Writing in the Electronic Age

Everyone should indeed write. The written word is a method of expression that deepens one’s understanding of a topic and allows people to interact significantly with the glut of media that bombards them day by day, producing an intelligent and aware populace. Although I would not personally want to read everything that anyone wishes to write, their right to write should at least be protected and encouraged. The technological progress of recent years has allowed more people to have a voice, learning to express and communicate their thoughts to the world. In his text entitled “Should Everybody Write?,” Dennis Baron expands on the idea of a world in which everyone is a writer, emphasizing both the triviality and even danger of that which is produced through the marriage of technology and writing while also supporting the freedom to write that accompanies the electronic age. He asks that since now more people who have the opportunity to write if everyone should indeed write, answering, “sure, because it increases the chances that there will be something you will want to read, and you can just ignore the rest” (Baron). In this way, Baron advocates for a community of writers who are often bombarded by the ever-expanding glut of writing but are ultimately benefited by their access to the works of those to whom they would otherwise by closed off. However, not only does the abundance of writing create more works that one could read, but it also opens one up to more of the contrasting and perhaps marginalized voices that one should read.

Sven Birkerts, in his book The Gutenberg Elegies, however, remains skeptical of the opportunities that technology brings in allowing more people to write. In doing so reading, and by extension writing, becomes a highly public affair wherein the voice of the uneducated or the unqualified drown out those of the privileged few actual writers. As a result, Birkerts argues, language and individuality suffer. He notes that “fifty to a hundred million people…form their ideas about what is going on in America and in the world from the same basic package of edited images” (Birkerts 120). Here, Birkerts makes a valid point in that sometimes what is popular overwhelms what may be considered more culturally valuable or contain a different point of view through the globalization of ideas. However, technology also gives marginalized voices a chance to gain wider audiences than ever before. He also notes that publishers accept fewer and fewer pieces, hoping to make a profit on popularity rather than quality (Birkerts 123). Although this statement may be true, technology also opens up new means of getting one’s work into the marketplace without help of a third party through blogs or self-published electronic copies.The issue, therefore, does not seem to be a shortage of worthy writing.

For Baron, conversely, the issue becomes not one of a shortage of writing but of the quality of such writing, a topic that Birkerts also explores. Baron asserts that the availability of methods of writing for a large audience helps to facilitate the overabundance of unskilled writing. Birkerts, however, concerns himself more with “language erosion” that takes places as faster means of communication make writing less about style and more about convenience. He warns that “language will grow increasingly impoverished through a series of vicious cycles” (Birkerts 129). Both writers concern themselves with the possibility of technology bringing about a downfall of the English language. Baron seems to tackle this issue from a more realistic view, examining developments in writing technology long before the introduction of computers. According to the author, “every new communication technology has the capacity to expand the set of who gets to write and talk, who gets to publish and be heard” (Baron). Since the beginning of the written language, the way people speak has always been influenced by how they write and how they write is also influence by the medium of this writing, but one cannot necessarily assert that this trend is necessarily novel or disastrous. The telegraph, with its imposed limits on word count with regards to cost, would have caused more damage to modern language than the computer, which allows one to write to his heart’s content, if the spoken language could be so deeply harmed by the writing medium. Birkerts asserts that communication has been “flattened…over distances” (Birkerts 128), but if this is so then it has occurred far before computers and the internet arrived on the scene. Birkerts may be correct in assuming that technology changes the spoken and written language, but does this fact mean that this language is necessarily becoming crude or unpleasing? Language evolves, but it does not necessarily erode. One can still become lost in a wonderfully created and populated world of a book in the modern age just as one could in a novel from the nineteenth century with its “complex discourse patterns” (Birkerts 128). In fact, Birkerts also fears for the fate of historical perspective once every book and every piece of information is at our fingertips, but the fact that language from dissimilar eras is presented differently, that a novel crafted in the nineteenth century does not sound like one that was written yesterday, helps to reinforce one’s view of time and history. It helps one to see his writing as another in a long line of powerful and beautiful writing that has been evolving long before he was born and will continue long after he is gone. Yes, everyone should write. The well-crafted stories that have captured the imaginations of generations of readers should and will continue. When writing was a tool only available to the elite, literate members of society, it was clear that the perspective of the upper class was the one being predominantly displayed and that these same elite members were not only the writers but also the readers. As more people gain the ability to write and make their voices heard, the reading lives of all people will be benefited by the knowledge and perspective of others who have not had the same experiences as oneself. One’s life can be profoundly enriched by these newly emerging views, and if not, well, one does not have to read what he does not want to read.

Final Draft – Mutable Monster, Fickle Frankenstein

Self-Reflection

        My argument contends that Mary Shelley’s inclusion of “Mutability” as an intertextual passage focuses attention on her larger urgings for caution in changing the world beyond the natural ebb and flow of day-to-day progress. I believe that my argument is effective in covering a wide range of examples, from the highly personal and internal nature of Frankenstein’s thoughts to the future of his world at large, and from the page on which the poem appears to the future of the whole text itself. In advancing this argument I would like to expand on the furthering I attempt in the final paragraph and explore the changeability of the novel over time and through new media adaptations such as film and the repercussions or advantages to this change with regards to Shelley perspective on mutability.

Mutable Monster, Fickle Frankenstein

“We rest; a dream has power to poison sleep.

We rise one hand wand’ring thought pollutes the day.

We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep,

Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away;

It is the same; for, be it joy or sorrow,

 The path of its departure still is free.

Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like this morrow;

Nought may endure but mutability!”

– Percy Shelley’s “Mutability” quoted in Frankenstein

        The only immutable aspect of life is its ability to change. One goes through life in a constant state of fluctuation. Everything from textbooks to pop culture magazines displays new or contradicting information. New technology becomes obsolete in two years; a once favorite book is relegated to the bottom shelf of a passionate reader’s collection; age and time devour everything. The only constant aspect of life is inconsistency. This thought, as exemplified by this quote which appears in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, recognizes life as unstable and changing but also comes to embody the prevailing notion of Victor Frankenstein’s world – from his emotions, to his relationships, to his experiments. Although Frankenstein seems at first to be a cautionary tale outlining the dangers of crossing boundaries in science which are not meant for humans to pass into, the motif of mutability is more complex. Shelley’s argument can also be seen as a claim in favor of the inevitability of advancement and progress in which thus Shelley recognizes the impossibility of permanence. However, this understanding is the reason for her apprehension of what such advancement will brings. Although much change happens naturally in the course of day-to-day life, Shelley cautions against mutability in matters that are governed by humans and cared out lightly without thought of consequence by using Frankenstein as a cautionary tale.

         The poem  which appears in Shelley’s novel is one written by her husband, and it in fact has two different adaptations both titled “Mutability,” one of which serving as the focal point for Shelley’s motif of the changeability in life. Both poems convey similar underlying themes and similar language but still differ, illustrating changeability not only as an overarching theme of the poems but also as a process to which the poem has been subjected. The second poem which is not present in Shelley’s text employs much of the same language and expression but presented in a way that is unlike the other version: “Dream thou—and from thy sleep/Then wake to weep” (P. Shelley). In both poems, the version quoted here and that quoted above, share similar characteristics in their use of sleep, resting and rising, as an indication of the passage of time wherein one day is very unlike the next. The general subject of the two poems is the same, but the way in which it is told varies through language. The poem itself is not an immutable object. One can look at the two poems as the continuation of a life, a living evolving organism. The language, which is parallel to the events in one’s life, differs drastically, though from one version, or one point in time, to another. In looking at the history of the “Mutability” text, it is clear that change is not only an integral aspect of Frankenstein’s narrative, as it will become evident, but of the poems themselves. The poem does not merely exist as a standalone piece or an instance of fleeting rhetorical fancy; it can be applied to the larger issues of the novel as one pulls the lens back from the poem itself to the context of Frankenstein’s emotions, his environment, the state of science and technology at the time, and the larger implications for the novel throughout time.

        The inclusion of this stanza from Shelley’s husband’s poem, “Mutability,” encourages deeper analysis into the various aspects of change and impermanence present in Shelley’s novel. Victor’s moods are a highly changeable state throughout the novel, representing the fragility that his actions have caused. At the time his monster is created after great toil and struggle, he suddenly grows despondent, and the young scientist notes, “the different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature” (M. Shelley 60). Realizing that even in overcoming the most seemingly permanent aspect of life – death – Victor perceives that human moods are still far more fickle. Additionally, Frankenstein refers to the “accidents” of life, although his creation of the monster seems intensely deliberate. In this way, Frankenstein distances himself from the choice he has made to create the monster, blaming instead his fickle feelings. However, from Frankenstein’s eventual fate, the author implies that choice plays a large role in the mutability of life and that one cannot distance himself from the choices he makes in changing the world around him. As a result of his choices, Frankenstein descends into what appears almost to be a sort of madness, which Elizabeth notes as “an expression of despair, and sometimes revenge” (M. Shelley 88), followed by the inner peace he feels during his excursion into the wilderness is what prompts the inclusion of this poem as a commentary on the transience of objects and states. Frankenstein claims that his heart “before sorrowful, now swelled with something like joy” (M. Shelley 92). From the juxtaposition of these two mental states, Frankenstein emotions seem deeply instable and subject to change, highlighting Shelley’s undercurrent of mutability. This instability in Frankenstein’s life seems to cause himself and those around him great mental anguish as they search for the source of his distress. In this case and others, changeability is often a part of life but can also cause harm to oneself and those around him when entered lightly into. Although in this case the quoted passage from “Mutability” seems to allude to Frankenstein’s instability in emotion due to it placement in the text, it can also be applied to the larger issues of life and death and seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the young scientist’s existence.

        The lives taken from Frankenstein, young William and Justine, also become reminders of a changing world wherein today may bear no resemblance to tomorrow, and the choices on makes impacts those around him. William, the youngest brother of Frankenstein’s family, dies, presumably at the hands of the creature which Frankenstein creates, and Justine is hanged on suspicion of his murder. Both cases are of very young lives, which are full of opportunity, taken before their potential can be fulfilled. Upon receiving the news of William’s death Frankenstein laments: “One sudden and desolating change had taken place; but a thousand little circumstances might have by degrees worked other alterations, which although they were done more tranquilly, might not be the less decisive” (M. Shelley 74). While acknowledging the shock of his brother’s death, the scientist also ruminates on the nature of small changes in everyday life, imperceptible but none the less devastating when amassed into one. In pointing out the inevitability of small changes within his life, Frankenstein acknowledges that some change is inevitable. However, in juxtaposing these small changes with the larger shock of William’s death, he suggests that the result of his hubris is far more detrimental than any other everyday mutability. In this idea one can perceive a type of warning for pushing change upon the world. Frankenstein pays for tampering with the seemly permanent force of death with the lives of the young who, for them, life still seems almost permanent because they yet have so much life to live. Not only do Frankenstein’s actions cause the creator inner turmoil but he also causes great pain and suffering to those around him, reinforcing the concept of caution when dealing with matters of change.

        While one perceives the alterations in both Frankenstein’s internal and external environments through his moods and circumstances, one can also pull the lens back farther to examine those in the scientific field and the world at large within Shelley’s novel. Both Frankenstein and his foil, Robert Walton, experiment in new advancements in the fields of natural science and exploration respectively, and both risk the lives of others in their thirst for novelty and knowledge. However, Walton is ultimately spared from a fate similar to Frankenstein’s loss. At the outset of Walton’s journey into the Arctic he asks, “Why not still proceed over the untamed yet obedient element? What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man” (M. Shelley 34)? Immediately following this daring exclamation, Walton comes upon Frankenstein, a haunted man seeking revenge who has already experienced the horrors of his own resolved will, lacking in concern for caution much like Walton’s own adventurous spirit. The contrasting visions Shelley presents of these two men, seeming so much alike and yet so different, presents a warning. For Walton the danger is yet ahead, while for Frankenstein, his downfall has already come to pass.  Frankenstein, at times, urges Walton forward but deters him from making a mistake similar to his own, seeking knowledge at the cost of caution. Walton eventually turns back, ignoring his friend’s urgings, making an argument for permanence in regards to the boundaries that man is not meant to cross, sparing his men and himself from further horrors. In this way, Shelley warns of the dangers of forced change in scientific advancement when men push the boundaries of mortality and humanity.

        The changes that Frankenstein has caused in his life through his hubris have undoubtedly changed his life for the worse, affecting everything from the inner workings of his mind to the wide world of science and technology, far beyond the everyday instability of human lives. However, permanence not only becomes an impossibility within the confines of Frankenstein’s experience but also in the way the novel has been perceived and retold. The changeability in this text, represented by the poem’s variation and Frankenstein’s fluctuation in mood, family, and scientific boundaries, comes to represent the way in which the narrative has evolved and grown beyond its original story. Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein existed as a short horror story, evolving and changing into a rumination on the nature of humanity, mutability, and hubris. Furthermore, since the story’s original conception, it has not yet ceased evolving to meet the needs and demands of a new generation. The current common conceptions of the Frankenstein narrative involves a grotesque green creature, incapable of thought and seemingly stitched together with the very worst of materials. In the Frankenstein text, however, the monster is crafted from features seen as “beautiful” (M. Shelley 60), and although Frankenstein later remarks on the hideous quality these features take, the eloquent swift creature that results from his work does not resemble the slow-moving zombie-like vision usually associated with Frankenstein’s monster. In this way, Shelley’s own “hideous progeny” (M. Shelley 25) has taken on an evolving life of its own as it changes to meet the desires of different media of story-telling. It can be said that the life of a novel itself is far from stagnant and unchanging. It flows on in the reader’s mind, and even if it is not adapted, as Frankenstein has been, into different forms, the understanding of a novel is a forever shifting and evolving process. One reading of a novel, even by the same reader, may provide different insight than a previous reading. The lives of humans and books are immutable in their mutability.

Works Cited

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.

Shelley, Percy B. “Mutability [“The Flower That Smiles To-day”].” The Poetical Works of Percy   Bysshe Shelley. Vol. 4. N.p.: n.p., 1839. N. pag. The Poetry Foundation. Web. 22 Mar.       2013.

 

I pledge my honor that I have completed this work in accordance with the Honor Code.

Alexandria Smythe

Mutable Monster, Fickle Frankenstein

Third Draft

Self-Reflection
My argument examines mutability as both an inevitability and a responsibility in terms of creator and creation. I believe that one of the strengths of my essay is the range I cover when discussing the impact on mutability in the novel, describing the history of the poem, Frankenstein’s inner and external conflicts regarding change, change in science at large in the novel, and the implications in the context of the evolution of the novel itself; I believe that pulling the lens out gradually to explore the bigger picture is useful in examining the role of the intertextual moment. My next step would be to go through the essay to ensure that the ideas flow well enough from one idea to another, and I would like to go back to examine whether the conclusion brings in too many “new” ideas and needs to be more traditionally concluded (although I personally like it how it is now). Also, my paper exceeds the page requirements by about a half a page, so I might have to work on a way to avoid cutting crucial information while still adding what else might come up, which is giving me trouble at this stage of drafting. In taking this essay further in the final project, I would like to expand more on the topic I bring up in the conclusion of how the novel itself has evolved and become mutable over time by examining one of the film adaptations (an idea I would have wanted to expand upon in this essay if space had allowed).

“We rest; a dream has power to poison sleep.
We rise one hand wand’ring thought pollutes the day.
We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep,
Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away;
It is the same; for, be it joy or sorrow,
The path of its departure still is free.
Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like this morrow;
Nought may endure but mutability!”
– Percy Shelley’s “Mutability” quoted in Frankenstein

The only immutable aspect of life is its ability to change. One goes through life in a constant state of fluctuation. Little incidences of living life can make or break an entire day (finding a twenty dollar bill or losing one’s important paperwork often lead to emotions of joy or sorrow in what could have been an ordinary day to that point). Everything from textbooks to pop culture magazines displays new or contradicting information. New technology becomes obsolete in two years. A once favorite book is relegated to the bottom shelf of a passionate reader’s collection. Age and time devour everything. The only constant aspect of life is inconsistency. This thought, as exemplified by this quote which appears in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, recognizes life as unstable and changing but also comes to embody the prevailing notion of Victor Frankenstein’s world – from his emotions, to his relationships, to his experiments. Although Frankenstein seems at first to be a cautionary tale outlining the dangers of crossing boundaries in science which are not meant for humans to pass into, it can also be seen as an argument for the inevitability of advancement and progress. Shelley recognizes the impossibility of permanence which is the reason for her apprehension of what such advancement will brings. Shelley asserts that instability is inevitable in life but advises caution as to where these changes will lead, especially in terms of the creator and his creation.

An initial feature that is worth noting is that the poem which appears in Shelley’s novel is one written by her husband, and it in fact has two different adaptations both titled “Mutability.” Both poems convey similar underlying themes and similar language but still differ, illustrating changeability not only as an overarching theme of the poems but also as a process to which the poem has been subjected. The second poem which is not present in Shelley’s text employs much of the same language and expression but presented in a way that is unlike the other version: “Dream thou—and from thy sleep/Then wake to weep” (P. Shelley). In both poems, the one quoted here and that quoted above, share similar characteristics in their use of sleep, resting and rising, as an indication of the passage of time wherein one day is very unlike the next. The general subject of the two poems is the same, but the way in which it is told varies. Ultimately, it is worth pointing out that the poem itself is not an immutable object. One can look at the two poems as the continuation of a life, a living evolving organism. The language, which is parallel to the events in one’s life, differs drastically, though from one version, or one point in time, to another. In knowing the history of the poem, one can see that mutability is a theme within the poem, and its place within the context of that specific passage and its larger significance in the larger context of the novel itself will also become evident. In looking at the history of the “Mutability” poem, it is clear that change is not only an integral aspect of Frankenstein’s narrative but of the texts themselves. The poem does not merely exist as a standalone piece or an instance of fleeting rhetorical fancy; it can be applied to the larger issues of the novel as one pulls the lens back from the poem itself to the context of Frankenstein’s emotions, his environment, the state of science and technology at the time, and the larger implications for the novel throughout time.

Nothing in Victor Frankenstein’s life is permanent – not his schooling, not his success, not his moods, and not his family and friends. The inclusion of this stanza from Shelley’s husband’s poem, “Mutability,” encourages deeper analysis into the various aspects of change and impermanence present in Shelley’s novel. Nothing, including both life and death, seems to be an unchangeable outcome. Victor receives permission to commence schooling and rises to the top of his field, but after the creation of his creature, he quits this study in horror, instead taking foreign language lessons. At the time his monster is created he notes, “the different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature” (M. Shelley 60). Realizing that even in overcoming the most seemingly permanent aspect of life – death – Victor asserts that human moods are still far more fickle. After having been elated with and devoted to his studies, he falls into a deep depression. Shelley refers to the “accidents” of life, although Frankenstein’s creation of the monster seems intensely deliberate. In this way, Frankenstein distances himself from the choice he has made to create the monster, blaming instead his fickle feelings. Although from Frankenstein’s eventual fate, the author implies that choice plays a large role in the mutability of life and that one cannot distance himself from the choices he makes in changing the world around him. As a result of his choices, Frankenstein descends into what appears almost to be a sort of madness, which Elizabeth notes as “an expression of despair, and sometimes revenge” (M. Shelley 88), followed by the inner peace he feels during his excursion into the wilderness is what prompts the inclusion of this poem as a commentary on the transience of objects and states. Frankenstein claims that his heart “before sorrowful, now swelled with something like joy” (M. Shelley 92). From the juxtaposition of these two mental states, one can see that a theme of impermanence and changeability acts as an undercurrent in Shelly’s text. This instability in Frankenstein’s life seems to cause himself and those around him great mental anguish as they search for the source of his distress. In this case and others, changeability is often a part of life but can also cause harm to oneself and those around him when entered lightly into. Although in this case the quoted passage from “Mutability” seems to allude to Frankenstein’s instability in emotion, it can also be applied to the larger issues of life and death and seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the young scientist’s existence.

The lives taken from Frankenstein, young William and Justine, also become reminders of a changing world wherein today may bear no resemblance to tomorrow. William, the youngest brother of Frankenstein’s family, dies, presumably at the hands of the creature which Frankenstein creates, and Justine is hanged on suspicion of his murder. Both cases are of very young lives, which are full of opportunity, taken before their potential can be fulfilled. In this way, emphasis seems to be placed on change as the only unswayable force of life that is undeterred by issues of fairness or righteousness. Upon receiving the news of William’s death Frankenstein laments: “One sudden and desolating change had taken place; but a thousand little circumstances might have by degrees worked other alterations, which although they were done more tranquilly, might not be the less decisive” (M. Shelley 74). While acknowledging the shock of his brother’s death, the scientist also ruminates on the nature of small changes in everyday life, imperceptible but none the less devastating when amassed into one. In pointing out the inevitability of small changes within his life, Frankenstein acknowledges that some change is inevitable. However, in juxtaposing this idea with the larger shock of William’s death, he suggests that the result of his hubris is far more detrimental than any other everyday mutability. In this idea one can perceive a type of warning for pushing change upon the world. Frankenstein pays for tampering with the seemly permanent force of death with the lives of the young who, for them, life still seems almost permanent because they yet have so much life to live. Not only do Frankenstein’s actions cause the creator inner turmoil but he also causes great pain and suffering to those around him, reinforcing the concept of caution when dealing with matters of change.

While one perceives the alterations in both Frankenstein’s internal and external environments through his moods and circumstances, one can also pull the lens back farther to examine those in the scientific field and the world at large within Shelley’s novel. Both Frankenstein and his foil, Robert Walton, experiment in new advancements in the fields of natural science and exploration respectively. Both risk the lives of others in their thirst for novelty and knowledge, but Walton is ultimately spared from a fate similar to Frankenstein’s loss. At the outset of Walton’s journey into the Arctic he asks, “Why not still proceed over the untamed yet obedient element? What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man” (M. Shelley 34). Immediately following this daring exclamation, Walton comes upon Frankenstein, a haunted man seeking revenge who has already experienced the horrors of his own resolved will, lacking in concern for caution much like Walton’s own adventurous spirit. The contrasting visions Shelley presents of these two men, seeming so much alike but yet so different, presents a warning. For Walton the danger is yet ahead, while for Frankenstein, his downfall has already come to pass. Frankenstein, at times, urges Walton forward but deters him from making a mistake similar to his own. Walton eventually turns back, ignoring his friend’s urgings, making an argument for a sort of permanence in regards to the boundaries that man is not meant to cross. In this way, Shelley warns of the dangers of forced change in scientific advancement when men push the boundaries of mortality and humanity.

Permanence not only becomes an impossibility within the confines of Frankenstein’s experience but also in the way the novel has been perceived and retold. The changeability in this text also comes to represent the way in which the narrative has evolved and grown beyond its original story. Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein existed as a short horror story, evolving and changing into a rumination on the nature of humanity, mutability, and hubris. Furthermore, since the story’s original conception, it has not yet ceased evolving to meet the needs and demands of a new generation. The current common conceptions of the Frankenstein narrative involves a grotesque green creature, incapable of thought and seemingly stitched together with the very worst of materials. In the Frankenstein text, however, the monster is crafted from features seen as “beautiful” (M. Shelley 60), and although Frankenstein later remarks on the hideous quality these features take, the eloquent swift creature that results from his work does not resemble the slow-moving zombie-like vision usually associated with Frankenstein’s monster. In this way, Shelley’s own “hideous progeny” (M. Shelley 25) has taken on an evolving life of its own as it changes to meet the desires of different media of story-telling. It can be said that the life of a novel itself is far from stagnant and unchanging. It flows on in the reader’s mind, and even if it is not adapted, as Frankenstein has been, into different forms, the understanding of a novel is a forever shifting and evolving process. One reading of a novel, even by the same reader, may provide different insight than a previous reading. The lives of humans and books are immutable in their mutability.

Reflection on Writing (Extra Credit One)

        I went to the writing center on Wednesday March sixth for a consultation regarding my second writing project, hoping to adapt a previous blog entry into a more developed idea and thesis for my essay. I initially had plans to combine a few intertextual moments within the Frankenstein text, using the concept of “Mutability” to explain the changes to the text of Frankenstein in new media such as a film, but my consultant helped to narrow my ideas into a more manageable project for this five page assignment. I needed help mainly with creating a complicated and cohesive thesis to fit the ideas I had in mind and fleshing out what was already there rather than introducing new ideas that might be too much to tackle in a relatively shorter essay. We started by reviewing my ideas about the essay and my goals for the session then I read the piece aloud and she gave her feedback as we worked through the paragraphs. It was helpful to get a different perspective on what I had written and helped me to realize the areas of weakness (lack of textual support in some areas and too many ideas) and strengths (concluding paragraph and style). In a way, I am still attached to my initial ideas because I believe that they offered a layer of complication to my argument, but I can see why steering me away from that direction was necessary for the purposes of this paper. In going forward with this essay and others I will be more careful not to take on too much (which was also an objection one reader had to my previous essay) and work on developing a complicated but manageable argument.

Mutable Monster, Fickle Frankenstein

An Exansion of Earlier Thoughts on Mutability in Frankenstein/Composting Rough Draft:

“We rest; a dream has power to poison sleep.
We rise one hand wand’ring thought pollutes the day.
We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep,
Embrace fond woe, or cast our cares away;
It is the same; for, be it joy or sorrow,
The path of its departure still is free.
Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like this morrow;
Nought may endure but mutability!”
– Percy Shelley’s “Mutability” quoted in Frankenstein

        The only immutable aspect of life is its ability to change. One goes through life in a constant state of fluctuation. Little incidences of living life can make or break an entire day (finding a twenty dollar bill or losing one’s important paperwork often lead to emotions of joy or sorrow in what could have been an ordinary day to that point).  Everything from textbooks to pop culture magazines displays new or contradicting information. The only constant aspect of life is inconsistency. This thought, as exemplified by this quote which appears in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, comes to embody the prevailing notion of Victor Frankenstein’s world – from his emotions, to his relationships, to his experiments. Although Frankenstein seems at first to be a cautionary tale outlining the dangers of crossing boundaries in science which are not meant for humans to pass into, it can also be seen as an argument for the inevitability of advancement and progress. Shelley recognizes the impossibility of permanence which is the reason for her apprehension of what such advancement will brings. Shelley asserts that instability is inevitable in life but advises caution as to where these changes will lead, especially in terms of the creator and his creation.

        An initial feature that is worth noting is that the poem that appears in Shelley’s novel is one written by her husband, and it in fact has two different adaptations both titled “Mutability.” Both poems convey similar underlying themes and similar language but still seem to differ, illustrating changeability not only as an overarching theme of the poems but also as a process to which the poem has been subjected. The second poem which is not present in Shelley’s text employs much of the same language and ideas but presented in a way that is unlike the other version: “Dream thou—and from thy sleep/Then wake to weep” (P. Shelley). In both poems, the one quoted here and that quoted above, share similar characteristics in their use of sleep, resting and rising, as an indication of the passage of time wherein one day is very unlike the next. The general subject of the two poems is the same, but the way in which it is told varies. Ultimately, it is worth pointing out that the poem itself is not an immutable object. One can look at the two poems as the continuation of a life, a living evolving organism. The language, which is parallel to the events in one’s life, differ drastically, though from one version, or one point in time, to another. In looking at the history of the “Mutability” poem, it is clear that change is not only an integral aspect of Frankenstein’s narrative but of the texts themselves.

        Nothing in Victor Frankenstein’s life is permanent – not his schooling, not his success, not his moods, and not his family and friends. The inclusion of this stanza from Shelley’s husband’s poem, “Mutability,” encourages deeper analysis into the various aspects of change and impermanence present in Shelley’s novel. Nothing, including both life and death, seems to be an unchangeable outcome. Victor receives permission to commence schooling and rises to the top of his field, but after the creation of his creature, he quits this study in horror, instead taking foreign language lessons. At the time his monster is created he notes, “the different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature” (M. Shelley 60). Realizing that even in overcoming the most seemingly permanent aspect of life – death – Victor asserts that human moods are still far more fickle. After having been elated with and devoted to his studies, he falls into a deep depression. Frankenstein’s descent into what appears almost to be a sort of madness, which Elizabeth notes as “an expression of despair, and sometimes revenge” (M. Shelley 88), followed by the inner peace he feels during his excursion into the wilderness is what prompts the inclusion of this poem as a commentary on the transience of objects and states. Frankenstein claims that his heart “before sorrowful, now swelled with something like joy” (M. Shelley 92). From the juxtaposition of these two mental states, one can see that a theme of impermanence and changeability acts as an undercurrent in Shelly’s text. Although in this case the quoted passage from “Mutability” seems to allude to Frankenstein’s instability in emotion, it can also be applied to the larger issues of life and death and seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the young scientist’s existence.

        The lives taken from Frankenstein, young William and Justine, also become reminders of a changing world wherein today may bear no resemblance to tomorrow. William, the youngest brother of Frankenstein’s family, dies, presumably at the hands of the creature which Frankenstein creates, and Justine is hanged on suspicion of his murder. Both cases are of very young lives, which are full of opportunity, taken before their potential can be fulfilled. In this way, emphasis seems to be placed on change as the only unswayable force of life that is undeterred by issues of fairness or righteousness. Upon receiving the news of William’s death Frankenstein laments: “One sudden and desolating change had taken place; but a thousand little circumstances might have by degrees worked other alterations, which although they were done more tranquilly, might not be the less decisive” (M. Shelley 74). While acknowledging the shock of his brother’s death, the scientist also ruminates on the nature of small changes in everyday life, imperceptible but none the less devastating when amassed into one. In pointing out the inevitability of small changes within his life, Frankenstein acknowledges that some change is inevitable. However, in juxtaposing this idea with the larger shock of William’s death, he suggests that the result of his hubris is far more detrimental than any other everyday mutability. In this idea one can perceive a type of warning for pushing change upon the world. Frankenstein pays for tampering with the seemly permanent force of death with the lives of the young who, for them, life still seems almost permanent because they yet have so much life to live. Not only do Frankenstein’s actions cause the creator inner turmoil but he also causes great pain and suffering to those around him, reinforcing the concept of caution when dealing with matters of change.

        While one perceives the alterations in both Frankenstein’s internal and external environments through his moods and circumstances, one can also pull the lens back farther to examine those in the scientific field and the world at large within Shelley’s novel. Both Frankenstein and his foil, Robert Walton, experiment in new advancements in the fields of natural science and exploration respectively. Both risk the lives of others in their thirst for novelty and knowledge, but Walton is ultimately spared from a fate similar to Frankenstein’s loss. At the outset of Walton’s journey into the Arctic he asks, “Why not still proceed over the untamed yet obedient element? What can stop the determined heart and resolved will of man” (M. Shelley 34). Immediately following this daring exclamation, Walton comes upon Frankenstein, a haunted man seeking revenge who has already experienced the horrors of his own resolved will, lacking in concern for caution much like Walton’s own adventurous spirit. The contrasting visions Shelley presents of these two man, seeming so much alike but yet so different, presents a warning. For Walton the danger is yet ahead, while for Frankenstein, his downfall has already come to pass. In this way, Shelley warns of the dangers of forced change in scientific advancement when men push the boundaries of mortality and humanity.

        Permanence not only becomes an impossibility within the confines of Frankenstein’s experience but also in the way the novel has been perceived and retold. The changeability in this text also comes to represent the way in which the narrative has evolved and grown beyond its original story. Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein existed as a short horror story, evolving and changing into a rumination on the nature of humanity, mutability, and hubris. Furthermore, since the story’s original conception, it has not yet ceased evolving to meet the needs and demands of a new generation. The current common conceptions of the Frankenstein narrative involves a grotesque green creature, incapable of thought and seemingly stitched together with the very worst of materials. In the Frankenstein text, however, the monster is crafted from features seen as “beautiful” (M. Shelley 60), and although Frankenstein later remarks on the hideous quality these features take, the eloquent swift creature that results from his work does not resemble the slow-moving zombie-like vision usually associated with Frankenstein’s monster. In this way, Shelley’s own “hideous progeny” (M. Shelley 25) has taken on an evolving life of its own as it changes to meet the desires of different media of story-telling. It can be said that the life of a novel itself is far from stagnant and unchanging. It flows on in the reader’s mind, and even if it is not adapted, as Frankenstein has been, into different forms, the understanding of a novel is a forever shifting and evolving process. One reading of a novel, even by the same reader, may provide different insight than a previous reading. The lives of humans and books are immutable in their mutability.