Frankenstein, Mary Shelley

'Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay to mould Me man? Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?' (Paradise Lost, Milton)

Frankenstein is a book about morals, specifically the morals of creation. Victor Frankenstein creates the monster in a rush of scientific discovery and fails to consider the responsibility that follows the creation of life or sentience. The repercussions of this lack of forethought are vast as Victor is unable to deal with the monster effectively, he alienates his creation and eventually helps cause it to turn to evil.

The main thinking point I took from the novel was the issue of humanity and when something becomes human and which qualities are valued as humanising. In the novel the reason Frankenstein's experiment is referred to as a monster is his appearance rather than his more humanising aspects. There is no distinction made between Frankenstein and the creature in terms of their speech and the monster shows an instinct for kindness both in his treatment of the DeLacey family and his rescue of the drowning girl, both of these acts are repelled and condemned due to his aggressively ugly countenance. At the beginning he is intelligent, gentle, kind and obsessed with approval by any party but particularly approval from his father figure, his creator, Victor Frankenstein. This well meaning, misunderstood creature is destroyed by the aggressive dislike he is shown by all who meet him. The monster then turns into a creature whose one focus is to have a companion, due to his father figures disgust with him he instead asks for a wife to accompany him and provide him with someone he can love and receive love from, something he has only ever observed as an outsider and something he craves above anything. Frankenstein denies him love for the second time when he refuses to make Frankenstein a wife and this is what truly pushes Frankenstein over the edge and into evil. 

To me Frankenstein became a tragedy about a man who has a fully functioning intellect but a childlike attitude to emotion. I found him an intensely sympathetic character, a teenager asking why he was created, demanding someone take responsibility for his creation.

Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov.

'Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.'

Lolita, possibly an interesting choice for any read. The only thing most people know about Lolita is that it is about a paedophile. Whilst this is true it is, nevertheless a good read. Fascinating and yet repellent. It challenges the reader's morality with a well spoken, unassuming older man and an abrasive apparently seductive 12 year old. When reading it is hard to feel entirely unsympathetic with the protagonist Humbert Humbert. He appeals to the audience with a flawed narrative of his feelings for, and eventual abandonment by, Lolita. 

Perhaps one of the most interesting things about Lolita is the reception. Nabokov found it hard to find any publisher for the novel and after it was banned from his own country he finally published it for the first time in France. It mainly found repute in literary circles but was widely condemned as porn. Possibly due to this reputation Lolita began to be seen as an 'underground' text and soon the French government was asked to ban it by the British government due to the importation levels of Lolita. Lolita remains to this day banned in a lot of educational institutes and is derided as perverted by a great many of the general public.

I read the book to early to understand the repercussions of the text, I secreted it away from the 6th form only section of the school library at 13 and was unaware of the furore surrounding it. I'd like to think this gave me a completely open mind to the issues raised by the book. However, my ignorance was such that I wasn't aware enough of the issues raised to form or reform any opinions. I read the narrative as absolute truth and, too young to give a critical reading, I believed everything Humbert Humbert said and grew to dislike the character Lolita for running away and breaking the 'Hero's' heart. The wrong viewpoint as I have come to discover upon a second reading. My knowledge of the issue of paedophilia has almost completely tarred Humbert, almost being the operative word. A little sympathy remains despite the strong feelings against Humbert and his feelings for Lolita. This book makes you question your assumptions, makes you think about your motivation and consider changing your opinions.

It is a challenging book and it challenges the reader to think about why they hold opinions and the empathy they can have for people even if they think they are completely wrong.

Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte

I am a self confessed Jane Eyre hater. My A-level class despaired of the intense hatred I had of this book. As far as I was concerned it is a book where the heroine is a strange of mix of passion and meekness that do not mix properly. Jane came across as almost bipolar with some of her personality traits juddering to a stop or failing to materialise at key moments. She claimed strength of character but her attempts to stand up for herself were inadequate and badly timed and only served to push her further into problems.

I also took offence from Mr. Rochester who I found to be a detestable example of the 'Byronic' Hero and one a refuse on principle to like. He is arrogant, erratic, shows no consideration for anyone else's feelings and of course, imprisons his previous wife in a tower. In fact I was cheering on Bertha for most of the book hoping she would stop the endless moping of both the main characters. 

The book frustrated me.

And then I read it again, this time without my class attempting to brow beat me into loving it and I realised that it is in fact less detestable then I had up until that point assumed. Shocking! I found myself actually rooting for the union between Mr Rochester and Jane Eyre. Imagine my surprise when I realised that I had actually come to like Jane! My opinion on Mr. Rochester remains just about the same, if a little more sympathetic. But Jane! I have started to appreciate just how strong she was to run away from Rochester in the end, she had finally found a measure of happiness but she was willing to throw it away to maintain her moral integrity.  Her treatment of the Reeds was saintly and I am sure I could not match it, her ability to persevere despite everything going wrong is spectacular. 

Now you may think that I have gone from the extreme of hate to love completely and can now admit no fault to Jane's character but as much as I would like to wholly love a character I am afraid there is something I still cannot reconcile. Her lack of sentiments throughout is astounding, she withholds feelings to such an extent that it is hard to understand where they come from. Whilst this suppression of emotion may have been impressed on her as a child, her continued ignorance of her own feelings leads her into more trouble that out.

So at last I have come to like Jane Eyre, in the book form at least. I cannot truly link the book with any of the film adaptations I've seen where the tendency seems to be to romanticise the text unnecessarily to the point where the characters are unrecognisable and then I do not like them again and will have to learn all over again how to like the various Jane Eyre presented. 

Now I have only to start liking Wuthering Heights and I will have reconciled myself to the Bronte sisters.

Hello!

And so it has come to be that I have started the medium through which I will bore all or any readers with my opinions on a variety of books. Good luck wading through the dross for any posts of merit! I'm sure I will be a repeat offender against the gods of grammar and spelling, neither of which I am good at (disappointing for an English student) and many of my opinions will be unfounded or in some way ridiculous. I am sure all will forgiven on the plea of youthful folly and pretension.

And so starts the blogging.