his morals behind to achieve his freedom.

Babo does have some good qualities aside from his intelligence. If we can accept the word of Delano even when he was a captive Babo was instrumental in “pacifying his more ignorant brethren, when at intervals tempted to murmurings” (46). This interpretation of Babo is further illustrated when during the deposition it is revealed that the “Negresses of age” had to be restrained so they could not have “tortured to death, instead of simply killing, the Spaniards slain by the command of the Negro Babo” and that Babo “with his own hand, committed no murder” (102). Babo was twisted enough by slavery that he had the bones of Don Alexandro mounted on the ship’s bow, but he was not so far gone that he would treat the whites as they treated slaves.

While Babo is not entirely corrupted by slavery, he is twisted enough that he, personally, is beyond pity; however, with his actions he shows how the institution of slavery can twist even the most intelligent mind and force it into doing brutish things. Madison Washington represents an attempt by abolitionists to avoid the Nat Turner stereotype of the slave, but the character of Babo embraces this stereotype and Melville simultaneously condemns the actions taken while he shows that individuals such as Nat Turner are heavily influenced and corrupted by slavery itself, so that only by withdrawing individuals with such proclivities from the institutions of slavery, can one be safe from their innate internal rage on a widespread basis.

Superficially, Cereno is sick with a fever, but one can also read between the lines “only the sour heart that sour sickness breeds made [Cereno] serve Babo so; cutting Babo with the razor ” (77). Quite obviously the cut is self inflicted by Babo; however, had Babo been a normal slave the same incident would have caused a similar reaction from his master. The “sour sickness” that Babo speaks of is not entirely Cereno’s illness, but the institution of slavery that demands one exert his control over the entirety of another’s being. This interpretation of Cereno’s supposed action is illustrated by Captain Delano’s remark that, “this slavery breeds ugly passions in man!” This comment can be expanded to encompass both Babo’s “punishment” and Babo’s actual actions aboard the ship.

Abolitionist literature used characters such as Madison Washington and Babo to question the political and philosophical effects of slavery. While the former is a respectable individual who the reader can feel sympathy for, the latter is vile and demented, but forces the reader to question the aspects of slavery that would twist such an individual.

Bookmark

The first important information is how the wars end for our protagonists. In Inman’s case he deserted to return home because he had gotten too weary of the fighting and killing. However Odysseus returned home after a successful campaign against the City of Troy after 12 years, although long since wearied of the war he had nevertheless staid until the end. The difference here though can be attributed to cultural differences between the time “Odyssey” was written and “Cold Mountain” was. Although the differences are cultural they are also important to the story as it gives the main antagonist force their reason(s) for pursuing the Protagonist. In Odysseus’s case the main antagonist is Poseidon God of the sea Poseidon causes Odysseus to become lost at see in retribution for his vanity. However in Inman’s case he is chased and finally killed by the Home Guard for deserting the army.

Another large difference is in the personalities of Penelope and Ada, Ada was rather weak when she had no one to lean on but Penelope was able to keep everything together even as it fell apart around her until her husband returned. Without her husband Penelope was able to prevent major damage to her family by the suitors and in the process keep herself from falling into melancholy or being forced to choose a new husband. Ada on the other hand was unable to keep the house and farm or even herself in good condition, she fell far into melancholy to the point of neglecting her own physical needs. It was not until Ruby came into Ada’s life that she was able to overcome her melancholy and start functioning as a person again. The valiant wife bravely awaiting her husbands return is far from what “Cold Mountain” has to offer, yet even still the longing for the return of loved ones is a main theme of both stories.

Both stories go into great details of the challenges each protagonist faces, yet these are not important to the overall picture. No one would think about adding a Cyclops to the American south east just as no ancient Greek would create a hero out of a deserter. Although the details of the events are different they have the same effect of portraying the great obstacles the protagonists had to face before returning home. These obstacles allow the reader to see just what the protagonists are made of and get a look deep into their psyches.

Unlike Inman who died after returning home, but not before impregnating Ada, Odysseus survived and was happily reunited with his wife and son. Again the difference here could be construed as differences in literary styles between the two times, by the time “Cold Mountain” the “triumphant return and all is okay” ending was long since a clich” of literature and the contemporary audience doesn”t really believe the endings anymore. Instead “Cold Mountain” ends with the triumphant return and untimely death of Inman, followed by all is okay. For the readers of the “Odyssey” Odysseus was a hero of mythical proportions to have him end in anything but a triumphant ending would have been demoralizing to the audience. Yet Inman’s death did not prevent a happy ending, in fact if anything it adds even more happiness to the story because it allowed Ada to continue her life as she had grown accustomed and instead of losing a fianc” she gained a daughter.

Upon Odysseus’s return he had to battle the suitors to be able to be reunited with his wife. In Odysseus’s case Penelope had no attachment to the suitors who tried for her attention, so was quite happy when they were removed from her life. Inman in a situation similar to Odysseus had to figuratively battle with Ruby for Ada’s attention. In Inman’s case he could never have won the battle for Ada’s attention without driving a wedge between him and Ada. Ada had begun to so heavily lean on Ruby for support that without her Ada would probably have been unable to live without the emotional support she provided and not resent Inman for coming between them.

Although the ending and beginning are different the story in form is the same so at least in this way “Cold Mountain” and “The Odyssey” are literary cousins. The lessons they teach are also similar but the characters themselves could not hardly be anymore different. The characters of “The Odyssey” show strength in all things before, during and after tragedy, yet in “Cold Mountain” the characters are rather weak, having to fall to the bottom before picking themselves back up. Although it is possible to excuse all differences in the way the characters behaved on the differences of the ancient Greek and American culture, it shows just how far our society has come in terms of role models. Deciding modern culture is the sole reason for the differences portrays modern society as distancing itself from heroic portrayals of historical characters and instead of glorifying them they are portrayed as people with failings and character flaws but in the end being able to overcome them. This leaves us with only one option, first to realize that our society has progressed to the point where heroes are not all that one needs to see in life and thus modern society has realized that even normal people can do admirable things and secondly to decide that “Cold Mountain” is indeed a modern reincarnation of “The Odyssey” but that no longer are god-like men the only ones capable of being heroic.

Bookmark

“The Metamorphosis” was published in 1915 and written during Europe’s slide to World War 2, during this time Austria-Hungry began persecuting the Serbs who they feared because of growing nationalism movements in Bosnia: newspapers were closed, student leaders arrested and the military was given a large amount of control in the country. After the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1913 Serbs were suddenly the pariahs of Austria-Hungry.

The Serbs had been previously a minority throughout Austria-Hungry but were mainly located in the Bosnia and Herzevogina. However the Serbs in other areas of the country would have overnight become repulsive to the whole of Austria-Hungry, with the countries government, religious leaders, and everyday people calling for the destruction of the Serbian nations to the south of Austria-Hungry.

The different entities in this struggle can be directly traced to characters in “The Metamorphosis.” The chief clerk is a suspicious man, and can represent the whole of the Austria-Hungry government, they allowed the persecution and punishment of innocent Serbs. The renters can be seen as Germany, Britain and France, they would not help the Serbs but instead stood aloof from them passing judgments one way or the other. The cleaning lady is Russia, although supposed to be on the Serbs side instead Russia caused as much trouble for the Serbs as they helped, they also were there to help sweep up the mess the Austria-Hungarians caused.

Gregor’s family represents the different feelings of the people of Austria-Hungry towards the Serbs. Gregor’s father represents those who depend on the labor that Serbs can provide but despise and fear them. Gregor’s mother represents those who are indifferent either way only stepping half-heartily in when they feel things have gone too far. Gregor’s sister represents the rest of the population of Austria-Hungry at first outside the petty squabbles but eventually succumbing to the pressure from the other sources. Gregor or the average Serbian would have found themselves to have changed from a under valued minority that provided the unwanted jobs to suddenly becoming a pest or infestation, valueless to all others.

I think in light of Kafka’s view on totalitarianism that this theory is valid. Had this story been written 20 years later then another interpretation would be that Gregor represented European Jews and the descent of Nazism and antisemitism, because this story can be easily reinterpreted to focus on any disenfranchised group it lends credence to my theory. However there is also a problem with this idea, a story that is too broad can be reinterpreted many different ways, and none of them can be assured the “real” meaning. Unfortunately short of time travel there is no real way to know for sure what was going through Kafka’s head as he wrote this story.

Bookmark

Jesus thrown everything off balance. It was the same case with Him as with me except he hadn’t committed any crime and they could prove I committed one because they had the papers on me…of course…they never shown me my papers. That’s why I sign myself now. I said long ago, you get a signature and sign everything you do and keep a copy of it . Then you’ll know what you done and you can hold up the crime to the punishment and see do they match and in the end you’ll have something to prove you ain’t been treated right. I call myself “the Misfit” because I can’t make what all I done fit what all I gone through in punishment.

The quote can be taken to mean many things, but there are two possibilities that are the most convincing.Either “The Misfit” was not guilty of a crime when he was punished or was indeed guilty and did deserve the punishment, but, as a psychopath generally does, he reasoned that his crime was not a “real” crime.

The most obvious option is the first one which, if you know Flannery O’Connor’s writing, makes it the most questionable. The Misfit says that when he was sent to the penitentiary he was “buried alive.” Because the atmosphere of a penitentiary in the time the story is set (1940′s rural America) was like that of a medieval dungeon—men would be sentenced to prison for years to live with abuse guards and inmates alike and suffer the mental trauma of living in a stone box—often men would come out worse than they went in, and the effects on a innocent man would be compounded even further. The Misfit never admits to committing a crime, but he also never denies it. This can be explained away by assuming that he was not actually guilty of a crime, but spent years in prison with people telling him he was guilty. Eventually, this would have worn down his own mental defenses and convinced him that he was guilty; however, his inability to name this crime could be his way of denying a crime took place while appeasing the”head doctors” who would do their best to convince him of his guilt.

However, some psychopaths would do anything to convince themselves that they did not commit a crime. In the very beginning of the story, the grandmother reads a news article and comments that her son should read “what it says [The Misfit] did to these people” and comments that “I couldn’t take my children [anywhere]…with a criminal like that loose”, so it seems that The Misfit is not innocent, but a rather vicious killer. Further, The Misfit comments “[it] ain’t right I wasn’t there [when Jesus raised the dead] because if I had been there I would have known [if it was possible to raise people from the dead and] I wouldn’t be like I am now.” He did not really think murder was a crime because death is the end and there is no heaven or hell. He also mentions that he was an undertaker for a time, and says to the grandmother that “there was never a body that gave the undertaker a tip.” This (aside from being part of Flannery O’Connor’s “black”humor) is his way of rationalizing what he is doing: he is just an undertaker.

Another piece of evidence that suggest he is guilty is his comment that “Jesus thrown everything off balance,” which could be taken as Jesus was innocent but people said he was guilty, and punished him as such. The Misfit acted in a calm and dispassionate manner until he began talking about religion and forgiveness, so he may have been innocent of the crimes he was punished for, and sorry for the crimes he had committed after escaping. However, this comment can be taken to mean many things, including that Jesus allowed the thief on the cross to be forgiven of his sins and made him innocent rather than guilty, but this leads to the possibility that The Misfit was indeed guilty of his original crimes, but in The Misfit’s mind he was not guilty because Jesus made him innocent again.

The biggest piece of evidence for The Misfit’s guilt is how easily he seemed to send the family to their deaths. However, his comment when the grandmother recognized the was “it would have been better…if you hadn’t [recognized] me” and he told her he “would hate to have to [kill her].” O ‘Connor describes his eyes as being “red-trimmed and pale and defenseless looking” signifying that maybe he was not a cold blooded killer, but would just do anything not to go back to the penitentiary.

The Misfit was not a good person, that much is certain, but the question is was he driven to be the way he was because of his own experiences or was he just a cold-blooded murderer who thought he was an “undertaker” killing people to balance out the ones Jesus raised from the dead. However, with no direct evidence of the original crime the reader is left to guess endless possibilities and scenarios including things as absurd as having The Misfit kill his father who was dieing from the flu in the hopes he would be raised from the dead. Although The Misfit did not look like a killer (described as hiving a scholarly appearance) and obviously did not enjoy killing the family, he was a murderer regardless of whether he became one from ones committed to him or his own inability to grasp the finer points of being human.

The original quote by itself seems to say The Misfit is innocent, but in the context of the story it could mean anything. As the story unfolds it is left up to the reader to decide whether he became a killer because of his own unjust experiences or his nature. Then to decide if it even matters.

Bookmark

Equality is not saying that all people are totally physically and mentally equal, no “sane” person would bet against a professional basketball player in a one-on-one against a toddler, nor would anyone say that Einstein has the same mental capacity of the average six year old. True equality instead says that potentially everyone has the same capabilities, that is to say that potentially the toddler could play professional basketball and potentially the six year old could become a future Einstein. This is regardless of the toddler being Asian and the six year old being black they still have the same potential as any other child. However this does not mean that although all people have the potential to become Einstein does not mean they all have the capacity to. Many factors come into account through out individual lives which change an individuals capacity for different activities. In the same way Downs Syndrome could prevent the toddler from becoming a physicist, a bad knee could just as easily stop the six year old from playing basketball. True equality in this respect is realizing that just because someone does not have the capacity to be a certain way does not make them less than the people around them, however this does not mean that the people around them should be required to live up to less than their full potential to make it so everyone is “equal.”

Frequently black slaves of the south and for many years afterwards blacks were thought of as unintelligent, however this is not because of some “animal features” as many white supremacists of the day would claim, nor is it because blacks are naturally made for slavery rather it was because the quality of education available to the blacks was lower than that of the whites. This still continues today, students from poorer schools who have disproportionately large number of “minority” students have a tendency to score lower on tests. This does not mean these students do not have the same potential nor do they have a diminished capacity for learning instead it just means that the quality of the learning experience is less than what is available in more wealthy areas.

True equality is realizing that just because the government says you have to treat everyone the same does not make everyone equal. True equality is realizing that just because the parents of a child are one way or another it does not limit what the child can become. True equality is realizing that although not all people are the same they can potentially be so under different circumstances. True equality is in realizing that skin color, religion or national origin has no effect on what a person can potentially be.

Bookmark

Frankenstein becomes all-consumed as he was creating his monster, forgoing all human contact so he can create his masterpiece. Upon completing his creation he really noticed it for the first time, not just the beauty he was trying to create but the ugliness of death that lingered around the creations eyes, skin, and lips. At that moment Frankenstein realized what he was really doing, he had not created life but just twisted death. Shelley seems to say that even if you can “create” life from leftover pieces your creation is not really a life, and thus you are not playing God. In modern times this situation is evident in cloning, to clone an animal scientists must use the animal itself to complete the process, no scientist can produce an egg from scratch nor is their a machine that can replicate the function of a womb.

Frankenstein’s monster was not evil or bad originally, its first action was to grin, however circumstances surrounding its early life made it into the murderer it became. Upon the creatures first meeting with Frankenstein he was well spoken and refused to fight Frankenstein instead pleading with him to listen to what he had to say and show compassion. Frankenstein then relates his beginnings showing that indeed although he may have appeared evil he was good, and thus Shelley says that good can come from mans obsession with playing god, but whether that creation is good or evil depends on what man does with it. The creation of nuclear energy is a scenario such as this, although nuclear power has many legitimate and helpful uses it also can be very destructive. Even a destructive invention can have helpful uses such as dynamite in removing old buildings, the only thing that decides what outcome a creation has on the world is in what spirit it is used.

Frankenstein was unable to cope with his status as a creator, the thought of his creation haunted him even before the creation started murdering Frankenstein’s friends and family. Instead of seeing the good that he had created he immediately saw all that was wrong with the creation. Many creators see only one side of the potential of their creations and only after it is too late see the other side.

All of these questions are asked when any new life altering science is created, in recent history these are all mostly related to genetically altered food and things like cloning. Humans have always had a problem with changing the status quo on a large scale, everything from whether math classes should use calculators to invention of the printing press has had proponents and opponents who think that their way is best. On much grander issues like cloning and gene altering the debate goes beyond the status quo and then enters into the world of philosophy, not only is the status quo to be changed but many deeply personal issues emerge. Invariably the three questions that Shelly asked in Frankenstein are asked again and invariably are given new answers.

A second question Shelley asks is what makes a human, human? By genetics it would be hard to argue that Frankenstein’s monster was anything but human, but is a human created by man still human? For all intents and purposes Shelley asks does a creation have a soul, and for that matter does anyone have a soul?

Many people can spout, literally, chapter and verse of “evidence” that proves or disproves the idea of eternal souls or gods, however it is not possible to prove or disprove with any certainty in a way that does not rely on personal bias . Ask any Christian if there is a god and they will say yes, ask them how they know and they will say “I know it in my heart” or “The bible says so.” Ask an Atheist if there is a god and they will say no, ask them how they know and they will say “Because there is no evidence.” The same thing will happen if you ask the same questions of a person of any belief system because belief is the ability to consider intangible evidence definitive. There is no definitive evidence that supports a god nor is there definitive evidence to support the lack thereof. It all boils down to what evidence does a person believe and what explanation of the evidence they believe in.

Here is what we do know for sure: we were created, we can’t tell for sure how or why but we can do our best to find out. Frankenstein’s monster wondered the same questions and the more he chased his creator the further his creator ran from him. The monster’s lack of perfection drove Frankenstein to realize what imperfections he himself had, and in doing so showed Frankenstein the frailness of his own beliefs. No longer did Frankenstein believe he held the power of life over death, instead he realized that his own imperfections had corrupted the creation. The creation was driven mad by the pursuit of the reasons for his life and at every junction realized the imperfections that existed within him forbade him from ever truly being free.

This is a lesson that is very important to learn, Shelley warns the reader not to get entangled in questions that can never be answered to any satisfaction. Humans may have been a divine creation by an omnipotent being, but just as likely humans could have been created through random changes outside the controls of anything. But this is for certain, humans are imperfect but unlike Frankenstein’s monster one must net get caught up in the idea of ones own imperfection. Because in doing so one realizes that perfection does not beget imperfection and thus it is not possible for anything or anyone to be entirely perfect. The meaning of this last sentence is to be left to the reader to decide.

Bookmark