Jane Eyre, while a noteworthy Victorian Novel in itself, shares many similarities with another novel of the same era: Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Both novels focus on a strong female character. In Jane Eyre, our main character is in fact Jane Eyre herself. In Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet is our protagonist. Both Jane and Elizabeth share a strong personality, which sets them apart from other women of their time. Jane does not hesitate to speak her mind, and Elizabeth is strong-willed and proud woman who does not back down: traits that would be unheard of in women of this time period. Our leading ladies are also both of a relatively low class in their respective novels. Jane is an orphan with barely anything to her name, but Elizabeth comes from a family not exactly poor, but not wealthy either. Both characters struggle to rise above their classes through the course of their story. Jane tries to advertise her services, hoping to get away from the Lowood Institution she grew up in. Elizabeth defies the class system all together, disregarding such labels in her interactions with others.
Not only are the female characters the same, but the male protagonists of each story resemble each other profoundly. In Jane Eyre, Mr. Edward Rochester is a wealthy man and owner of Thornfield Hall. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy is a wealthy man in charge of Pemberly estate. Both men meet the female protagonists and feel a kinship to them: for Mr. Darcy, it is love at first meeting, and for Mr. Rochester, it is a curious interest that seems to be growing at the end of Volume I. Also, both leading men are in charge of a younger girl, which acts as a means of interacting with the main females. Mr. Rochester is the suspected father of young Adele, of whom Jane is governess, and Mr. Darcy is the guardian of his younger sister Georgiana, whom Elizabeth strikes up a friendship with. In both novels as well, the male protagonists are enigmatic towards the female ones. Mr. Rochester is very blunt and forthcoming, whereas Mr. Darcy is stoic and distant. Both traits baffle the main characters of each novel.
Another interesting connection between the novels lies in the nature of the relationship between the two main characters. Both novels sport a pairing of two vastly different individuals: one silent and resigned, the other bold and strong-willed. In each novel, though, the role of each is flipped. In Jane Eyre, Jane is quiet and tame, following orders without question. She does not understand why Mr. Rochester acts the way he does because it is beyond her. Rochester in turn does not waste time in getting to his point and always spices up conversation with his own brand of wit. In Pride and Prejudice, however, Mr. Darcy is the stoic and silent character. He's always there, but he rarely talks much. Elizabeth is the proud and bold character, always indirectly taking a stab at Darcy.
After reading two different Victorian Novels, I have found that both resemble a particular Disney movie, perhaps because the storyline at their core transcends time itself. In Jane Eyre, Jane is at first exactly like Cinderella. Her relative, whom she was forced to live with, mistreats her, and always takes the side of the relative's bratty children. Once shipped off to Lowood, Miss Temple, Jane's fairy godmother swoops in to save her, weaving her a beautiful gown of etiquette and education. With this, she is able to attend the ball, in this story held at Thornfield, and meet her unlikely prince, Mr. Rochester. Pride and Prejudice also bears a strong resemblance to a Disney classic. Elizabeth, the beauty of the story, meets the beastly Darcy, and throughout the novel, their characters clash. Both fight the other, each one having to change for the other. In the end, it turns out that the beast is actually the prince, and the beauty regrets ever having acted the way she did towards him. Both novels are so iconic because they are examples of a stereotypical Victorian novel, but also because their base stories are ones that transcend time--Jane Eyre's "rags-to-riches" tale and Pride and Prejudice's unlikely romance of first impressions gone wrong.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Frankenstein and Into the Wild
In both Frankenstein and Into the Wild, the characters abandon the company of society and live in solitude. For Victor Frankenstein, he lives alone building his creation. For Chris McCandless, he lives alone in the wild. At first, this idea has merit. To disassociate yourself from society will leave yourself as your only company. You find yourself on your own, discover who you are, and grow more attuned to the world around you. This is what both characters aimed for. Victor kept to himself for two years, tirelessly working to bring life to his creation, a task that before only belonged to a god. Chris left his perfect life and somewhat stable family to connect with nature on his own, an endeavor he hoped would enlighten him, perhaps even connect him to God in nature. In both instances, our young characters secede from society with the intent of achieving a higher purpose. These intentions were pure.
The end, however, was not. Victor succeeded in giving birth to his creation, but that creation was a monster. It was his dream to give life to a body devoid of it, but once the monster was created, Victor's dream went sour: "I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart" (Shelley, 35). Chris also went into the wild to prove that he could live on his own and to connect with himself. He felt it was important "not to be strong, but feel strong", to be able to live on his own in the wilderness. While he lived in solitude, Chris grew sick because he in fact could not sustain himself. Victor also grew sick once his hiatus from the world took a turn for the worse. Another parallel that can be drawn between both characters and their stories is the universal truth of seeing things differently. Though seeming contradictory, a universal truth is that everyone sees something differently, even though that something may exist on its own. It is all a matter of perspective. Victor at first saw his creation as wondrous and beautiful, but once it opened its eyes, he saw it was a man-made horror. Chris thought to himself as he slowly died, staring into the sky, that if he had run into his parents' arms, would they see the same sky he saw now? Would his parents' perspective be the same as his own? Everyone sees things differently.
The final and most obvious universal truth in both texts is that "Happiness [is] only real when shared", as Chris writes in his book near his death. When they were alone, both characters did not feel happy. Victor was only driven by the completion of his creation, and Chris slowly died because he was alone. Both characters may have thought they were happy at first, but that happiness was not real because there was no one else around to shared in their happiness. We need human contact in our lives, otherwise we can either create a horrific monster or die on our own. Both Frankenstein and Into the Wild talk of the ambitious youth taking on a monumental task with the best of intentions, but encountering death on their solitary journey because they were all alone. Whether it was living death in Victor's creation or actual death in Chris living in the wild, both stories show that a vacation from humanity can only end in inhumanity.
The end, however, was not. Victor succeeded in giving birth to his creation, but that creation was a monster. It was his dream to give life to a body devoid of it, but once the monster was created, Victor's dream went sour: "I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart" (Shelley, 35). Chris also went into the wild to prove that he could live on his own and to connect with himself. He felt it was important "not to be strong, but feel strong", to be able to live on his own in the wilderness. While he lived in solitude, Chris grew sick because he in fact could not sustain himself. Victor also grew sick once his hiatus from the world took a turn for the worse. Another parallel that can be drawn between both characters and their stories is the universal truth of seeing things differently. Though seeming contradictory, a universal truth is that everyone sees something differently, even though that something may exist on its own. It is all a matter of perspective. Victor at first saw his creation as wondrous and beautiful, but once it opened its eyes, he saw it was a man-made horror. Chris thought to himself as he slowly died, staring into the sky, that if he had run into his parents' arms, would they see the same sky he saw now? Would his parents' perspective be the same as his own? Everyone sees things differently.
The final and most obvious universal truth in both texts is that "Happiness [is] only real when shared", as Chris writes in his book near his death. When they were alone, both characters did not feel happy. Victor was only driven by the completion of his creation, and Chris slowly died because he was alone. Both characters may have thought they were happy at first, but that happiness was not real because there was no one else around to shared in their happiness. We need human contact in our lives, otherwise we can either create a horrific monster or die on our own. Both Frankenstein and Into the Wild talk of the ambitious youth taking on a monumental task with the best of intentions, but encountering death on their solitary journey because they were all alone. Whether it was living death in Victor's creation or actual death in Chris living in the wild, both stories show that a vacation from humanity can only end in inhumanity.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Feminist Theory Response
I do not believe that Chaucer was chauvinistic. That feminist view is looking at the story from a modern 21st century lens. During Chaucer's time, his story would have been the societal norm. Women at that time were dependent on men. They could not go to school, and there were not many professions open to women aside from wife and homemaker. To say that Chaucer hated women because the main female character did not get what she wanted is taking the story out of its historical context.
It is not even completely true that Emily did not get what she wanted, either. She did ask Diana to let her keep her chastity and to marry neither Arcite nor Palamon, but she also added a small addendum to her request. She said that if she could not remain a maiden, she asked Diana to let her marry the one of the two that loved her most. In the end, Emily got Palamon. Palamon loved Emily as a goddess, while Arcite loved her as a mere woman. Palamon's love was better for Emily than Arcite's, so Emily did, in the end, get what she asked for. Chaucer did not completely deprive Emily of her happily ever after.
Speaking of happily ever after, I disagree with some of Disney's examples of anti-feminism. Granted, some stories like Cinderella and most villain's like Maleficent are perfect examples, but Belle of Beauty and The Beast is, in my opinion, a great example of a strong female heroine. Belle is not your average girl in the story. Instead of her looks or men, Belle cares about books and reading. She's intelligent, where other girls of the story, like the three silly girls, are anything but. Gaston, the seemingly perfect man, wants Belle for his wife. Gaston is the ultimate chauvinist. He does not even ask Belle to marry him. He demands it. Belle, on the other hand, refuses him to his face. And when Belle is stuck in Beast's castle, Beast demands that Belle come to dinner and Belle refuses, instead telling him to work on his attitude. Belle is independent--being held against her will is not the same as being weak. And when looking at Disney, we seem to forget Mulan. The whole plot of Mulan was a girl who ran away from home and masqueraded as a man, enlisting in the army so her father would not have to. When she was found out, she persevered and took down Shan Yu, the leader of the Huns. Mulan is not your typical Disney Heroine.
If you shift the focus off of Emily, you can see just how Chaucer is not a chauvinist. Emily did not get what she wanted, but Venus did. Venus is the goddess of love and beauty, and the pinnacle of femininity among the gods. She prevails, not Mars, the god of war and paragon of masculinity. Theseus is used as an example of Chaucer's misogynistic tendencies; he captured Hippolyta as a war prize and offered up Emily as a prize to be won. If, however, this is the Theseus of Mythology, he is not very misogynistic himself. His major feat was navigating the labyrinth and slaying the Minotaur, but he could not have done that without the help of a woman. Princess Ariadne of Crete gave Theseus a sword and a ball of twine to navigate the labyrinth, so he would not get lost. Theseus would not have gotten out if not for Ariadne. Chaucer is not misogynistic because his story is socially acceptable during his time period, even if it is not during ours.
It is not even completely true that Emily did not get what she wanted, either. She did ask Diana to let her keep her chastity and to marry neither Arcite nor Palamon, but she also added a small addendum to her request. She said that if she could not remain a maiden, she asked Diana to let her marry the one of the two that loved her most. In the end, Emily got Palamon. Palamon loved Emily as a goddess, while Arcite loved her as a mere woman. Palamon's love was better for Emily than Arcite's, so Emily did, in the end, get what she asked for. Chaucer did not completely deprive Emily of her happily ever after.
Speaking of happily ever after, I disagree with some of Disney's examples of anti-feminism. Granted, some stories like Cinderella and most villain's like Maleficent are perfect examples, but Belle of Beauty and The Beast is, in my opinion, a great example of a strong female heroine. Belle is not your average girl in the story. Instead of her looks or men, Belle cares about books and reading. She's intelligent, where other girls of the story, like the three silly girls, are anything but. Gaston, the seemingly perfect man, wants Belle for his wife. Gaston is the ultimate chauvinist. He does not even ask Belle to marry him. He demands it. Belle, on the other hand, refuses him to his face. And when Belle is stuck in Beast's castle, Beast demands that Belle come to dinner and Belle refuses, instead telling him to work on his attitude. Belle is independent--being held against her will is not the same as being weak. And when looking at Disney, we seem to forget Mulan. The whole plot of Mulan was a girl who ran away from home and masqueraded as a man, enlisting in the army so her father would not have to. When she was found out, she persevered and took down Shan Yu, the leader of the Huns. Mulan is not your typical Disney Heroine.
If you shift the focus off of Emily, you can see just how Chaucer is not a chauvinist. Emily did not get what she wanted, but Venus did. Venus is the goddess of love and beauty, and the pinnacle of femininity among the gods. She prevails, not Mars, the god of war and paragon of masculinity. Theseus is used as an example of Chaucer's misogynistic tendencies; he captured Hippolyta as a war prize and offered up Emily as a prize to be won. If, however, this is the Theseus of Mythology, he is not very misogynistic himself. His major feat was navigating the labyrinth and slaying the Minotaur, but he could not have done that without the help of a woman. Princess Ariadne of Crete gave Theseus a sword and a ball of twine to navigate the labyrinth, so he would not get lost. Theseus would not have gotten out if not for Ariadne. Chaucer is not misogynistic because his story is socially acceptable during his time period, even if it is not during ours.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Final Ideal Society
My society really did not change that much. I only traded Lara Croft for Pink. I traded Lara Croft because I did not feel I really needed someone like her. I just added her in because she was a female, and my society needed to procreate, plus I thought she had some interesting qualities that might help a society. But when I found out some of the other omen in other societies, I liked them better. The only extras I found Lara to have was proficiency in weaponry and combat, and a lot of money. Gabriel, though, can create anything from thin air, like money, and both Gabriel and Beast know how to fight. So instead, I received Pink, whom in my opinion is a great musician and singer. She is not afraid to voice her own opinions and won't just roll over when something doesn't go her way. Also, since Apollo is the God of Music, having a musician in the society would make a good pair.
When I think of flaws in my society, I feel I can rule out any issues regarding supplies. Not only is Demeter Goddess of Agriculture to grow food, but Gabriel can literally create anything out of nothing: food, money, even other people, and he can create them to be as real as you or me. Stability, however, may be an issue. I feel as though in my society Gabriel and Demeter would lead it. Gabriel can create anything, and he is an Archangel. Demeter is one of the oldest gods in Greek Mythology. She has enough power to make Zeus, King of the Gods, cower before her if she wants, through control of the earth and the seasons. Apollo does not strike me as the kind of god to seek power, in all the myths I know of, he is only concerned with love or when someone underestimates his own power...although that might be a problem as well.
The thing with Greek Gods is that they are very proud. If they are in any way disgraced or underestimated, they turn vengeful very quickly. Having two gods in my society probably is not a smart move, along with Gabriel. Gabriel, when he fled to earth, disguised himself as the Norse God Loki, the Trickster God. For centuries, he targeted the high and mighty and brought them down a peg, often with a sense of humor. Thanks to him, many would get their "just desserts". So having Gabriel in a society with other Gods may not work out, although, in one episode of Supernatural, it did show him actually acknowledging and behaving around other gods, so it could go either way, depending on how you look at it.
Supposing Gabriel and the Greek Gods get along, however, I feel my society will work. They never have to worry about going hungry or dying off, because Demeter can grow food, and Gabriel can create other people. Apollo is the God of Healing and Medicine, and can keep the people healthy. Then, all that matters is the Arts, of which Apollo is the God of, Intelligence, of which Beast is very profound, and Good Times, of which Pink can surely facilitate.
When I think of flaws in my society, I feel I can rule out any issues regarding supplies. Not only is Demeter Goddess of Agriculture to grow food, but Gabriel can literally create anything out of nothing: food, money, even other people, and he can create them to be as real as you or me. Stability, however, may be an issue. I feel as though in my society Gabriel and Demeter would lead it. Gabriel can create anything, and he is an Archangel. Demeter is one of the oldest gods in Greek Mythology. She has enough power to make Zeus, King of the Gods, cower before her if she wants, through control of the earth and the seasons. Apollo does not strike me as the kind of god to seek power, in all the myths I know of, he is only concerned with love or when someone underestimates his own power...although that might be a problem as well.
The thing with Greek Gods is that they are very proud. If they are in any way disgraced or underestimated, they turn vengeful very quickly. Having two gods in my society probably is not a smart move, along with Gabriel. Gabriel, when he fled to earth, disguised himself as the Norse God Loki, the Trickster God. For centuries, he targeted the high and mighty and brought them down a peg, often with a sense of humor. Thanks to him, many would get their "just desserts". So having Gabriel in a society with other Gods may not work out, although, in one episode of Supernatural, it did show him actually acknowledging and behaving around other gods, so it could go either way, depending on how you look at it.
Supposing Gabriel and the Greek Gods get along, however, I feel my society will work. They never have to worry about going hungry or dying off, because Demeter can grow food, and Gabriel can create other people. Apollo is the God of Healing and Medicine, and can keep the people healthy. Then, all that matters is the Arts, of which Apollo is the God of, Intelligence, of which Beast is very profound, and Good Times, of which Pink can surely facilitate.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Ideal Society
For my ideal society, I chose Apollo, Gabriel the Archangel, Dr. Hank McCoy (Beast), Lara Croft, and Demeter.
Apollo is the God of the Sun, Prophecy, Medicine and Healing, Music, Poetry, and the Arts, etc. I chose him because he is a god, and there are perks to being a god, such as immortality. He is one of my favorite Greek Gods because he has a wide sphere of power. Not only he is patron of the arts, so he can provide the society with music, literature, artistry, and all that, but he is also the god of healing and can heal the society, keeping them healthy.
Gabriel The Archangel, as portrayed in Supernatural, is, in my opinion, one of the best Archangels on the show. He fled from heaven and hid himself as the Norse God Loki, the Trickster God. He has a jester sense of humor and can entertain the society. He can also warp and manipulate reality, as well as create things from thin air, which is how he plays his tricks on people. As an Angel, he is also trained as a warrior of the Lord and can fight to defend the society. "Archangels are heaven's fiercest weapons."
Dr. Henry "Hank" McCoy is the X-Man known as Beast. He is incredibly intelligent in most arts and sciences, but specifically world-renowned in the fields of biochemistry and genetics. He is a teacher at the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, and can teach the society on whatever it needs to be taught. His intelligence, paired with Gabriel's ability to create, allow are the proper advancement society needs.
Lara Croft, tomb raider: she is very athletic and skilled with weaponry and combat. She is also very wealthy, and can provide the society with any wealth in might need and store it like a banker. She can also procreate.
Demeter is the Goddess of Earth and Agriculture. She can farm the earth for food, as well as control the seasons and weather if need be. She is very motherly, and as a result is the matriarch of the society, its leader. She is a goddess of Justice, meaning she can lead and keep order amongst the society. She can also hold her own in battle, as her rage was strong enough once to force Zeus, Lord of the Sky and King of the Gods, to do her bidding.
My Society focuses and the Arts and Stability. We need to be able to survive and grow, but also be able to occupy and entertain ourselves once we do.
Apollo is the God of the Sun, Prophecy, Medicine and Healing, Music, Poetry, and the Arts, etc. I chose him because he is a god, and there are perks to being a god, such as immortality. He is one of my favorite Greek Gods because he has a wide sphere of power. Not only he is patron of the arts, so he can provide the society with music, literature, artistry, and all that, but he is also the god of healing and can heal the society, keeping them healthy.
Gabriel The Archangel, as portrayed in Supernatural, is, in my opinion, one of the best Archangels on the show. He fled from heaven and hid himself as the Norse God Loki, the Trickster God. He has a jester sense of humor and can entertain the society. He can also warp and manipulate reality, as well as create things from thin air, which is how he plays his tricks on people. As an Angel, he is also trained as a warrior of the Lord and can fight to defend the society. "Archangels are heaven's fiercest weapons."
Dr. Henry "Hank" McCoy is the X-Man known as Beast. He is incredibly intelligent in most arts and sciences, but specifically world-renowned in the fields of biochemistry and genetics. He is a teacher at the Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters, and can teach the society on whatever it needs to be taught. His intelligence, paired with Gabriel's ability to create, allow are the proper advancement society needs.
Lara Croft, tomb raider: she is very athletic and skilled with weaponry and combat. She is also very wealthy, and can provide the society with any wealth in might need and store it like a banker. She can also procreate.
Demeter is the Goddess of Earth and Agriculture. She can farm the earth for food, as well as control the seasons and weather if need be. She is very motherly, and as a result is the matriarch of the society, its leader. She is a goddess of Justice, meaning she can lead and keep order amongst the society. She can also hold her own in battle, as her rage was strong enough once to force Zeus, Lord of the Sky and King of the Gods, to do her bidding.
My Society focuses and the Arts and Stability. We need to be able to survive and grow, but also be able to occupy and entertain ourselves once we do.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Code of Courtly Love
-Attraction to the other person.
-Know that you are now secondary. Their needs come before your own.
-Lovesick, can't get them out of your mind? A good sign you love them.
-Friendship and camaraderie. Have fun with them, and make sure they have fun with you.
-Be sure that they are the object of your devotion, nothing less. Do not engage with false feelings, and do not lead them on. Never lie to them.
-When ready, confess your feelings. Pray that they reciprocate.
-If they do not reciprocate your feelings, respect their wishes, even if it's not what you want. If you truly cared, what you want would not matter. They should be all that matters.
-Be theirs, because they are not yours. Exist for them, because they do not exist for you. Cherish every moment.
-Make them happy, by whatever means necessary. If they frown, be the one to turn it upside down. Make every day better for them than the last.
-Look in their eyes like they're your favorite tv show, hold their hand, hug them like a life preserver. Make sure they know how much you love them, and never let them forget it every day you're with them.
-Know that you are now secondary. Their needs come before your own.
-Lovesick, can't get them out of your mind? A good sign you love them.
-Friendship and camaraderie. Have fun with them, and make sure they have fun with you.
-Be sure that they are the object of your devotion, nothing less. Do not engage with false feelings, and do not lead them on. Never lie to them.
-When ready, confess your feelings. Pray that they reciprocate.
-If they do not reciprocate your feelings, respect their wishes, even if it's not what you want. If you truly cared, what you want would not matter. They should be all that matters.
-Be theirs, because they are not yours. Exist for them, because they do not exist for you. Cherish every moment.
-Make them happy, by whatever means necessary. If they frown, be the one to turn it upside down. Make every day better for them than the last.
-Look in their eyes like they're your favorite tv show, hold their hand, hug them like a life preserver. Make sure they know how much you love them, and never let them forget it every day you're with them.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Essential Question #4
In Hrothgar's final farewell to Beowulf,the leader of the Danes offers Beowulf two pieces of advice. The first is to always remember and thank God, the second to never succumb to pride. Hrothgar offers an anecdote of a man who comes to power through the glory of God. God makes this man the ruler of a country which he is able to rule prosperously. Nothing bad ever happens to the man, until he starts to get pompous. Arrogance consumes him and he forgets about God, instead focusing on himself, his wealth, and his achievements. Ambition grows, and what made him happy before is now insufficient. He greedily craves more. The man then dies, another man taking up the throne in his place. Hrothgar sums his story up with these words to Beowulf: "Arm yourself, dear Beowulf, best of men, against such diseased thinking; always swallow pride; remember renowned warrior, what is more worthwhile--gain everlasting. Today and tomorrow you will be in your prime; but soon you will die, [...] all too soon, O warrior, death will destroy you" (Lines 742-752). Hrothgar's message to Beowulf is simple: "Do not let all of this fame and power go to your head. Instead, make a name for yourself so that your name can live forever. Remember that even with your strength, you are still mortal, and that some day you will die. Remember God and thank Him for all that he has done, and do not stake your faith in earthly possessions." Man is finite; his time on earth is short, and that time must be spent doing the right thing and serving God, the only thing that is infinite. I think that Beowulf will get caught up in his power and forget Hrothgar's word. In the end, Beowulf will forget about God and rely on his own strength, which will in turn insure his end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
