Frankenstein

Frankenstein tries to act like God and that leads to disastrous consequences. For example, he says, “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world” (52). Thus, Frankenstein is trying to break the boundaries of life and death. While life could be represented by the “torrent of life” while death could be represented by the “dark world,” the outcome of Frankenstein’s creation is ironic. Instead of producing a torrent of light and life, the monster brings even more misery into Frankenstein’s life. When Frankenstein takes tries to take on the godlike role, nothing good comes out of it. Thus, Shelley could be criticizing man’s attempt to live beyond the limits. In her criticism, technology is very much connected to crossing the preset boundaries. Frankenstein’s creation represents a new type of technology that does more harm than good. Such technology is found everywhere in the modern world. Television and video games often produce more harm than good.

As Frankenstein tries to act like God, he sins more and more. One of his worst sins is indirectly killing William and Justine. By creating a monster and then taking no responsibility for it, Frankenstein is very naïve. He simply lets the monster go into the wild with little concern for its safety or the safety of others. Thus, Frankenstein is very selfish. Because of Frankenstein’s unconcern, William dies. Furthermore, when Justine is murdered because the town thinks that she is the murder, Frankenstein does little to stop it. Once again, he has trouble accepting responsibility for his actions. Because of his naiveté and negligence, two murders occur. In fact, Frankenstein is more responsible for the murders than the monster is. It is thus hard to discern whether Frankenstein is a good or evil character.

Beowulf vs. The Dragon

Two characters in Grendel that are very similar are Beowulf and the Dragon because the both change Grendel and directly affect Grendel. The Dragon leads Grendel to start contemplating the meaninglessness of life. He says that things are simply “swirl[s] in the stream of time. A temporary gathering of bits, a few random dust specks, so to speak…..then by change a vast floating cloud of dustspecks, an expanding universe.” Grendel, although very confused, eagerly listened to the dragon, soaking up the news. The Dragon focuses on death and time passing. He even says that an apocalypse is “Not a real ending of course, nor even a beginning. Mere ripple in Time’s stream.” Grendel then believes that he is a “mere ripple” in the world, which is a pretty depressing thought. However, Grendel then seeks his own meaning. He wants to be a standard for the Danes. Later on, he even says that he doesn’t finish off all the Danes because then he wouldn’t have anything to do and won’t have any purpose.

However, when Beowulf comes, Grendel’s world is turned upside down. From the beginning, there are indications that Beowulf is different. Perhaps, Beowulf could even be a monster, at least to Grendel. Grendel has instances in which he is actually afraid of Beowulf begging the question: Who, or even what, is Beowulf? Is he a human? Is he the dragon? I become even more curious about Beowulf’s origins when he starts quoting the dragon. Specifically, he says, “A meaningless swirl in the stream of time, a temporary gathering of bits, a cloud…” Thus, Beowulf understands or at least appreciates the dragon’s words. Beowulf’s speech after he makes the statement shows that he doesn’t focus on death and passing that the dragon focused on. Instead, he claims, “The world will build green, sperm build again. My promise.” Beowulf brings up images of fertility and the environment instead of death and destruction. So then, I must wonder what Beowulf’s philosophy really is. Perhaps, he believes that there is no central meaning in the world but creation and life gives meaning. His philosophy is definitely harder to pinpoint that the dragon’s philosophy. One thing’s for sure though. Beowulf significantly affects Grendel. Grendel says, “I understand him all right, make no mistake. Understand his lunatic theory of matter and mind, the chilly intellect, the hot imagination…” Grendel believes that Beowulf’s theory is “lunatic” and continually attributes Beowulf’s win to “accident.” Thus, it seems as if Grendel is denial because he can’t believe that Beowulf is right. At the end, I feel like Grendel is closer to acceptance. Still, what really is Grendel accepting?

The last line of the novel is very significant as Grendel says, almost angrily, “So may you all” to the animals that gather around him. This is Grendel pondering the equality in the universe. The passing of time and death that the dragon talked about has finally taken Grendel, and it will take the animals around him. However, there is still the image of fertility and rebirth from Beowulf. Maybe, Grendel’s death isn’t really an end like Grendel though it would be.

Grendel's Spirits

Grendel is a very odd creature. While reading the first four chapters, I always notice that there are some spirits around him whether it’s a “dark chasm”, watchful “eyes”, or a menacing “presence.” What really do all these spirits mean? I think that they are simply manifestations of Grendel, revealing implicit aspects of him. For example, the “dark chasm” could possible represent the existential void, which is part of Grendel’s philosophy. On the next page, the “stars…torment [his] wits towards meaningful patterns that do not exist.” Grendel’s beliefs surely follow the existential philosophy as he can’t (or will not) see meaning in anything. Perhaps, the existential void parallels an internal void within Grendel. Since Gardner is an anti-existentialist, it wouldn’t be surprising that he describes the existentialist Grendel as having a void. Such an interpretation begs the question: What is that void? At the end of Chapter 1, there are subtle clues that point to an emptiness within Grendel. When the townspeople “wail…with a single quavering voice,” they express joy and some sort of communion even after Grendel murdered their fellows. Such a communion torments and even makes Grendel “shake with rage.” His rage is a product of his envy and loneliness. He longs for that camaraderie, the lack of which is creating a void within him. Looking even further into the “dark chasms” also reveals Grendel’s views towards a higher power. Grendel demands the dark chasms to “seize” him “to [its] foul black bowels and crush [his] bones.” If the dark chasms represent God or a higher being, then Grendel is challenging it. After Grendel comments that the chasms have “missed him”, Grendel is mocking God’s lack of power to punish or “seize” Grendel. Clearly, Grendel is skeptical of any notion of a higher power. Thus, when he starts seeing stars in meaningful patterns, Grendel has tormented “wits” because the patterns give evidence to a higher being that creates meaning in the world.


The watchful “eyes” are also a very interesting part of the novel. First, there is definitely a distinction between those eyes and Grendel’s mother’s eyes as he says, “Then all at once there they’d be again, the indifferent burning eyes of strangers. Or my mother’s eyes.” Honestly, I still have a hard time grasping who the eyes are or what the eyes represent. I do have a theory that all the eyes are, in a way, Grendel’s eyes—his search for meaning throughout the world. Before the tree incident, Grendel’s existential philosophy isn’t present, and Grendel really finds meaning in his mother. Thus, “Of all the creatures [Grendel] knew, in those days, only my mother really looked at me.” Since only his mother looked at Grendel instead of through him like the others, Grendel’s mother is the only one that has meaning for him. During the tree incident, the absence of his mother (and “her” eyes) shows that Grendel can no longer see meaning within his mother. Finally, I want to consider that mocking “presence” within Chapter 4. To me, even the “presence” is internal and a part of Grendel. It isn’t an external entity, and is perhaps a manifestation of Grendel’s own self-doubt. The presence responds with “Why not?” to Grendel’s thoughts about the Shaper’s influence and how the “Shaper could enrage [him] so.” It is almost as if Grendel is responding “Why not?” to his own thoughts and beliefs. The Shaper changes men. Why not? The Shaper changes Grendel. Why not? The Shaper changes the world. Why not? With all of the Shaper’s change, he becomes a new God or higher being for Grendel, which contrasts from Grendel’s existential theories. Thus, Grendel doubts his own theories and, as a result, doubts himself.

I always thought that a relationship between Nick and Offred would occur. It seemed so obvious that Atwood juxtaposes Offred’s relationship to Nick with Offred’s relationship with the Commander. I always thought that Offred feels something closer to love with Nick, while the Commander is simply her vessel into the previous world because she needs memories of the older world to survive. During the first time Nick and Offred have sex, Offred says “To cover up the sounds, which I am ashamed of making” (263). On the other hand, when Offred is alone with the Commander, she commands herself to “Fake it…Bestir yourself. Move your flesh around, breathe audibly” (255). Clearly, the physical aspect of Offred’s relationship with the Commander is not as fulfilling as the aspect is with Nick. Such a disparity between the same acts with different men arises from the presence of love. With Nick, she feels as if her act is shameful because it “is a betrayal” to Luke (263). She is started to fall in love with Nick, and the enjoyable sex with him simply confirms that love. In addition, Offred has sex with Nick in the section labeled “Night,” and night is the time of Offred’s freedom. However, she doesn’t feel like she is betraying Luke with the Commander because there aren’t any feelings of love involved in that relationship. Offred partly continues the relationship because the Commander has real power over her. She also needs the connection to the old world that the Commander gives her. However, sexually and spiritually, Offred is simply indifferent to the Commander as she “lies there like a dead bird” in the hotel room with him (225).

In addition, the flower imagery in this part is still ever-present. The most distinctive reference to flowers occurs with a reference to dandelions. Offred states, “Not a dandelion in sight here, the lawns are picked clean. I long for one, just one” (212). The choice of dandelion is very significant. First, dandelions are wild flowers that are very free, and their spread their seeds to a variety of places. Since there are no longer in Gilead, it seems has if there is no longer any freedom, and seeds aren’t spread to a variety of places. Instead, men and women alike must only give their seeds to the people that are assigned to them. Thus, the removal of the dandelions signals the removal of freedom. In addition, dandelions are considered weeds. As a result, the lack of dandelions shows that Gilead seeks to remove the weeds from there society.

Finally, I also want to consider the ending of The Handmaid’s Tale, which is pretty ambiguous and pretty frustrating. At the end, we don’t know whether or not Offred goes into the “darkness” or in the “light.” At first, I, like my Lit Circle members, believed that Offred would forever remain in darkness because she spiritually died in Gilead especially after Moira, her symbol for hope, eventually submits to the new society. Offred even says that Moira is frightening her. Throughout the whole novel, Offred alludes to Moira, and it seems that she is a beacon for strength, but the loss of strength proves to be frightening in the end. But then, I just have started to consider why Atwood would even give the possible of light or hope if there isn’t any in the first place. Perhaps, Offred’s encounters with Nick and secret conversations with Ofglen represent the renewal of life after Offred has been “freezing to death.” Maybe, Offred’s rebellion leads her to bigger and better things, and the light is finally within reach for her. I really want the light to be there for her.