Arguably the most important “power” that these writers attributed to the individual was the individual’s right to power over their own beings. The ability to self-determine one’s destiny was not only necessary to the underpinnings of enlightenment, but it was also necessary to advance society as a whole. By allowing individuals to have power over their individual being, they became their own masters: no longer subjected by the whims of a larger society. As an illustration of these principles, once released from the tenets of religion, Benjamin Franklin “conceiv’d the bold and arduous Project of arriving at moral Perfection” (364). By believing in the power of the self and the equality of men he accomplished this without requiring a higher moral authority , Franklin defined his own moral perfection and strove to achieve it. The power the individual has over the self is absolute, but as Poe warns, this can be used for ill: in Poe’s tale of “The Tell-Tale Heart,” his protagonist envisions the world around him through the filter of his own demented mind. The conflicts in the character’s internal self become so profuse that he projects them externally and creates an old man whose eye haunts him, and he is eventually undone when he fails to recognize the beatings of his own heart. This absolute power is both the greatest curse and privilege of the Enlightenment and Romantic views of the self, so rather than leaving this power unchecked, they emphasized the power of Nature as both the antithesis to the self and the guide of the self.

Even though the release from mortal authority and the servitude of religion was central to the Enlightenment, they did not banish the Deities. Instead they either personified deities as part of the natural world which allowed the individual the opportunity to be “part or particle of God” (Emerson, 657) or defined the deities as separate from the world and as a creator but not a participatory member of the universe. Franklin was one of the original Deisitic writers in American Literature, and believed in the separation of religion from God because of the oppressive and meddlesome nature of churches which mixed their theology “with other Articles which without any tendency to inspire, promote or confirm Morality, serv’d principally to divide us & make us unfriendly to one another” (Franklin, 363). As Romantic writing developed it moved the Enlightened Deity from the role of creator into the natural world by blending the deity into Nature and science. This natural view of God continued the deistic way of thinking, and removed much of the remaining power of the organized churches allowing people to find and define their own personal church, and while some created cathedrals out of mountains and trees, others made theirs out of numbers, facts and figures creating the first conflicts between the mystical nature and the exacting sciences.

While the individual had the power to determine their own personal beliefs, some found that they were still oppressed by things they could not control: science became increasingly important, and to some, this was as oppressive as the monarchs and gods of the past. Their objection was that in becoming the absolute authority, science created a monochromatic image of the world which stifled the individual’s ability to perceive the world around him for what he believed it was; however, others quickly realized that science allowed them to open their eyes and see the world both as it was and how it could be. Poe and Thoreau, in a clash between bright and dark romanticism, viewed science differently with the more middle-of-the-road approach being attributed to to the bright romantics. In Poe’s “Sonnet “” to Science” he attacks the mundane aspects of science and refers to it as a “Vulture! whose wings are dull realities” (1223), but Thoreau, in his journals, embraces science, but believes that one can only truly appreciate something when one “forget[s] all [their] learning and get[s] rid of what is called knowledge”. Poe believes that the science accosts his creativity and stifles his ability to be an individual and exercise his hard-won individualism, but Thoreau is capable of independently appreciating nature even if his opinions are invalidated by science because he believes that his power over his own perceptions is absolute, so balancing the science with the mystery of Nature and the joy of poetic expression is not difficult him or other “bright” romantics. These two different views of science are brought about by the way the writers treat science: Poe personified science and held it blamable rather than as a tool, but Thoreau treats science as a tool and because of this, he is able to cast it aside when it is unnecessary while Poe’s creations and imaginings are constantly surrounded, attacked and restrained by a personified science which replaces the monarchs and gods. For writers of similar beliefs to Poe, this restriction by science was contrary to the ideals of Romanticism, and created a stumbling block that hemmed in the powers of the individual.

The only restrictions on the individual, other than the perception of a restrictive science and or those self-imposed, were the restrictions of society itself. These societal restrictions are not the same as the restrictions of a Monarch, but are the attempts of society to control the individual and harness their powers for the good of society itself. To the Romantics, this acceptance of societal pressures was a sort of voluntary defeat which according to some, like Thoreau, was necessary because not all were capable of fully controlling their own lives (820). Thoreau believed that most people spent their lives “sleeping” only using their minds for menial pursuits and living lives “of quiet desperation” (813). However, while Thoreau allowed for control of these sleepers, he believed that should a man wish to remove themselves from the societal order, they should be allowed to: regardless of its effects on the society itself. Thus, the individual is simultaneously an integral component of society, but also transcends such mean concerns when it is necessary for the individual to exercise their powers of reason, imagination, logic and creation.

The writers of the the Enlightenment and Romantic period defined the individual as the reasoning and logical self which interacts with the larger external world, and the powers they attributed to their creation were immense, but they tempered the powers of the individual with the power and mystery of nature. This individualistic view of the self replaced the mean collectivism of European society and formed the foundation of modern perceptions of the individual.

While Thomas Paine was referred to as a “a dirty little atheist” by Theodore Roosevelt, he did not disbelieve in a supreme god as the creator of everything: he believed that man could not be trusted with religion; therefore, any religions texts written down by humans were also contaminated by them. ((“His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.”)) Paine also argued that “it is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand,” so rather than believing in adhering to a particular religious doctrine, he believed, as stated by Thomas Edison, “[that the] Bible was the open face of nature, the broad skies, the green hills.” Paine believed that “[his] own mind is [his] own church” and required no religious texts to indicate how he should live nor did he require four thousand year old scrawlings to dictate his morality. He believed that morality comes from within. ((“I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”))

We can see the rise of deism in western societies by taking America as a middle-of-the-road country. ((Yes, I know that most of us consider America to be very religious, but it really isn’t 100% true.)) The majority of Americans today also tend towards these ideas— the recent Baylor Religion Survey conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 88% of those living in America believe in a God. Of that 88%, 75% absolutely believed totally and 13% believed that it was probable that a God exists; however, a Gallup poll in 2006 found that only 43% of residents actually attended religious services more frequently than “almost weekly.” While these numbers could be indicative of any number of causes, the most obvious is a lack of belief that attendance in religious services, as required in religious texts, is required to live a moral life. Americans are beginning to see that weekly church services and a devout belief in god does not make men infallible and those who profess themselves to be religious leaders can have flaws whose consequences reverberate within an entire religion. While many Americans profess to believe in God, or the concept of a god, most see rituals as meaningless and the countless stories in the bible as stories meant not literally, but as a way to demonstrate morals.

These new tenets are demonstrated by the continued relaxing of America’s attitude towards other religions ((Of course, we must exclude religious animosity caused by non-religious events.)) and sects of Christianity, but the continued idea that atheism is the cause of most of societies ilks. The majority of Americans still value a belief in a god, but what god and how one worships the god is less important as long as the principles in the religion intersect with American cultural values and teach people moral behavior. The separation of religious morals from religion is not new: in the 1830’s Horace Mann argued, as part of the Board of Education for Massachusetts, that teaching religion in schools was not required to teach religious morals, but America’s separation of religious morals from religious belief has always had cycle and peaks and valleys based on events of that and the previous generation. However, it seems that religious doctrine is again giving way to scientific thought—evidenced by the continually changing tactics of those who want religion taught in classrooms—similarly to the way this occurred during the Age of Enlightenment.

Officer Soledad “Bullet” O’Roark loathes her nickname-and the notoriety it represents. She didn’t join L.A.P.D’s elite M-Tac squad to fight the Brass or make rookie cops idolize her. She joined M-Tac to kill freaks.
Freaks, muties, metanormals-back in the day, they were called superheroes. They had amazing powers, lurid costumes, and snappy names: Nightshift, Civil Warrior, Nubian Princess, The Giggler. They seemed to be saviors and gods. But where there are heroes, there are villains. When a clash of superheroes and supervillains destroys San Francisco, the normal human population decides it will no longer live like spectators at the foot of Mt. Olympus.

Superhumans are now outlawed and hunted by cops. But it isn’t easy to take down beings who are invulnerable or intangible, have super-strength or super-speed, or can throw flames from their body or telepathically control minds. The mortality rate for M-Tac units is nearly fifty percent-per mission. That’s why Soledad has customized hi-tech, unauthorized, very special ammo. Each freak has a different weakness, and her color-coded clips are designed to exploit every one of them. Soon Soledad is racking up a body count that makes her a legend on the force-and a nightmare in the freak underground.

But when Soledad guns down a radiant woman who can heal the sick, reverse catastrophes, and then fly away on great white wings, the cop may be starting the final war between normals and metanormals. Because Bullet O’Roark didn’t just shoot down a freak. According to all witnesses, she’s killed an angel.

After reading this book it is hard to find a place to start, but there are three major themes in this book if you know where to look. The first is pure racism and bigotry, the second is a warning against knee-jerk reactions (with broad sweeps towards September 11th), the third is more subtle and deals with when passion becomes insanity. The world that John Ridley paints is a stirring look into the human psyche.

After the destruction of San Fransisco by a super-villain, in a knee-jerk reaction the President of the United States signs an executive order declaring that any metanormals left in the country would immediately be declared personae non gratae (lit. an unwelcome person) stripping of their citizenship and their very humanity. Any person so declared is served with a warrant which, although it is technically a warrant for their arrest, signals their death. The teams of specially trained police (M-Tac) serve the warrants with the intent and expectation that they will be served to a dead body.

Because of the actions of a single super-villain an entire segment of the human species is declared nonhuman and treated as such. As is evident by O’Roarks second killing there is no burden of proof. After witnessing a collapse of a street and noticing that cars were held back from plunging into the crevice, O’Roark frantically scanned the faces in the crowd to find the one person who had saved the lives of many people. Upon finding a single person without a fearful expression she drew her gun. When that person turned to leave she followed. And when the person dropped their overcoat to fly away on golden wings, O’Roark fired her gun causing the metahuman to plummet to earth ending their life in a pile of broken bones and wings. This is a world where metahumans are nothing; even one who saved lives is considered sub-human. Although interestingly enough these same sub-humans still still try to help.

There are two lessons we can draw from this part of the story. The first is how deeply racism truly runs. The second is that over reacting to a catastrophe in anger and fear is easy, but dealing with the consequences is hard.

The second lesson we learn is that there is a thin line before passion and insanity. O’Roark hates metahumans with a passion; she devoted her entire life to killing them efficiently to the point that she received degrees in metahuman psychology and physiology before becoming a M-Tac for no other reason than to be able to kill easier. In the course of the story she finds a single person who is her soul-mate, but when he reveals himself (while saving a woman from a burning car no less) to be a metahuman she promptly attempts to kill him emptying clip after clip from her weapon into him. It had no effect on him because he was able to become intangible, but it fueled her desire even more to find a way to kill every type of metahuman.

Now one would believe that there must have been a major catastrophe in this womans life to have her hate metahumans as much as she does. However her vast hate comes from nothing more that wounded pride and broken dreams. In her own words she felt that “as a little girl they killed my dreams” because her hero let her down. She is a picture-perfect representation of a tolerated psychopath.

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.