Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

The Monsters’ Stories

In 1818 Mary Shelly wrote the story of Victor Frankenstein as he created his monster out of dead body parts. More recently, Ahmed Saadawi created an adaptation of the story based in a war-torn Iraq as a junk dealer pieces together dead body parts to create a monster inhabited by a dead soul. Ahmed Saadawi takes a very similar style to Mary Shelly with a more noticeable patchwork style and also telling the story of the story’s monster from multiple perspectives rather than just one. Frankenstein in Baghdad was an appropriation of Frankenstein with changes made to the story and style only keeping the heart of the story of Frankenstein’s monster. The major shifts in the story make the connection obvious only in the title and the pieced together monster changing major plot points, themes, and other pieces of the story. Significant variations between the two author’s style and their monster’s motivation push the stories and make the separation.

Both Mary Shelly and Ahmed Saadawi tell the story of their monster using a patchwork style of writing piecing together different pieces of the stories such as letters, different perspectives, and time jumps. This style of writing is very unique and differs significantly between the two authors with Mary Shelly’s writing appearing to be more coherent while Ahmed Saadawi’s writing is much more broken and disjointed. In Frankenstein in Baghdad the broken style allows the story to be told from many different peoples’ perspectives giving multiple takes on the different events. In the original Frankenstein the patchwork style is much more fitting for the time period’s style of writing and consists of only two different perspectives and multiple letters. It is a much less noticeable style because of how the pieces are broken in which a part can be read without the reader realizing they are still reading that part until it shifts. Ahmed Saadawi uses a variation of this style to tell a story surrounding one main character, the monster, without using one main perspective to drive the story. The patchwork style of both authors fits together the different pieces of the stories like a puzzle which can be linked as a reference to how the monster was put together and also the chaos represented in both novels by the people and settings. Frankenstein in Baghdad is set in Iraq, a war torn and chaotic country, while Frankenstein has the characters constantly moving and the events moving very rapidly giving the reader chaos only to be heightened by the patchwork style.

Throughout both stories the monster has very clear intentions of what it is doing such as Mary Shelly’s monster wants a partner or mate because it is lonely or Ahmed Saadawi’s monster wants to get revenge for every part of its body. While both are very obvious they are strikingly different when compared with one another. Mary Shelly’s monster’s intentions made it to be more childlike and relatable to the reader as it seemed to connect with the human feeling of loneliness drawing compassion rather than hatred. For example, the monster says, “I am malicious because I am miserable; am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces… I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself…” (Shelly 102). Ahmed Saadawi’s monster becomes more of an anti-hero character killing other people in order to get revenge on those who wrong them when the body parts were alive. The monster’s entire goal is to kill and avenge the different pieces of his body, mainly his main soul, which makes it the focus of the story for the majority of the characters. Both monsters’ motivations help to drive the story but are very different because of the setting in which the book is written. The motivation for Victor Frankenstein’s monster is used to create dilemmas for Victor and plot points which match pieces of Mary Shelly’s life such as the death of her children goes with the death of the death of Victor’s nephew. The motivation for “Whatsitsname” fits more to the idea of justice in a war-torn Iraq where the ethics of revenge and violence is commonly explored to further several different characters helping create common themes throughout several of the characters for example Mahmoud.

Both authors created novels that were very similar in some respects but wildly different in others giving the reader a story of science, humanity, ethical problems, adventure, and violence. Frankenstein is nearly 200 years old but Frankenstein in Baghdad still draws some of its key aspects as it attempts to adapt the story.

Posted on

Visit to the Ackland

I have visited the Ackland for three classes now, but I enjoyed the pieces we looked at for this class the most.  I love interpreting art, and I loved even more that the art we analyzed tied into the themes and ideas of the books we have read this semester.  My group was also fantastic and getting to hear their ideas made the experience that much better. We first began by looking at different physical adaptations of the Adam and Eve Biblical story.  We looked at two interpretations, one more literal than the other, but both conveyed the same idea. In my opinion, the second piece was much more interesting because it was more interpretive. Only Eve was pictured, and she was black rather than the traditional white.  She was also surrounded by dozens of different kinds of animals. It had bits of intertextuality as the animals seemed like a reference to Noah’s Ark. We then looked at a painting of fisherman on their boat while a storm rolled in. We felt that this piece was very similar to a scene in Robinson Crusoe where he is stuck out at sea during a storm.  This discussion was interesting because although the storm seemed to at first be a negative thing, we soon came to realize that the sailboats in the background needed this wind to move, therefore making it helpful and uplifting, which isn’t usually something a storm is associated with. We then moved on to a really unique piece. It was actually a moving video of what seemed to be a port with a man fishing in the foreground.  When we discussed it, nobody in my group seemed to be interested in it at all but for me it felt like home. I was raised in a port city and this piece gave me such nostalgic and warm feelings, and I think it was definitely my favorite for that reason. The sounds were so familiar and I felt like I could smell the sea and feel the water. The last painting we looked at was VERY abstract. At first we were told nothing about it so honestly I didn’t really see or interpret much at all.  We were later told that it was a representation of the ocean. I can definitely see where the artist is coming from, but I prefer looking at works that are just a little more structured so I don’t feel like I am completely off-base in my interpretation. I know that with art there isn’t a right answer but I like to know that I am not getting something completely crazy and unintended from a piece.

Posted on

Ackland Apprehension

During our class trip to The Ackland Art Museum, I was struck with an epiphany: I far prefer reading adaptations versus observing them in art. This conclusion was not only drawn from my time at the Ackland, but the visit did reinforce that viewpoint.

While I am certainly grateful for every experience that I have to become more cultured and to learn more about the world around me, I found the analysis of the pieces difficult. Unlike literature, where most things are spelled out, the art required me to do a new kind of analysis and to arrive at some difficult conclusions. I partially blame this struggle to understand art on my analytical brain, as I don’t have a large imagination to see what a piece of art truly means.

Ruysdael’s River Landscape with Fisherman truly illustrates my struggle as I tried to understand a deeper meaning. On the surface, the painting displays a serene scene of ships floating on the water, approaching a nearby town. The superficial elements of this piece were easy to comprehend, but I completely missed the other components of the painting that foreshadowed a coming storm. This slight oversight caused me to miss a key aspect of the painting, and this struggle was consistent throughout many of the pieces that we viewed.

Another particular piece that I wrestled with was Hodgkins’ Looking at the Sea. The impressionistic style is extremely imaginative, and I could not understand the painting at all. While I thought the delicate waves were beautiful, I struggled to connect it to the shipwreck theme and Robinson Crusoe. After an explanation from the leader of the tour, I understood what the piece was trying to accomplish, but I would not have been able to come to this conclusion without her help.

Even though I found the deeper themes and meanings of the pieces difficult to understand, I thought that the experience of looking at the sheer talent of the artists was incredible. I really enjoyed Rose Piper’s Eve and the Serpent.  The vibrant colors of this painting were eye-catching and drew me to the piece. I also liked the almost cartoonish style of painting that was used to depict this very serious scene. I particularly enjoyed this work because it was easy for me to connect to its intertextual meaning, as I have a religious background, and I am very familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. I also liked how the tour guide described the song on which the painting was based, revealing even more intertextual elements.

While I did not always grasp the complex meanings of the pieces, I really enjoyed the visit overall. I truly value any opportunity not only to become more connected with my own culture but to also view the pure talent of many of these great artists. Thus, even though I might prefer reading a book as a way to gain exposure to adaptations, the visit was interesting and enlightening because it made me more aware of the frequent use of intertextual elements in art.

 

Posted on

Ackland Art Museum

On November 15th, the English 123 class took a trip to the Ackland Art Museum. Two of the interesting paintings the group looked at were Looking at the Sea painted by Howard Hodgkin and River Landscape with Fishermen painted by Salomon van Ruysdael. The ladies giving the tour of the museum and the art showed these pieces to the class because of the novel read as a class. These two paintings involved shipwrecks and the sea just as the story of Robinson Crusoe included. It was interesting to see these paintings and try to make connections with the interpretive descriptions of Robinson Crusoe.

Looking at the Sea which was painted by Howard Hodgkin, was the most talked about painting within my group of classmates. This piece is considered an abstract painting including the colors blue, some orange, and outlined in red. The interpretation of this art showed how the sea is fun and inviting and blue, but there is a fine line with fear being just across that line. The guide showed how this painting depicted how the sea is big and most of it is unknown. The world is around two-thirds water; therefore, it is a significant part of the planet. Looking at the Sea is a piece of abstract art; the interpretation can vary. Abstract art is open to any interpretation depending on how people look at the art and see it depicted, which is the coolest thing about abstract art. This specific piece of art showed how rough and rigid the sea can be, but also at how calm and soothing it can be. This piece of art is open to many types of interpretations.

The other painting being looked at that I thought was intriguing was River Landscape with Fishermen that was painted by Salomon van Ruysdael. This painting included ships in the calm sea and a skyline of a village or town in the background. The color scheme of this painting is gray and gloomy. In the top corner of the painting was dark, gray clouds and then realized that the painting is the calm before the storm. Something horrible was set to happen just after this moment, but in the one moment of the painting, there is calm and happy. This painting is also up for various interpretations, but since it is not an abstract piece, the room for interpretation is a little slimmer but still open.

The trip to the Ackland Art Museum did two things for me. The first thing was that there are not only adaptations with movies and books, but there are also adaptations in art. This is interesting because when reading a book everyone has their own sense of interpretation and making pictures in their mind. Seeing a piece of art as an adaptation shows how the picture can change due to different interpretations. Secondly, going to the Ackland made me realize how much I have begun to like art. Being in a museum for the first time ever in my life made me realize that I want to start visiting the different museums to see other pieces of art. This trip was rather eye-opening for me as a whole.

Posted on

A Hidden Social Commentary on Storytelling in Foe

While John Maxwell Coetzee’s Foe can be a bit confusing to any reader that attempts to decipher it, Coetzee’s use of story-framing elements can be vital in coming to terms with a better understanding of the story and especially a better understanding of Susan Barton’s character. Coetzee’s way of storytelling, by his use of Susan Barton as his narrator and her journals to Mr. Foe, create a look into Susan’s crazed mental state which give us a better sense of who she is and what is actually happening in the story. Through Susan’s unusual way of introducing people and names associated with them in her narration, we are given a clue as to how Susan is unreliable as a narrator. Coetzee also creates a parallel between Cruso and Susan that shows how they are in a similar crazed state of mind. Cruso is used as a foreshadowing element that gives us a clue as to how Susan is mentally unsound. By Susan’s reverse introductions, Coetzee’s jumbled story-framing techniques, and the parallel between Cruso and Susan, we can arguably state that Susan is not a reliable narrator and that she suffers the same fate as Cruso.

In the beginning chapter of the story, we are introduced to a woman who has landed upon an island and is greeted by a black male whom we meet, but do not learn his name until later in the story. , “A dark shadow fell upon me, not of a cloud but of a man with a dazzling halo about him”(8).  The narrator talks about this man as if she has already introduced us to him, “Even Friday’s hard skin was not proof against it: there were bleeding cracks in his feet, though he paid them no heed”(9). The narrator seems to already know the name of the black man yet chooses to forfeit this information to the reader which strikes the question of why. This notion is then even more jumbled when the narrator then refers back to Friday as “the Negro”(10), when she has already introduced his name.  When introducing a person in a novel or in life, the name is usually introduced then used when referring back to that character as a way of identifying an unknown person to one another. This notion tells us we are not getting the entire story right from the start due to Susan’s mental instability. Furthermore, we are not introduced to the name of the narrator (which we know is the woman who landed upon the island through the use of first person narration) until page 10 where she introduces herself to Cruso. His name is also not mentioned to us, yet the narrator seems to think she has already introduced us to him, “…while the stranger (who was of course the Cruso I told you of)”(10). Susan’s forgetfulness is showing us that she is not quite sane and she mentions people as if they have already been talked about. She then finally reveals her name for the first time when she first meets with Cruso, “My name is Susan Barton”(10). The lack of introducing her name shows there is something not quite right with Susan’s character that Coetzee has created.

As we come to find out the first part of the story are letters being written by Susan to Mr. Foe in the second chapter, we think we understand why this backwards introduction of characters makes sense. However, it brings up the question of why Coetzee wouldn’t acknowledge at the beginning of the novel that the narrator is writing letters to another person. The second chapter actually serves better as an introductory chapter to this novel rather than the actual first chapter. This way of mixing up the story serves the purpose of giving a clue into the sanity of Susan due to her tragic life events. Even more so, Coetzee begins the second chapter with dates in which the letters were written beginning with “April 15th” which is actually the only chapter of the story that includes dates. By not including dates throughout the rest of the story, Coetzee is attempting to show us that Susan does not have a clear concept of time. She does not seem to know how much time has passed.

The second chapter is the only chapter where we can see that she is attempting to log dates and keep track of time. Susan makes a reference to her logs by saying, “I have set down the history of our time on the island as well as I can, and enclose it herewith” (36). By showing that Susan is losing track of time, Coetzee attempts to confuse the reader as well as a way for us to not trust Susan as the narrator. Coetzee, in fact, wants us to be confused with the story being told. He adds to this confusion by switching the point of view in each chapter. The second chapter begins with third-person narrative with a second-person address. The third chapter remains in third-person narrative, but the second-person address is not kept. Finally, the fourth chapter changes completely to first-person narrative and we enter a dream-like sequence. An example of the change in point of view is seen in the first sentence of the third and fourth chapter. In the third chapter, the first sentence is, “The staircase was dark and mean” (79). In the fourth chapter, the first sentence is, “The staircase is dark and mean” (107). This is meant to be a clear instance of changing the point of view in order to get us to notice the change in point of view. By constantly changing the point of view, Coetzee is creating a story that is confusing which leaves us feeling uncertain about Susan as a narrator.

As we notice the inconsistent narration, we are constantly being brought back to Susan’s time on the island with Cruso. Mr. Foe insists on wanting to know about Susan’s time in Bahia, but Susan refuses to tell that story insisting that “Bahia is not part of my story” (79).  Susan wants to tell Cruso’s story because she does not want to bring up her own past of losing her child and her own mind. Instead she insists on telling the story of her time on the island because she feels as though Cruso and the island represent a sane part of her life. Coetzee represents Susan in this light as a way to draw a parallel between her and Cruso. At the beginning of the story, Susan mentions Cruso and his stories by saying, “But the stories he told me were so various, and so hard to reconcile one with another, that I was more and more driven to conclude age and isolation had taken their toll on his memory, and he no longer knew for sure what was truth, what fancy” (12). Coetzee uses Susan’s description of Cruso as a way to foreshadow who Susan becomes at the end of the story and as a way to relate her to Cruso’s insanity. In the second chapter of the story, for example, Susan is greeted by a little girl claiming to be of her own name (Susan Barton). This is seen to be a figment of her own imagination as the girl claims to be Susan’s daughter. This scene shows the readers how Susan is starting to lose her mind and her story-telling is becoming unreliable. To further this parrallel between Susan and Cruso, Susan tells Mr. Foe to call her Mrs. Cruso as though the two were married. In this context, marriage can be seen as the unity of two people becoming one, meaning Susan and Cruso are one in the same person. By making this direct comparison between Susan and Cruso, the author shows us that Susan is an unreliable narrator.

Coetzee demonstrates Susan Barton as a story-teller that is not certain of what is true or false. Through his use of the narrator’s odd introduction of people, his jumbled story-framing, and his parallel between Susan and Cruso, Coetzee sheds light on the meaning of his story and the psyche of his narrator, Susan Barton. With that said, he does not simply make these story-telling techniques the true meaning of the story. Rather, he does this as a way to comment on story-telling in general. Coetzee is commenting on the nature of story-telling by means of questioning the sources from which the stories are being told. We often think stories that are written in books are considered to be great stories based on the author’s authenticity. However, stories are passed down from person to person and can be altered in many ways based on the perspective of the story-teller. Cruso’s story could be told in a completely different way if it were from his own perspective. However, we read his story through Susan’s lens and therefore only see one side of the story.

Posted on

復活 (Resurrection)

Dear Hayao Miyazaki

   

      I believe I have found your next upcoming film that will surpass all your previous iconic films. Titled in Japanese as 復活 (Resurrection), this film will be an adaptation of the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelly. However, this Frankenstein will stray away from the original storyline. When people think of Frankenstein, there minds envision a lab, a mad scientist, and sparks buzzing through bolts of a monster’s head. Forget all of this, this new Frankenstein film will be about a dead man’s journey for vengeance during a time where the world is filled with chaos from the Second World War. Resurrection will be animated by your studio, Studio Ghibli.

    Taking place in Hiroshima and Seoul during the final stages of World War 2, Resurrection will be a two-part film. The first part will take place in Hiroshima before the Americans drop the atomic bomb, where the main character Matsumoto Yoshihito (Victor Frankenstein) is introduced. Matsumoto Yoshihito is a brilliant Japanese designer, that designed the infamous Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter plane which was the number one plane used by the Imperial Japanese Air Force during the Second World War. Engaged to his childhood sweetheart, a Korean girl Pak Ji-woo (Elizabeth Lavenza), Matsumoto lives a reasonably comfortable life with a silver-spooned childhood. Park Ji-woo, on the other hand, suffered during her early childhood for her whole family has been killed by Japanese soldiers during the colonization of Korea. Just as how Victor’s family adopted Elizabeth, Park Ji-woo is adopted by Matsumoto’s family after being found wandering the streets of Seoul alone. Thankful for Matsumoto’s family’s kindness and all the support they have given her, Pak Ji-woo forgives the Japanese people for the hideous crimes they had committed towards her family. Despite the war going on, and the Matsumoto family being forced to make certain sacrifices such as giving up half their food rations to the local hospitals to help the Japanese Empire, Matsumoto still puts a smile on his face for two reasons. The first reason is be because his wedding is about to take place on August 6, 1945. The second reason is that he is on the verge of making a new type of jet plane which will turn the tides of the war. However, Matsumoto’s life turns upside down the night before his wedding as a mysterious man with a white lotus symbol tattoo to his forehead that symbolized he was part of the righteous army, a Korean freedom fighter group invades the Matsumoto house hold. During the house invasion, the mysterious man shoots Matsumoto in his chest five times, kidnaps Park Ji-woo, and takes Matsumoto’s design for his new airplane. After being found by his best friend Yamauchi Nobuharu (Henry Clerval), Yamauchi does his best to nurse Matsumoto back to health, but sadly Matsumoto dies the next morning August 6th on his wedding day. This is also the day American B29 drop the first Atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This will be the end of Part I.

   In Part II, after the bombs have exploded in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hiroshima looks like a wasteland as Matsumoto finds himself resurrected from the radiation of the nuclear bomb with new abilities like super speed and super strength. Seeing his village being burned by crimson flames Matsumoto’s eyes are filled with tears as he is filled with emotions of anger and hatred. Matsumoto a once happy boy filled with light is now a man filled with only Darkness as he is a man on a mission to find his wife and murder all that gets in his way. During his search for Pak Ji-woo, he realizes that his body is deteriorating and doesn’t have much time to live. He journeys to Seoul after finding out his wife is still alive and is held up in the main righteous army hideout. As he arrives, he goes on an all-out killing spree wearing out his body killing every righteous army soldier. He finally finds Pak Ji-woo and collapses in her hand as he smiles once again like he did when he first met her taking his last breath before drying.

 

Posted on

Wilson Library Scaries

Wilson Library is one of my least favorite places to study on campus, yet one of my most favorite place to conduct study. By conducting study, I specifically mean searching through archival material found within the North Carolina and Southern Historical collection. In ENGL 123, we visited the reading room to observe archival material for Robinson Crusoe, Sherlock Holmes, Frankenstein and Jane Eyre. It’s interesting what we observed, from comic books to playbills. The latter was something that caught my interest as I’m a dramatist so it’s attractive in how theatre advertisements show things. The Jane Eyre Playbill was the first artifact I examined. It’s long letters were the first thing that caught my eye. Interestingly enough, the main actresses name was larger than that of the character she played or play name. It’s a technique used by companies when promoting an upcoming motion picture. An “Academy Award-Winning” by an actor/actresses name does the trick in laying legitimacy to a portrayal. At the time of this production, she must’ve been well renown for previous works. Thus, it makes it a big deal that she’s playing Jane instead of vice versa. Seems a bit narcissistic but keep it noted. Underneath the characters names are how each scene is divided up into acts. There’s references to what occurs in each section. As a person who’s watch the film for class, I know what to expect. Someone coming in who isn’t familiar would be questioning the references. What’s traditional about this is the audience of the early ages came into performances with anticipation in acts for what to look out for. I expect that this performance does the same due justice in having no surprises. But with adaptations, there’s always room for a few adjustments. For example, a few years ago Playmakers Repertory Company put on a rendition of Sweeney Todd. But I can recall the big hoopla being the protagonist was portrayed as black. The same goes for the new Company Carolina play “Godspell” where the campus newspaper, the Daily Tar Heel, highlighted that Jesus was being played by a black women. These colorblind roles can be confusing but as long as the same messages are conveyed, the original story stays intact. Looking at the playbill as an object, it’s very fragile. So weak that its wrapped in plastic and we aren’t allowed to lift it up. The fabric of the material shows its age in its yellow spots and brown paper. It’s important that Wilson preserves this kind of material so it isn’t destroyed. Other objects around the room have similar conditions. One book for Robinson Crusoe is so fragile that the pages had to be lifted by two hands. The book copy of Frankenstein is so sensitive, we couldn’t open it up for a read. That’s why its vital that these materials are taken good care of as they contain great information, but in a not so great condition. Glad to see to see the first-years in the class exposed to an excellent resource on campus. It won’t be the last time them or I come here.

Posted on

A Deeper Look at The Creature

Right off the bat, I would like to preface this blog post by saying that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is the best novel out of the literary canon that I have read. Frankenstein’s reflection on the morally ambiguous aspects of nature, family, justice, and the human condition is what sets this book apart from the other pieces of literature I have read in terms of engagement.

In the narrative, the creature explains the crux of his earthly dilemma after reading Victor Frankenstein’s journal. “I sickened as I read. ‘Hateful day when I received life!’ I exclaimed in agony. ‘Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow devils, to admire and encourage him, but I am solitary and abhorred.’” The creature is puzzled at Victor’s intentions in creating life, questioning how Victor could be so cruel as to thrust him into an existence that is arguably worse than that of the most scorned entity in history. On an even broader level, the creature is calling into question the ethics behind bringing another soul into being without their consent. These topics, such as the rights of the unborn and the duties parents should be upheld to, are still hotly debated to this day.

In relation to John Milton’s Paradise Lost, (which is the way the creature discovers the histories of God and Satan) the creature first sees himself as an abandoned Adam, who was created inherently flawed. As he experiences the hell of isolation over the course of months and is rejected by the Delacy’s, he comes to know himself instead as an allegory of Satan. Not so coincidentally, Satan is the best speaker/narrator within the book Paradise Lost itself, which parallels the creatures elegance of narration and solidifies the reference. Milton also frames Satan as reasonable and attractive, but we know as readers that we shouldn’t interpret him this way. In the same way, Shelley frames the creature in much the same way, even though we know as readers that the creature is a murderer, as well as (arguably) a sadist.

In all the ways stated above, the creature’s existence always reminds me of a passage from Macbeth. To quote Shakespeare, the creature’s life is but a walking shadow, dwelling in obscurity and isolation. He is a poor player who struts and frets, pondering the meaning of his hour of existence in relation to the greater stage of humanity that he fears he will never get to experience. The fate of his life has been dealt to him without care. In response, he vows to use his fury to inflict on Victor the same type of meaningless existence of isolation he so idiotically inflicted upon him.

As a text, I enjoy Frankenstein because of the way the tragic character of the creature is so three dimensional. He is in all ways fated to be tragic, tragic out of his own volition, and tragic at the hands of others.

Posted on

Frankenstein Remastered

After watching the Frankenstein movie, the thought came into my mind that a modern remake of the film could be really cool. There have obviously already been multiple adaptations, but I think that with today’s movie industry, a more entertaining version could be made. A “Frankenstein” with a couple well-known actors in the case and modern CGI and technology for the Creature could be a potentially profitable production.

With no offense intended toward Mary Shelley, a good modern writer, or team, could expand this plot into something even more captivating. The hour-long 1931 film could be expanded, and the storyline could be personalized with more intricate relationships. That, with some action added in, sounds like a hit to me.

With the Creature being the main point of interest in this story, a “remastered” version of the monster would be the focal point of the movie. Modern technology would allow for the design of a lifelike being that could be as menacing or as normal as the producer would like, depending on how they wish to portray the character. I also think that a cyborg Creature, or even an advanced robot gone rogue, would be worthy of consideration.

The plot of the adaption could remain somewhat similar to Mrs. Shelley’s, with the Creature playing the humanized villain role, or a twist in the remake could be that the Creature and Dr. Frankenstein work together to accomplish some heroic victory. A relationship between the Creature and Dr. Frankenstein would be easy to turn into a good story. An even further-removed storyline could be that the two characters are a villainous team and a third prominent character has to defeat them.

The story, or at least concept, of Frankenstein has been familiar for generations. Any way you spin it, a remake would get some attention and have the potential to actually be a good movie. To bring Frankenstein back into a modern Hollywood would not be only entertaining, but also an appropriate salute to Mary Shelley. She didn’t immediately get the recognition she deserved for her own creation, but it has certainly stood the test of time and tinkering.

Works Cited

Whale, James., director. Frankenstein. Universal, 1931.

Posted on

“Wide Sargasso Sea” and Second Wave Feminism

In Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys, the author illuminates the story of an unheard voice of the classic novel Jane Eyre: Bertha Rochester, Mr. Rochester’s insane wife. Instead of showing her as a monster in the attic, Rhys changes Bertha’s name to Antoinette and gives her a new identity and story. In this novel, Rhys draws parallels between the rights of women in the 1800s (when the book takes place) and the second wave feminism movement in the 1960s and 70s (when the book was written). This comparison between the two time periods is consistent throughout the novel and influences not only the tone of the book but the way the reader reads the novel.

For contextualization, in the 1960s and 70s, the second wave feminism movement gained speed to fight for more rights for women, which culminated in Title IX being passed in 1972. Wide Sargasso Sea was published in 1966 during a time where novels challenging the normalities of the time were common (for example, Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan is credited for sparking the second wave feminist movement in 1963). Even though many improvements towards women’s rights needed to be made in this era, in the 1800s, most countries did not even give women the right to vote. This lack of rights for women is consistent in both time periods, which opened a window for Jean Rhus to write a unique novel that comments not only on the time period of the book but the time period the book was written.

In the novel Wide Sargasso Sea, the relationship between men and women is constantly seen as problematic and unfair, especially as in regards to the women’s forced dependency on men. For example, Antoinette’s mother’s life depended on the men with whom she was married. She needed Antoinette’s step father for a better life (instead of devastating poverty). However, Antoinette’s mother was unhappy for the majority of the marriage, and she ended up going insane (or being pushed to insanity) and dying tragically. When reflecting on her mother’s relationship, Antoinette seems destined to follow a similar path. Antoinette, once she marries Rochester, is unable to leave him or choose her own life. Her marriage ends unhappily as well, with a similar insanity to her mother’s being pushed on her until it was true. This shows how women were unable to escape their prescribed destinies, no matter how hard they fought. In both time periods, women’s independence was taken away, and they were stuck in a generational dependency on men through no fault of their own.

Overall, Wide Sargasso Sea reflects the progressive opinions of the time it was written through an unheard story from Jane Eyre. By depicting forced generational dependency of women during the 1800s via Antoinette and her mother, Rhys urges for the readers to recognize the similarities between then and during her time. She also pushes for the readers to alter the future in a way that they cannot change the past (even though they can try and reframe the story as best as they can).

Works Cited

Rhys, Jean. Wide Sargasso Sea. Norton Critical Editions, 1999.

Burkett, Elinor. “Women’s Movement.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2 Aug. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/womens-movement.