Feb 23

• Both books have a fake god character. Victor in Frankenstein and Rossum in RUR. These characters try to imitate life through creation
• The monster and the robots are stronger and more intelligent than humans.
• The monster is giant, the robots are human size.
• Both the robots and the monster end up killing humans
• Both the monster and the robots are created, not born.
• The monster is ugly. The robots look like regular humans
• Victor takes body parts from graves and assembles them in his apartment. The robots are assembled in a factory.
• Victor creates a humanlike being first. Rossum senior experiments with protoplasm in order to synthesize a dog first. Rossum junior had the idea to create a human.
• Both the robots and the monster had blank stares
• Both have the ability to learn
• Both speak well
• Monster feels physical and emotional pain. Robots feel no pain at all
• Sex means nothing to the robot creators because they cant reproduce. Victor destroys the female monster because he fears they will breed a monster race
• Both Rossum senior and Victor were scholars. Rossum studied marine biology and Victor studied philosophy
• Near the end of the book, the monster had needs (emotional, social, food). The robots were designed to be independent and have little needs
• The monster was created as a science experiment. The robots were created to do work for humans
• The robots were slaves to humans. Victor was, in a way, a slave to the monster who tortured him by killing his loved ones and chasing him down
• Both the monster and the robots rebel against their creators because they felt they were desregarded

Feb 16

For my essay #2, my broad topic will be the role of gender in the novels.

The first piece of evidence is the fact that women act as a source of happiness. Throughout the novel, Elizabeth is referred to by Victor as his only source of happiness. The monster asks Victor to build him a female companion, a source of happiness for him, as he has been discovering that he is not wanted by society. Victor builds then destroys the female monster in rage against the monster. The monster retaliates by destroying the last source of happiness Victor has: Elizabeth.

The second piece of evidence is the theme of passive women. Throughout the novel, the women are extremely passive of the situations they are in. They slowly suffer then die. Caroline, Victor's mother, contracts scarlet fever from Elizabeth, but continues to care for her. She succumbs to her illness shortly before Victor leaves for college. Justine is convicted for murder. Although she is innocent, she is executed. At the end of the novel, Elizabeth waits for Victor as he checks the house for the monster on their wedding night. Later that night, she is murdered by the monster.

The third piece of evidence is man's intolerance towards ugliness. The monster, being male, is grotesque and is feared by others in society. Both Safie and the Monster are separated from the De Laceys due to a language barrier. However, Saife is strikingly beautiful and is tolerated by the family. On the other hand, the monster is feared from by Felix when he returns to the cabin.

These pieces of evidence are bound together because they all deal with the role of women in the novel. Every woman in the novel is an undeveloped character, but the women as a whole represent many themes such as happiness, passiveness, and tolerance towards ugliness.

The pieces of evidence differ because each piece, for the most part, deals with a different female. Happiness is derived from Elizabeth, while intolerance is derived from Safie. Every women is passive in nature.

The evidence complements each other because it shows the many roles of gender in Frankenstein. As the story progresses, more and more gender themes are introduced. When combined, the evidence shows readers that women have a far more important role than expected. It shows that the simplest, most flat and two-dimensional characters of the novel are symbolic of very large themes.

Feb 2

Ambrose Bierce's "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" is unique, because the point of view changes as the story progresses. The point of view remains in third person, but transitions between specific types of third person points of view with each section of the story.

In part I of the narrative, the point of view is third person objective. The narrator is simply describing what anyone would see if they were at this scene. The narrator has no internality, and merely describes the man's looks and what it looks like the man feels, as opposed to concrete facts about who he is and what he actually feels. For example, the narrator says, "The man who was engaged in being hanged was apparently about thirty-five years of age. He was a civilian, if one might judge from his habit, which was that of a planter." The narrator say the man was "apparently about thirty-five years of age," as opposed to just saying "he is thirty-five years of age," showing the limited nature of the point of view. The first part of the narrative describes a man standing on a plank over a raging river. He has his hand bound and a noose around his neck. The narrator describes the setting and the actions of all of the characters to the best of his/her ability. In the last two paragraphs, the point of view switches to third person subjective, and the narrator briefly describes a thought going through the man's head.

Part II of the narrative uses the third person omniscient point of view. The narrator reveals the previously unknown identity of the man, giving a brief but comprehensive history of the man. The narrator also knows the location and actions being performed by each of the characters at certain points throughout the part. The man is revealed to be a wealthy, Alabama planter named Peyton Farquhar. He is a slave owner during the era preceding the American Civil War. He is visited by a soldier, and they have a quick conversation about the news. Farquhar asks the soldier what the penalty for avoiding the sentinel on the bridge would be. The soldier answers, then leaves. Later on in the night, the soldier returns to Farquhar's home, and is revealed as a Federal Scout.

Part III of this narrative uses the third person subjective pint of view. The narrator describes, in great detail, the events that take place chronologically, after part I. The narrator also knows what Farquhar is doing at any point in time and how he feels emotionally or physically. The story progresses, as the rope breaks, Farquhar falls into the river below. He evades patrols and gunfire, and eventually makes it back to his home. Just as he is about to hug his wife, he falls victim to the injuries he received during the fall and evasion. The last line of the story, Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body, with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek bridge," reveals that Farquhar never actually escaped from the bridge. All of part III is his imagination, as is revealed by the narrator. The ending of the story is ironic, because it seems that Farquhar made it back to his home, but died of his wounds, but in reality, the scenario is his imagination, and he dies by hanging under Owl Creek Bridge.