Last Blog Ever (maybe)

I attribute my success this semester to online learning. It’s not often I feel like doing English work on a set schedule. Having the flexibility of the online class has enabled me to work on an assignment on my time, when I’m in the writing mood. When I’m asked to be somewhere, not necessarily attributed to desire, and asked to present English work; I think it’s fair to assume I’m not going to produce my best work.

As far as challenges, in my particular case, I don’t allege the fact the class was online to any struggles I endured throughout the semester. The struggles I endured were do the fact it was an English class, which is chock full of English problems.

Technologies that best benefited me? Let’s just get my opinion of blogging out of the way. I feel like it’s an unnecessary void to fill mandatory time a student is required to write to acquire credit for English 102. Nothing against people who blog, in fact, I would encourage anyone who blogs on their own free will to keep doing so. Perhaps if I was a published photographer or a famous artist of any sort I could probably find a use for one. Google on the other hand, is a real life saver to have. I usually have access to it, at least in the previous in class English classes I’ve had.

I really enjoyed being able to complete work whenever I want. I fully understand life rarely presents a leisurely time frame for a deadline, but I sure enjoyed it. I think the technology of the internet is what provided this luxury to me, and you can bet I will be using a lot of it. Within the internet I used a lot of Google, and online thesaurus and sources for information. These are all things I will use until the end of my time. Aside from everyday use, I will really apply these technologies throughout the rest of my college career.

Reflecting

From an early age I have always seen the value in being able to write, this semester has only strengthened my belief.  Generally speaking in college, with very few exceptions; everything requires writing.  In the real world, I’ve found being able to put pen to paper to convey my exact thoughts with the attribute of conveyance to be a very competitive edge.  I strongly believe it has been the factor for my resume being picked up instead of an equally matched competitor’s.  Though I remain very selective of what I would like to write, I see every opportunity as grounds to get better at it, resulting in endless opportunities for someone that uses writing as means to stand out and be picked first.

To my surprise, I found the readings throughout the semester to be conveying; surpassing my preconceived feelings of reluctance.  Changed by them?  No.  I still credit the literature (both the book & film) Fightclub to be the “one” that impacted home enough to merit change in my perspective.

Writing for me, is slowly, very slowly, turning into a closet hobby that like any other hobby is best enjoyed on your own terms to yield the most satisfaction.  When it comes to my writing process, I still hold true to the most against-the-grain methods.  I still find four-squares, webs, outlines, ect., to be a painstaking waste of time.  A word processor allows me to butcher the spelling of a word, and inject it with a thousand milligrams of terrible grammar without skipping a beat.  When I’m liable for my terrible penmanship and constant anguish of wondering how a word is spelled on parchment, I bewilder myself to have any brainpower for the things that matter: ideas, structure, fluency, word choice ect.  For the same reason I produce my best quality of writing via word processor, I feel like going out of my way to conform to a pre-writing process is detrimental to the nature of the bigger picture; the final product.  My energy is best spent scrambling 80 words-per- minute, chockfull of red and green underscores.  

As always, the things not meant to even faze a student were indeed my biggest struggles.  I can honestly say I spent more time worrying about making an introduction video than producing all the essays combined.  The little things like PowerPoint’s, being creative, and picking colors that appeal to others will always be a hurdle for me.  

I LEARNED THIS:

Real world

View more presentations from mm_malcolm.

Week 12

The End of Revenge

            When terrible deeds are done, a victim is created.  For that person, emotions often begin to take over.  Hatred and rage can start forming.  In fury, especially, these emotions of vengeance multiply rapidly.  It’s at this point that things get dangerous.  A thirst for revenge takes shape, leading actions, and escaping rationality.  Revenge, being one of the strongest emotions, secures its hold in people’s minds.  It drives them insane, drives them to destruction, and ultimately to their own downfall.  It is this terrible nature of revenge that needs to be watched for.  William Shakespeare shows in his plays that revenge is a self-defeating cycle that can only be ended with forgiveness.  Shakespeare depicts this cyclical nature of revenge in his plays, Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, and The Tempest.

            Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, focuses on how revenge brings about death and madness.  The play details the struggle of the prince of Denmark, Hamlet, whose father’s ghost appears to him seeking Hamlet to get revenge for his death as he says, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (Shakespeare 1078).  The ghost of Hamlet’s father, the former king, tells him that he was murdered by his brother, the current king, Claudius.  Immediately following the talk with the apparition, Hamlet is incited into rage, crying, “O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!” (Shakespeare 1079). This statement embodies the tone for Hamlet as he continually acts rashly with the foundation of revenge over all else.  Despite his seemingly just goal of honoring his murdered father, the nature of revenge makes his quest irrational.  Soon Hamlet is enveloped in his plot of revenge so that he appears mad.  Polonius, the chamberlain, believes Hamlet must be in love with his daughter Ophelia to be behaving so crazily.  When discussing his actions, Polonius comes to the conclusion he is truly mad as he tells Hamlet’s mother, the Queen, “I will be brief:-your noble son is mad: Mad I call it; for to define true madness, What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?” (Shakespeare 1082).  Later in the play Hamlet finds the opportunity to kill Claudius while in prayer but fears that killing him at this time would send him to heaven rather than hell.  Even though it is a prime situation, Hamlet chooses to pass it up just to send Claudius to hell.  Hamlet plotting Claudius’ death plans to kill him so, “that his soul may be as damn’d and black As hell, whereto it goes” (Shakespeare 1094).  Hamlet’s only goal in life now is to get revenge.  Later Hamlet’s hunger for revenge leads him to kill an innocent man on accident.  In his mother’s bedchamber he sees a man behind a curtain who he mindlessly decides must be Claudius and stabs him.  After killing Polonius, Hamlet says to his lifeless body, “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!” (Shakespeare 1095).  Despite this unfortunate death, Hamlet sees only that Polonius got in the way, rather than it being a travesty for an innocent man be slain at his hands.  In the final scene of the play Hamlet is in a fencing match with Laertes, son of Polonius.  Here is where Hamlet finds his final revenge and the self-defeating nature that accompanies it.  He stabs Claudius with a poisoned sword and forces him to drink from the poisoned goblet that also killed his mother.  Hamlet then dies from his poisoned wound, fulfilling how revenge comes with a great price.  Because of his revenge-seeking madness many people lost their lives: Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Gertrude, Claudius, and Hamlet.  For something seemingly honorable, revenge instead brought about madness and death.

            Aside from Hamlet, other characters in the play portray the nature of revenge.  After Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, Laertes hears the news of his father death vowing, “Let come what comes; only I’ll be reveng’d Most thoroughly for my father” (Shakespeare 1100).  He, like Hamlet, upon the utterance of their fathers’ misfortunes, seek revenge in haste.  Nathan Macasek states in his article, “Hamlet Into Madness,” that Laertes, “takes after Hamlet in the dutiful honoring of wronged fathers” (Macasek 89).  Conniving with Claudius, Laertes is set up to fence Hamlet with a poisoned sword.  When Laertes hears of his sister, Ophelia’s drowning he is sucked into the allure of justice that revenge projects.  His wrath for Hamlet overwhelms his mind to only want Hamlet’s death.  Laertes is pinned to this mindset until it is too late: dying of a poisoned wound.  Receiving his fatal wound, Laertes realizes how revenge brought about his own destruction, as he admits, “Why, as a woodcock to my own springe, Osric: I am justly kill'd with mine own treachery” (Shakespeare 1111).  Shakespeare’s usage of the word, “justly,” shows how he believed the treachery of trying to kill Hamlet – while justified – was rightly rewarded with his own death.  Revenge again defeated the person who sought after it.

            In his play, Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare creates more characters falling to the ill effects of revenge.  The tragedy follows the Roman general, Titus Andronicus, as he seeks revenge for his family from the new emperor, his wife, and a devious villain.  Tamora, the captured queen, and her secret lover, Aaron, plot to get revenge on Titus for sacrificing one of her sons to the Gods.  As part of their plan, Lavinia, Titus’ daughter is raped and mutilated by Tamora’s sons, and Lavinia’s husband murdered.  Two of Titus’ sons are framed for this murder and sentenced to death.  Titus’ hand is cut off in a trick, and his other son is banished.  Here Titus makes his vow for revenge and asks, “Then which way shall I find revenge’s cave?” (Shakespeare 932).  He, like Hamlet, then makes revenge his only directive.  In both of these examples, Shakespeare seems to view revenge as also have a captivating power.  Shakespeare creates revenge in his characters to completely fill them and blind them from how it truly works.  In this, revenge hides from its victims the ultimate consequence, with a mask of only what seems appealing: its benign aspect of justice.  However, even with all the horrid acts and events that happen to Titus throughout the play, revenge’s true nature still transpires.  After he feigns madness to lure, kill, and bake Tamora’s sons into pies that he serves to her, the self-defeating aspect of revenge is seen again.  Titus kills Tamora, Titus is killed by the emperor, and he by Titus’ son.  Titus gets his revenge, only at the cost of his life.

            However, Shakespeare shows through the death of Titus that even with sacrifice the cycle of revenge can go unbroken.  Marcus, Titus’ brother, is shown to understand that the cycle cannot be easily broken as he speaks, “O, let me teach you how to knit again This scatter’d corn into one mutual sheaf, These broken limbs again into one body; Lest Rome herself be bane unto herself” (Shakespeare 945).  Despite the revenge being justified, Marcus saw that the deaths alone cannot right the problem.  Tamora also entered into a vow of vengeance for her capture and her son’s sacrificial death.  Sara Anderson wrote in her article, “Revenge in Titus Andronicus,” that, “Tamora embodies the disastrous events of treachery done in the name of justice” (Anderson 216).  Revenge for her was so overwhelming that she laughs at Lavinia’s pleas: “O Tamora, be call’d a gentle queen, And with thine own hands kill me in this place!” (Shakespeare 928).  Tamora appears to find some comfort in her vengeful acts but ends with the same fate as all of Shakespeare’s revenge seeking characters: death.

            Shakespeare then shows how the cycle can end.  Aaron the Moor, who is the root of most of the play’s evil, is caught with his child by Lucius, Titus’ son.  Condemned to die by torture, Aaron pleads to Lucius to save his son from death, asking Lucius to, “Swear that he shall” (Shakespeare 941).  Shakespeare uses the child, as a symbol of forgiveness in the play.  Having Lucius accept and save the child shows how he no longer seeks revenge for all that has happened.  Despite the father’s despicable actions, his child is spared, ending the revenge cycle.  Only through forgiveness is this shown to be possible.  Aaron in his pleading also alludes to this as he says, “If thou wilt not, befall what may befall, I’ll speak no more,-but vengeance rot you all!” (Shakespeare 941).  Vengeance and revenge will destroy them unless the child is saved: unless forgiveness is given.

            In Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest, this ability of forgiveness to end revenge is embodied.  The play follows the estranged, Prospero, as he gathers his brother, – who usurped his position – his king, and other men by use of magic to get his life back.  Prospero’s brother, Antonio, had usurped his Dukedom with the help of the King, Alonso, and sent him on a boat with his daughter to die. They did not however, landing on a remote island where they spent twelve years living in relative solitude.  Prospero shows his disdain for Antonio as he is speaking to his daughter, Miranda, saying, “I pray thee, mark me, -- that a brother should Be so perfidious!” (Shakespeare 2).  Maxwell Edwards writes in his article, “A Man of Honor: Prospero in The Tempest,” that, “he [Prospero] enters into the arrangement without any intention of harm” (Edwards 178).  Throughout the play as Prospero takes care to assemble Antonio, Alonso, and other men together, it appears yet again that revenge should be justified.  But here Shakespeare takes the other course of action with Prospero than he did with most.  Prospero, when faced with the choice to enact his vengeance on Antonio and Alonso, chooses to instead forgive them.  Prospero says to Antonio, “For you, most wicked sir, whom to call brother Would even infect my mouth, I do forgive Thy rankest fault, -- all of them” (Shakespeare 20).  In this the cycle is broken.  Prospero keeps his life, unlike so many other characters that have the chance of revenge.  Even after the twelve years of exile that he has endured he is able to forgive his treacherous brother: an act rewarded, by Shakespeare, with his life and dukedom back.

            In these three plays Shakespeare carries the theme of revenge with various aspects, though all linking together.  First of all, revenge is self-defeating.  There is no revenge that can be carried out without consequence.  Revenge, even grossly justified, cannot exist without its recoil.  Secondly, Shakespeare shows through his plays that revenge is terribly alluring, yet equally deceptive.  It can envelop a person’s whole life, drive them to madness, and incite them into an evil rampage, all while masquerading a feeling of justice.  Lastly, Shakespeare shows that revenge is cyclical.  It will continue through one person or another as long as its only cure is never seen: forgiveness.  Revenge, to Shakespeare, will continue with the void of forgiveness.  Shakespeare targets the underlying nature of revenge in his plays: depicting its secrets.

Works Cited

Anderson, Sara. “Revenge in Titus Andronicus.” Shakespearean Criticism 61.  (2001) Literature

            Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Edwards, Maxwell. “A Man of Honor: Prospero in The Tempest.” Shakespearean Criticism 119. 

            (2007) Literature Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Macasek, Nathan. “Hamlet Into Madness.” Shakespearean Criticism 31. (1996) Literature

            Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Parsons, Kelly. “Overview of Shakespeare’s Life.” Shakespearean Criticism 52. (1999)

            Literature Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Shakespeare, William. “Titus Andronicus.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New

            York: Avenel Books, 1975. Print.

Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New York:

            Avenel Books, 1975. Print.

Shakespeare, William. “The Tempest.” The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New

            York: Avenel Books, 1975. Print.

Week 11

Photo Credit

Anderson, Sara. “Revenge in Titus Andronicus.” Shakespearean Criticism 61.  (2001) Literature

            Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

In this article, Sara Eaton discusses the theme of revenge in the play of Titus Andronicus.  The thesis that I formed is about how Shakespeare views revenge.  Being that this article is discussing revenge in this specific play, it catered well to develop my ideas on the subject and to support my claims about Shakespeare’s perspective.  Sara also discusses how revenge ties in with the many instances of death and destruction in the play.

Edwards, Maxwell. “A Man of Honor: Prospero in The Tempest.” Shakespearean Criticism 119. 

            (2007) Literature Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Edwards describes most of the attributes of Prospero in the play.  Much of the article is talking about the possible origins of the character Prospero that Shakespeare used to create him.  This part wasn’t of much use to help with my thesis but it gave me a slightly different perspective on who Prospero is.  There is a small section of the article talking about his deed of forgiveness that is carried out in the play which is mainly why I used it.

Macasek, Nathan. “Hamlet Into Madness.” Shakespearean Criticism 31. (1996) Literature

            Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

This article focused on the third play I read, Hamlet.  Nathan discusses how Hamlet is drawn into madness by the events that transpire.  This article supports one of my main points about revenge in Shakespeare by showing that Hamlet goes insane.  Nathan details much more about the direct similes and metaphors that Shakespeare gives for madness.  The article gives a view on madness in Hamlet as well as a theme rather than just an element in the play.

Parsons, Kelly. “Overview of Shakespeare’s Life.” Shakespearean Criticism 52. (1999)

            Literature Criticism Online. Web. 6 Nov 2011.

Kelly created an article in the database devoted to just Shakespeare’s life.  This article gave me some background on Shakespeare so that I could maybe see how his idea of revenge was formed.  Aside from that it gives contextual information on when Shakespeare was writing his various plays which could have great affect on what he wrote into his plays.

How to pick a good source for a college paper!

Week 10

I don't find many members of my family easy to relate to, however, I have looked up to one cousin whom completed his master degree in Computer Science from USC.  I remember talking to him about high school, college, ect as a young elementary student.  The most memorable thing he always joked about was having to read Shakespeare plays.  When I talked to him last week, he asked me how my English 102 course was going and if I had studied any Shakespeare yet.  He is appalled that I have made it through so many years of English courses without taking any Shakespeare, because according to him; everyone has to! 

Despite Shakespeare being the absolute last thing I ever want to work with, I feel like I owe it to my cousin to dip my toes in the snake pit and do my final project on SHAKESPEARE!  He recalled reading the plays "The Tempest", "A Mid Summer nights Dream", and "Much Ado About Nothing".  So I can relate to him, I plan to use one or more of these plays for the backbone of my research project, with intent to read them all. 

My English 101 teacher introduced me into the YC Library search engines and databases on our school website, I intend to use that.  Specificity, I intend to use LION and possibly use Literature Criticism Online as an additional source. 

Week 9

Marshall Crantford

Cline

October 23, 2011

Letter

Dear Mrs. Cline,

                Thus far, the class has been a blast.  I have negotiated through many conflicting obstacles trough this first half of the semester.  I started off the semester worried about making a video blog, which little did I know was the absolute least of my worries!   

                The class has given “writing intensive” a new meaning.  The constant grueling weekly essays have been quite a change to stay creative and on target with.  The recent Frankenstein essay is hands down the most stress I have felt this semester, with reason, since it was the longest requirement with the most criteria.  Reading the book was a great and humbling experience, however, reflecting on it in an essay was a daunting task!

                I feel much achieved with my current grade and hope to maintain and further increase it for the remainder of the semester.  This first half of the semester is proof that, despite there is many difficult hurdles to overcome; I am indeed capable of overcoming them.  I feel grateful to have a teacher that has provided all the information for every assignment upfront and made it as less stressful as possible.

Sincerely,

Marshall

Rough Draft

Emotion and Reasoning

            The gap between reasoning and emotion is broad.  Reasoning is harbored by the mind to make decisions, govern thoughts, and manipulate bodies.  Emotion is harder to understand, and exponentially more difficult to control.  It exists as a layer of human characteristic that can be viewed and studied, but never fully mastered.  Emotion distorts perception, yet occasionally makes it clearer.  Without the equilibrium of reasoning and emotion, the study of human thought can’t be touched upon.  In her novel, “Frankenstein”, Mary Shelley details the struggle of an ambitious doctor, Victor Frankenstein, who discovers the secret to creating life while making a hideous monster that soon controls and dismantles his life.  Mary creates Victor as a psychological foil to his own creation by, succumbing Victor to his hunger for scientific knowledge, allowing the monster to be ruled by emotion, and having Victor and his creature’s lives bound together.

            As Victor’s story is told, his deleterious need for scientific knowledge quickly becomes apparent.  Victor begins his research with the intention of creating or restoring life.  As he progressed, he continually ignored the boundaries of science; becoming more and more enveloped in his work.  Moments after his successful reanimation of the monster’s hewn body, Victor recalls, “I had worked for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body.  For this I had deprived myself of rest and health” (Shelley 34).  With his mind so narrowly-centered on this task, everything else became meaningless: even his own health.  Judging by his thoughts and actions, it appears his mental health also severely deteriorated.  Frankenstein continues his thoughts, admitting, “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation” (34).  Victor carried out what he wanted to accomplish, yet he never stopped to question if he should.  In his almost maniacal endeavor he swiftly realizes his product isn’t all that he imagined.  Victor then says, “but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (34).  Victor’s creation came to life bringing with it regret; something Victor wrestles with to his death.  Frankenstein further approaches lunacy in his research as he tries to keep everything secret.  He takes great consideration in all his actions to hide what he has done and what is happening.  Even on his wedding night he fails to tell his wife from what danger he is sending her away.  His pride in knowledge leads him to cover up his actions without consideration to the problem that he is enhancing.  Overall, this heartless thirst for knowledge is something that Shelley may have suffered from herself.  Critic, Christopher Small writes in his article, "[Percy] Shelley and Frankenstein,” that “Shelley, like Victor Frankenstein, had an early passion to learn “the secrets of heaven and earth”; one may say that in both the drive was inherent” (Small 208).  As a shared trait, Mary showed through Doctor Frankenstein that there may be grave consequences to blindly succumbing to the allure of knowledge.  

            The monster, in the novel, falls prey to his loneliness and emotions.  As soon as he is created, his battle with rejection begins.  To the average human he is a complete freak: born out of science, revolting to the sight.  Victor describes him grotesquely saying, “his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of arteries and muscles beneath” (Shelley 34).  With his unchangeable traits, he knows that he will never be accepted: the one thing that he wants.  Frankenstein’s monster becomes increasingly dangerous as his emotions boil.  In misguided revenge, he begins to kill off Frankenstein’s friends and relatives despite Victor being his only human contact.  His depression leads to senseless murder.  While bargaining for Victor to make him a companion, he says, “you still refuse to bestow on me the only benefit that can soften my heart, and render me harmless” (100).  Here, the monster, though intelligent, fails to see that emotions are illogical.  He believes that he will be harmless and that his emotions will logically change even though it is obvious that his emotions rule him into maniacal action.  The monster’s insanity is masked by his eloquence with words, but little else.  Judging by his actions – a continual self-defeating murderous rampage – he cannot control himself or his tendencies.  It is only when his lunatic goal of killing Frankenstein is fulfilled that he finally sees his error.  Within his lengthy closing speech to Walton, the explorer, over Victor’s death, the monster explains, “But it is true that I am a wretch.  I have ... grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing” (155).  The being saw that his action was founded on injustice.  He also exclaims, “for whilst I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires” (154).  In Frankenstein’s death his misery driven endeavor was shown to be purposeless.  In an article titled, “Coming Unstrung: Women, Men, Narrative, and Principles of Pleasure,” Susan Winnett believes that a “series of brutal rejections ... transform the creature’s beautiful soul into a murderous one” (Winnett 296).  Alternatively, the soul or underlying character of the monster isn’t transformed entirely.  Instead, the monster’s true soul is so overwhelmed by his intense grief that he cannot function naturally.  His goodness is recovered in his final epiphany, once the emotions are overlooked.

            Mary Shelley created Doctor Frankenstein and his creation to be foils of each other; even to the death.  While Victor continually drives himself with logic, his monster is mastered only by his own emotions.  However, neither of them find themselves even close to stable in their minds.  This dichotomy of emotion and reasoning are depicted perfectly to show the weakness in having only one.  Mary Shelley saw that too much in one direction leads to disaster: exactly how the situation ended.  With Frankenstein and the monster in a tumultuous battle, it is seen how emotion and reasoning cannot fight in order to have stability.  As the monster finally understood what he had been doing, Frankenstein was dead.  The monster could see with logic that he was wrong when Victor could no longer use it.  The feelings of the two also parallel each other.  As one of their lives become increasingly worse the other matches it.  In Barbara Johnson’s article, “My Monster/My Self,” she suggests that, “Frankenstein recognizes in Walton an image in himself and rejects in the monster a resemblance he does not wish to acknowledge” (Johnson 243).  Barbara’s insight shows that Frankenstein was unwilling to accept what he knew was true: that the monster was a product of Frankenstein and in turn was a part of him.  The monster acts as the complementary half to what Frankenstein is missing: emotion.  During the monster’s speech to Walton, he cries, “I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt” (Shelley 156).  Being bound to Victor he kills himself.  The two both die as separate halves of the same person.

            Reasoning and emotion both have their flaws.  But the flaws can be healed by having the two together.  Emotion cannot be easily handled because doing so would be logical, and logic is with reasoning.  With Frankenstein and his monster holding their respective traits, Mary Shelley created them as foils of each other psychologically.  Frankenstein could only feel with his mind.  He created the monster out of an unnatural drive to gain knowledge.  He wanted to see if he could achieve the impossible without regard to the consequences.  The monster on the other hand wants little.  He desires only to be loved or to have a companion.  His strife and turmoil only lead him to terrible things.  Despite his good intentions, emotion from rejection cannot be overcome.  Mary Shelley formed these perilous characters to fully embody the forms of reasoning and emotion.  Through them she shows readers the dangers of imbalance.  Walton in the story learns from seeing the both Frankenstein and monster.  He learns that reasoning and emotion must meet together to avoid meeting a wretched fate.

Works Cited

Johnson, Barbara. “My Monster/My Self.” Frankenstein. W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1996.   241-251. Print.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1996. 1-156. Print.

Small, Christopher. “[Percy] Shelley and Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. W. W. Norton &

            Company Inc., 1996. 205-208. Print.

Winnett, Susan. “Coming Unstrung: Women, Men, Narrative, and Principles of Pleasure.”            Frankenstein. W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1996. 287-301. Print.