Plan for final project

My plan for the final project is to expand on my paper that looked at Interview With the Vampire from an economic standpoint. I think it would be interesting to consider how the characters would behave in the current economic climate (this may bring a bit too much "creativity" into an analysis piece but I'd like to try it). I would also like to bring in references from other vampire novels, such as Dracula and maybe some more modern ones, to further explore the effects of greed, selfishness, and consumerism throughout time. I am hoping that the ways in which the vampires live reflect the economic climate of the times in which they were written. I will also use information from an MSNBC program called American Greed to look at what drives people to wealth with no consideration for others.

If I am unable to make this work, I will probably use my idea of putting the Interview characters in modern times in a short story, kind of like a "where are they now" sort of thing. (I know, some of them died but this only works if I can use Lestat and Louis as they were towards the beginning of the book) I think I'm going to have Lestat somehow involved with investment banking and use my analogy of him being a ponzi scheme, and make it literal. I'm not sure how I would explain it but at some point in Lestat and Louis' lives it will become necessary that they have jobs and both of them will end up either as stock brokers or investment bankers. I may try to tie in the bailout and use the vampires to focus more on corporate greed than American greed as a whole. I think it would be interesting to see these characters in a Wall Street setting where "greed is good" and they would be praised for their complete lack of interest in other people's needs.

Interview

Interview With the Vampire is interesting because it continues the tradition of aristocratic vampires but shifts them to the United States. I think choosing the 18th century for the early stages of Louis' life as a vampire was a good choice because at that time, America (especially the south) still operated with a sense of regality. What has intrigued me the most so far in the novel, is the vampires interactions with the slaves. This section isn't particularly long but I felt it was important. I don't know if it is a commentary on slavery itself but I read it to mean that these plantation owners already buy and trade people like meat so the next logical step is to treat them like that and consume them. The book does a good job of contrasting the slaves with New Orleans' large free black population "those marvelous people of our mixed blood and that of the islands, who produced a magnificent and unique caste of craftsmen, artists, poets, and renowned feminine beauty," and I think it captures the true feel of the city at that time, in that it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves but then go out and enjoy the mixing of your own culture and the culture of those people who you own. I think this is an interesting statement about how absurd (and terrible) it is to own another human being. I also found it intriguing that Louis was led to his transformation by guilt. It's ironic that his search for death led him to immortality where he will live forever with the memory of his brother. I think that even though he initially blames himself for his brother's death, he does not truly want to join him in the after world yet. I think part of the reason he makes the change to vampire is because he likes that pain. It fades over time but something about that loss and guilt drives him subconsciously.

This post is related more to our discussion last class than to the second half of the novel but I think it is fitting. I was surfing the GQ website earlier today and I stumbled across an article that will be published in this month's issue. The article, entitled "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute," examines how vampires have worked their way into pop culture. The article raises a few points that I found quite interesting including one that says the allure of vampires is that they can be used as metaphors for absolutely every issue in society. These metaphors change depending on what country you're in but the versatility of the vampire is universal. The author says that in the U.S, the appeal of the vampire is that they represent a life of "wishful privilege" that doesn't seem to have been worked for but rather just attained; which is really how all of us would like to live. By living hundreds of years, these characters become worldly, sexy, smart, and rich, but they didn't have to do anything to get these things. This could be viewed as a metaphor for our current way of American life. Personal politics aside, our society has become lazy and the work ethic of past generations is just a memory; people expect luxury to just fall into their laps, and as vampires, that just might happen. I think that some of the appeal of Dracula comes from his inexplicable wealth as well. It is a complete mystery how this monstrous man attained his immense wealth and that's intriguing. The reader doesn't know what he had to do to get rich, and honestly, it seems like most people don't care; all that matters is that he's rich and we want to be too. This regality without work is what makes America's newest vampire sweethearts (the characters from the Meyer books) attractive as well. They live a luxurious life and bring a blue collar worker's daughter into it. America has always had a fascination with blue blood families, but now it's far more interesting if they also happen to be supernatural entities.

I think America's focus on age also has something to do with the popularity of vampires. Americans do everything to look younger and age slower so what's more alluring than someone who doesn't age? By being young forever, vampires can live however they want and improve themselves over time. One of the best lines in the article says "maybe it takes a couple centuries' practice for an American to learn to be suave," and I think that sums up why these creatures are so popular, if we could live forever, we'd all be perfect.

Dracula

While reading Dracula, I've come to notice that the novel deals a lot with themes of helplessness and powerlessness. When Jonathan first begins his journal, the reader is given several instances of his struggle to thrive away from his home country of England. At this point, he is not yet helpless, but he lacks the skills necessary to truly interact with his new surroundings. He has a limited understanding of German and has even less knowledge of the culture of the world he has entered. It seems like his broad generalizations about the east, "I had to sit in the carriage for more than an hour before we began to move. It seems to me that the further East you go the more unpunctual are the trains. What ought they to be in China?(11)" are his way of coping with his new environment. Situations like this are the beginning of his loss of power. He's been stripped of the clockwork schedules of England and has in turn been stripped of his control of time. Jonathan is also helpless when he sets off on his journey. He is completely in the dark as the town folk talk about him and he is unable to understand their warnings about his destination and the precarious day on which he is set to arrive there. After Jonathan is picked up by Dracula's coachmen (presumably Dracula himself) the real feeling of helplessness begins to set in. Jonathan is immediately under his host's power, whether he is aware of it at first or not. As they enter the woods, he is subjected to terror when left alone in the carriage and surrounded by wolves. He has no means of defending himself and is only rescued when "he swept his long arms, as though brushing aside some impalpable obstacle, the wolves fell back and back further still. (20)" He is so powerless that he has no choice but to stick with his host. The arrival at the castle does little to increase Jonathan's sense of power. He is given free reign of the house but cannot really go anywhere within it. The doors are locked and there is a real sense of claustrophobia created when he rushes around the castle trying to open each one. He cannot escape the manor and is even more helpless when in Dracula's presence. I think Dracula's iron grip is representative of the grip he has over Jonathan mentally. He may clasp down with vice-like strength during a hand shake but that is nothing compared to the strangle hold he has on Jonathan's mind when he eerily avoids eating, keeps him up all night, and ultimately scales the manor's walls... up side down. The whole purpose of Castle Dracula it seems is to mentally break down and scare its victims into submission all under the guise of old world noble hospitality.

Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights seems to me to be a story of missed opportunities and misunderstandings. Most of the problems that arise in the story are the result of confusion and misinformation. Lockwood is laughably good at getting himself into embarrassing situations. He appears to be a bit nervous whenever he is around Heathcliff anyway so it is humorous when he mistakes Heathcliff's daughter-in-law for his wife and when he hears of his mistake, a shabby laborer for her husband.

"We neither of us have the privilege of owning your good fairy, her mate is dead. I said she was my daughter-in-law, therefore she must have married my son."

"And this young man is-"

"Not my son, assuredly!" (Bronte, pg. 11)

The other inhabitants of the novel are not immune to looking stupid either. For example, Mrs. Heathcliff makes Joseph look ignorant and superstitious throughout the beginning of the book by "cursing" him. By believing these curses to be true, Joseph reveals himself as a simple minded peasant and I think perhaps Bronte is commenting on the lower classes and accusing them all of being dim-witted and slow. For some reason when I read the line "I'll show you how far I've progressed in the Black Art" (Bronte, pg. 12) I took it as being tongue in cheek, as if she knew she could trick the simple fool into doing her bidding for fear of being cursed.

Perhaps the most important example of misunderstanding in the first half of the book is Heathcliff overhearing Catherine talk about her engagement. Upset by this he shuffles away, moments before she reveals her true love for him. Much of his bitterness stems from his being spurned by Catherine unaware that she is marrying out of necessity, not love. If Heathcliff had eavesdropped on her for only a few more seconds, he could have saved himself years of anguish.

As I write this, I am realizing that my analysis does not carry much weight past the first five or six chapters. The story, once it shifts almost entirely to Nelly's narrative, it becomes almost a cautionary tale of loving too much. Heathcliff and Catherine are both in pain because they love each other too dearly without being able to pursue their feelings. Bronte seems to warn against the power of love. It can also be inferred that this story carries the message that relationships between members of different classes are doomed from the start.

I am interested in the role ghosts play in Wuthering Heights and will update this blog after Tuesday's discussion.

Frankenstein and Education

I was intrigued by the ideas discussed in class regarding education in Frankenstein so I've decided to explore the concept further. I was most interested in the idea that knowledge is dangerous or in some cases pointless. When Victor first mentions his plans, or rather his parents' plans, for his further education, he describes the events surrounding his departure as ominous. "My departure was therefore fixed at an early date; but before the day resolved upon could arrive, the first misfortune of my life occurred- an omen..." (Shelley, pg. 24). Victor isn't even out the door and unfortunate events begin to dismantle his life. This event, while not directly influenced by education seems to set in motion a string of events that lead to the disastrous effects of Victor's time at Ingolstadt. When he arrives at the university, he avoids any type of social life and goes so far as to "take leave of all my friends (Shelley, pg. 25)." throwing himself into his studies. This could be viewed as Shelley saying that education alienates people and forces them to seek refuge with books rather than people; that too much education can lead to a life of isolation. This alone is not dangerous however. The isolation, coupled with an incomplete understanding and mixing of many different sciences is what truly leads to Victor's demise. He combines the fields of philosophy and physics into a bastardized version of both that he doesn't truly understand which leads him, in turn, to create a monster he cannot understand. If Victor had stopped his education after primary school, he could have had some semblance of a social life, he would not have created the monster, and his brother would still be alive. His relationship with his father could have been better as well if he hadn't spent so much time studying philosophers his father didn't accept.

Shelley also seems to think that knowledge is somewhat meaningless, especially without context. The monster learns at an incredibly fast rate and grows to be an eloquent being. He reads classic literature and observes/copies how a human family interacts with one another but when he uses what he has picked up, it is without real meaning. He may be book smart but he has no idea how to apply what he's read to real life. He has no socialization and cannot interact at a human level. He imitates life without really living. He may know the word love but does he truly understand its meaning? I don't think so. I think the monster watches what the world perceives as normal and copies it to the best of his abilities without actually understanding what he's doing or why he's doing it. Does he want a female companion because he has a desire to feel love and procreate or does he want a female companion because he has observed a "normal" man with a female? The fact that Victor refuses to listen to the monster despite his eloquence is also disheartening. He knows how to talk pretty but his outward appearance drives people away from him so he never gets a chance to converse with them, rendering his knowledge useless. It's as if Shelley is saying there is no reason to gain knowledge if no one will ever allow you to share it with them.

The Monk Blog 1

As I read The Monk, I started to see a common theme emerge between the characters. It seems that every character in the book is somewhat ashamed of who they are. Some might call this theme a case of identity crisis but I think it is a bit different than that. The way I see it, the characters aren't so much questioning who they are but rather embellishing or omitting aspects of their lives that they feel would improve their social situations. For example, Ambrosio seems to be torn between his devotion to the church and his own vanity. It is not essential that he be one hundred percent humble and I don't think that he struggles with acknowledging his own narcissistic ways, he simply chooses not to display these traits publicly because it would reflect poorly on the "Man of Holiness" he plays in front of the public. I see a similar shift in character occur when the Dons meet Antonia. When they first encounter Antonia in church, they embellish their own backstories, act overly chivalrous, and talk up their "noble" roots to impress the young woman. They aren't hiding who they truly are but they're making themselves look better in front of her to win her over. It's like straightening your posture and puffing out your chest when an attractive girl walks by, you know you're not that tall and not that in shape but it helps to "cheat" a little bit to catch the eye of the opposite sex. This is exactly what Matilda does by disguising herself as a man to get close to Ambrosio. She isn't confused about her sexuality or who she is, she just knows how to get what she wants. Many people feign interest in things to get close to the person they're enamored with. Even I've done this when attempting to gain the affection of a woman. "Oh, you like such and such? Me too." You don't really enjoy it but you act like you do to have something in common with the person you're interested in. For all the reader knows, Matilda could care less about religion, but she becomes an expert on the subject to spend time with and impress Ambrosio. In conclusion, The Monk doesn't seem to deal with themes of identity as much as it deals with the little (or in Matilda's case not so little) lies people tell to make themselves feel better and attract the opposite sex.