All posts by kv143485

Close Reading: A Lesson Before Dying

“”I need you,” I told him. “I need you much more than you could ever need me. I need to know what to do with my life. I want to run away, but go where and do what? I’m needed here and I know it, but I fell that all i’m doing here is choking myself. I need someone to tell me what to do. I need you to tell me, to show me. I’m not here, I can just give something small. That’s all I have to offer. It is the only way that we can chip away at that much. You— you can be bigger than anyone you have ever met.” (193)

This passage is one of the most important points of the book. Up until now Grant has been trying to teach Jefferson how to “be a man” so he can walk to his death with his head held high. However, he has not been able to get through to Jefferson. Jefferson still acts like he is the hog that the white folk called him. In this passage we see a shifting of roles and responsibility. This is the point where Jefferson finally starts to understand the implication of what becoming a man in these circumstances would be. Grant needs him, his godmother needs him, and his community needs him. His defiance in the face of the white folk could break the endless cycle of abusive their people have faced for generations. Grant understands this, and he also see’s that despite all his efforts to become educated and respectable he is only making small strides for his people. Mr. Pichot, the men at the prison, and a few other white folk in the novel call Grant professor, but it is evident in the language that they don’t actually convey any respect for him. He is aware of this and it’s what makes Jefferson’s transformation all the more necessary. If he can face his death like a man, and defy the white folks exceptions it will be a much more tangible blow than what Grant has been able to accomplish. This is the passage that Grant conveys his feelings about this too Jefferson. We are left uncertain as to whether or not Jefferson has understood what Grant means “I cry, not from reaching any conclusion by reasoning, but because lowly as I am, I am still part of the whole. Is that what he was thinking as he looked at me crying?”. (Side note, we of course do find out by the end of the novel Jefferson understood and committed himself to that self sacrificing role, I say self sacrificing because although he was going to die either way he had a chose in what manner he went out, it would of been easy to die as a hog, it was hard to die like a man and defy the white man’s expectations.)

Frankenstein Close Reading

See below for passage in question.

The first thing to establish is who is talking, and to whom is he talking to. In our case the Monster is telling Victor Frankenstein, his creator, what happened to him after he was created. The perspective here is extremely important, it sets the tone for the text, the monster is reflecting, and repeating his past experiences. I think that this journey into his memory could be a false image. I mean this in the sense that instead of someone else telling his story and perhaps revealing details to us that the Monster is ignorant of, he is telling us what he truly believes happened. He speaks of it fondly, and thus must remember it fondly, even if that was not the case. This perspective is not objective, and the idea that it might not of happened the way he tells his story is an important thing to consider. In addition, this passage describes the beginning of him exploring his new senses. The initial feelings, thoughts, and ideas that come with new sensations can not be taken at face value, for they are but the first layer.  For instance he describes something that he has no knowledge of “the orb of night had greatly lessened” this orb is the moon, but he doesn’t know that, how can he.

Shelley uses personification to create a human like image of the Monster, he breathes, he talks, reflects, thinks, and experiences life as though he was human, yet he is not. He is provided with several human necessities, water, and shelter. He has the ability of emotion “I was delighted when I first discovered that a pleasant sound, which often saluted my ears” but he cannot emulate these emotions for himself, he tries to learn from the birds but his horrified at his own attempts, there is also a sense of irony here. He hears these euphonious sounds and wishes to recreate them, yet his own attempts “frightened” him. The irony here, as does the personification, serve as ways to humanize the Monster, and create a sense of amiability between him and the reader. We don’t perceive him as the gruesome mismatched body that he resides in, but more like a child taking it’s first steps, or a more accurately, a child attempting to speak his first words. We feel sorry for this monster that cannot even create a sound that he enjoys, instead he may only sit in silence and listen. Though, as we previously noted, this is from the Monsters own perspective, and perhaps the birds that fluttered around him were cawing instead of singing. Reading just this passage would lead the reader to believe in an innocent monster, one simply marveled by the world around him. We know that this is not the case, he like the rest of us leaves this child like stage and is forced to encounter adulthood, and all the woes attached.

“Several changes of day and night passed, and the orb of night had greatly lessened, when I began to distinguish my sensations from each other. I gradually saw plainly the clear stream that supplied me with drink and the trees that shaded me with their foliage. I was delighted when I first discovered that a pleasant sound, which often saluted my ears, proceeded from the throats of the little winged animals who had often intercepted the light from my eyes. I began also to observe, with greater accuracy, the forms that surrounded me and to perceive the boundaries of the radiant roof of light which canopied me. Sometimes I tried to imitate the pleasant songs of the birds but was unable. Sometimes I wished to express my sensations in my own mode, but the uncouth and inarticulate sounds which broke from me frightened me into silence again.

The Monster’s Sacrifice- Historic time: The uses of Mythic and Liminal Time in Monster Literature

The title to Nuzum’s article, The Monster’s Sacrifice- Historic time: The uses of Mythic and Liminal Time in Monster Literature, give us a small sense of what she will attempt to tell the reader. She begins the piece in a fashion that shows monsters to be relatable, how they have been used in literature throughout time, and for all ages. This gives us a rough definition of the genre, I say rough because the word monster could be replaced with almost anything at this point. To give this idea more definition, she gives us boundaries, lines inside which we can see things more clearly. Humans experience three planes of time, that being; linear, mythic, and liminal. Now with monsters they only experience two realities, either mythic, or a liminal one, not to say they don’t overlap. However, what is a monster? How do we know what one experiences? A monster is to quote her article, quoting Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary “1 a: an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b: one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 2: a threatening force” With this definition we can delve into the two realities they experience. Monsters are liminal in several fashion, in their physical appearance, often having characteristics of multiple species, they are spatially liminal, being constrained to the dark, or other liminal situations, and finally their time structure is liminal. This leads up to one of the centerpieces of her arguments “The primary concern of monster literature is existence in linear time. For the monster, the consequences of its temporal constraints are emotional isolation and estrangement from human society, human companionship, and human love. Most of human existence takes place within, and has as its core significance the one temporal reality that is unavailable to the monster: historic time” The next section contains examples to prove her point, and she uses three criteria for the examples, they had to be familiar texts, they had to span different age groups, and each had to have different perspectives on monsters.

Overall this article is extremely thorough, she states her reasoning, and then gives excellent examples, not just one, but four specific books of different expected audiences all within the realm of monster literature. I don’t know if I buy her theory that monsters only exists in mythical, and liminal time. I understand that in theory monsters have rituals, and circumstances that are continuos in a sense, such as a werewolf always changing at the full moon, and she uses the example of a vampire sleeping during the day, and only coming to life in it’s liminal time when it is dark out. However, I feel that monsters still experience historical time. They are born, some die, these are specific experiences that only occur once and it is not a liminal time either. For example, many fantasy writers, Tolkien, Rothfuss, Martin, to name a few, give us very specific historical time lines that their characters exist in. In these books the monsters don’t only exist in the dark, or come to power once a month. They live every day lives, spanning decades, creating linage, I am not arguing that they don’t exist in the other time lines, because they do experience mythical and liminal realities. This doesn’t exclude them from the “boring” historical reality, but I think this instead helps them become more relatable characters.

Do you agree with Nuzam’s assumption that monsters only experience two realities?

Does age play a part in the reliability of monsters?