A 6

I decided to make an eye. And then I decide to (sort of) write a poem.

I have come to associate “eyes” with recognition and realization, the theme of the TO courses we have taken this semester. Though we have discovered that the eyes lie or do not reveal a complete truth, they have been key images and figures in all of the works we have read. We encountered Frankenstein’s false dismissal of his monster because of the monster’s appearance—how Frankenstein only perceived through his eyes. Oedipus has no way of knowing that he has committed all of the atrocious acts like sleeping with his mother and killing his father. He saw his mother and father yet did not “realize” or “recognize” them as his relations. Eyes are what we, as humans, use to discern much meaning and implications. Often our eyes deceive us. Or, as it seems Shelley wants us to realize is that our reliance on our eyes is disproportionate. What the eyes can and cannot reveal is something I have found both interesting and complicated. I formed my eye by collaging various eyes from magazines. When I created my not-very-artistic eye, the isolated eyes, which I had cut from the glossy pages, became incredibly creepy. They just stared at me, and with no face to mellow out their intensity, I felt somewhat violated (not very, but still it was bizarre...) Perhaps I felt sort of like what the monster feels—under a microscope while being looked at unsympathetically. I didn’t feel satisfied with just the eye as my final product, which is what led me to the poem.
I attempted to rework one of my favorite poems, and a poem that we read this semester, e.e. cumming’s “anyone lived in a pretty how town.” I’ve tried to incorporate some of what we learned in class but also our class’s personality (including Ed) trying to form some sense out of a nonsensical set of words. I also tried to insert some humor in some of my stanzas since I feel e.e. cumings and Ed both realize the importance of humor even when dealing with serious topics. I feel how our class approached the material we covered had an enjoyable mix of serious intellectual study as well as humor, which is why it was so enjoyable.
Together the “eye” and the “poem” can communicate what I learned and appreciated about Core 111. I think our study of recognition and realization went beyond the sonnets and novels we read and “close read.” I think eventually, at least for me, I began to recognize certain weaknesses and strengths within my writing, and also to realize some weaknesses and strengths that I did not see in the beginning of the course (rather I did not know they existed in the first place.) I am now able to recognize and realize the growth I have made because of this class. I can now see with my eyes the abstract ideas that we so often discussed. The product is in the words. And in recognizing and realizing what I know and need to continue to uncover.

A6

The collage’s main focus merges two images: one of a handsome man and one of a horrifying monster - this is Frankenstein’s creation. These separate parts emphasize the creature’s humanlike characteristics as well as his monstrous characteristics. Some readers are able to identify with the monster as a human, which part of him is exemplified by his emotions and insecurities. Also, though distorted, Frankenstein’s creation contains the essential characteristics of a human: hair, eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. On both sides of the monster’s face, placed in the center of the collage, each of these parts is evident, all paralleling the half on the other side. Therefore, this monster would be classified as a human…for what other creature could he be classified as? However, this creation also has monster-like characteristics. For example, the wretch commits brutal killings to innocent people, drives Frankenstein to insanity, and harasses other humans. In addition, the monster’s yellow skin and huge stature separate him from the general population. The two different faces both merge and differentiate between the humanlike as well as the monster-like characteristics of Frankenstein’s creation.

In addition, the incongruity of the two pictures in creating a whole shows that the monster is not one entity but rather a corpse built of many different parts from many different people. In the collage, the faces do not line up perfectly, slightly distorting the character’s features. This distortion mirrors the monster’s described deformation and ugliness. The two-sided merge also exhibits how the creature is unrecognizable by humans, as one could not wholly describe the face neither through a description of a handsome man nor a description of a horrible monster.

The cut-out faces of people engulfing Frankenstein’s monster represent the different reactions of not only characters in the novel but also the different reactions of the readers. Some of the people’s images look fearful, some interested, and others sympathetic. Most characters in the novel instantly respond with horror, either attacking him or screaming with fear. For example, when Felix and Agatha find the monster hunched over their loved one, De Lacey, they instantly become both enraged and terrified. However, the readers are presented with many different views along with the series of narrators, differing their perceptions from those of the characters. In the eyes of the reader, the monster entertains more varied responses: revulsion from his evil, as well as sympathy for his rejection from society. In the faces of the people surrounding the monster’s contorted image in the collage, viewers can spot many different reactions in response to this figure.

Also, the positions of the surrounding images exemplify the varying recognitions of the characters in the novel. Some gazes are fixed on the monster, while others are looking in opposite directions, not able to directly see his form. Analogously, in Frankenstein, some characters come in direct contact with the monster, while others only hear second-hand stories about his malevolence. However, all images rest in the same plane as the monster, exemplifying his pervasiveness in affecting countless people.

Most importantly, this collage purely uses images to exhibit meaning; in Frankenstein, the monster’s image is the main source of reaction. Images communicate the inner workings of an object. In the collage, the images display the combination of characters (a human and a monster) to form the creation, the incongruity of its parts, and the reactions of readers and characters. Like the collage, the monster’s image exhibits his true self – which must, in fact, be horrifying.

A6

Our collage is a commentary on the conflicted identity of Frankenstein’s monster. We began with the composition of its face: the creature, in our representation, is half man and half monster. Frankenstein’s creation, in Shelley’s book, has many humanlike characteristics – he is an adept learner, he seems to feel humanlike emotions, and he is extremely perceptive. He is, however, fundamentally inhuman. On the technical level, he was not born of a human and therefore cannot be scientifically considered human. On a more figurative level, the world judges him, shuns him, and drives him to embrace inhumane characteristics.

Frankenstein’s monster is horribly misunderstood. When we observe his time at the DeLacey’s cottage, it is difficult not to sympathize with the creature. He simply wants to be loved and accepted. He is thrown into the world, knowing nothing, and abandoned by his creator. There is a lot to be said for his ability to learn so much so quickly by simply observing, with no teacher. He also shows a softer, more emotional – and therefore human – side, as he longs to be accepted by the DeLacey family. He further develops his humanity when he saves a drowning girl from a pond, though he is repaid by unkindness in the form of a gunshot. The human half of the face in our collage is representative of all of the undeniably human characteristics of the creature.

Despite his humanlike qualities, Frankenstein’s monster does also display many characteristics that seem monstrous. We get our first glimpse of his barbarity in the scene of William’s murder, and the monstrosity only escalates. After killing William – and also framing Justine for the murder, causing another innocent death – Frankenstein’s monster proceeds to kill Henry Clerval, a move which drives Victor Frankenstein to madness. And it doesn’t end there: just as he warned Frankenstein that he would be present on his “wedding night,” the creature ensures that Frankenstein will attain none of the happiness that should come with a marriage, as he murders Elizabeth on the night of their wedding. The creature then leads Frankenstein on a wild goose chase through horrible conditions, causing Victor Frankenstein’s already miserable life to end in frustration in the Arctic. The monstrous half of the creature’s face in our collage represents all of the creature’s unforgivable and inhumane actions.

The creature cannot be held fully accountable for its inhumane tendencies; the actions and the judgments that the world imposes lead to the inhumanity in his identity. We placed a collage of faces around the creature’s head to represent the judgment of the outside world. Despite any of his efforts to act like a human – for example, by learning to speak and read – Frankenstein’s monster cannot escape his monstrous appearance. Everywhere he goes, the world shuns him. When he is at the DeLacey’s, he is initially treated kindly by the father – but only because the father is blind. As soon as the monster is seen, he is met with unkindness and banished from the home. His appearance, rather than his internal characteristics, defines him in the eyes of the world. We covered the entire remainder of the page with faces to represent the breadth and the depth of the influence of the outside world in driving Frankenstein’s monster to his ultimate conflicting identity.

Meggie's Last Blog (YAY)

Freddy: [opening the door for her] Are you walking across the Park, Miss Doolittle? If so—
Liza: Walk! Not bloody likely. [Sensation]. I am going in a taxi. [She goes out].

Liza’s line in Act III shows Liza’s obliviousness to her to her own situation, as she speaks without class, yet still expects to take a taxi like a wealthy aristocrat. Despite her embarrassing speech just moments earlier, in which she reveals her father to be a drunkard— a society no-no, since the policy among the well-bred on these matters seemed to be don’t ask, don’t tell—she cannot fathom walking like an “average Joe.” Rather, she seems to believe her fresh, attractive appearance and (unbeknownst to her) incomplete transformation make her too good to appease the charmed Freddy. Ironically, she declines his innocent offer using the word “bloody,” which is frowned upon in the upper echelons of society. Obviously, she is still in awe that a taxi is even an available means of transportation for her, as she declares that she is “going in a taxi” with “sensation.” However, she does not understand that her previous secret-spilling and use of the word “bloody” would be frowned upon at all, showing that she is not truly ready to be of the taxi-class. First, a true society girl would not interrupt someone who was speaking to her. On top of that, her disregard for his kind offer is very rude, for even if she did not want to pursue anything romantic with him, the polite thing to do would be to allow him one walk home. Her words as she departs reveal not only that her transformation is not complete, but also her own obliviousness that it has not been completed. She desperately wants to be the type of woman who can take a taxi wherever she goes, but has not yet learned the societal subtleties that go along with that “privilege.” Liza’s line shows that her polished outward appearance does not reflect the lack of change within her.

Blog #11: Doolittle's Needs vs. Character

DOOLITTLE. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I dont eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything...I'm playing straight with you. I aint pretending to be deserving. I'm undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. (46)

Alfred Doolittle's views on Victorian class structure present the social condition of a poor man who does not strive for the rewarded pretensions of "middle class morality." His words appear at first to succumb to the very vices a man of his stature would espouse: greed, gluttony, drink, etc. But then he begins to describe pleasures any man would enjoy: activities to exercise his intellect, lift his spirits...but laments that they are just as or if not more difficult to obtain than his "deserving" counterparts. Because they are from time to time graced with the charity of a higher society that deems them deserving, these men are given a subsidy in life that a man like Doolittle doesn't receive, though they face similar financial troubles.

Doolittle, like any other man, aspires to the same life they do, but is put at a disadvantage because he has to work harder for it...all because he doesn't fit a mandated description of "deserving." What can he do? Doolittle is honest about his faults but the woman who receives "money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband" might not admit that she's been given too much. Doolittle puts forth conviction in his interests--he is who he is, and how can he help that? He argues that he will continue to be undeserving because he is upfront about himself, and what he receives (or doesn't) as a result is unfair because "middle class morality" controls the variable of an easier life: a nebulous construction of personal character as opposed to an inculpable financial plight. His statement implies that society should equate the undeserving and deserving on the basis of a man's concrete needs, not his character (which seems to hold no bearing on his wealth...look at Professor Higgins)--echoing Shaw's own socialist views and acting as his mouthpiece for social criticism.

Act 2, page 38

In response to Pickering's genuine concern for Liza's wellbeing, Higgins displays his ironically selfish appreciation for women.

Pickering worries that Higgins will take advantage of Liza's low status and desire to be taught, and he therefore tells him, "I shall feel responsible for that girl. I hope it's understood that no advantage is to be taken of her position."

Higgins' response initially indicates that he respects Liza. He says, "What! That thing! Sacred, I assure you." Because Pickering's line ended with "her position," it seems that the phrase "that thing" refers to it. Because her position is a thing, it is not disrespectful to label it as such, especially because after doing so, he calls it sacred. But as Higgins continues to speak, it becomes clear that "that thing" did not refer to the thing of "her position," but instead to the living person of Liza herself.

After calling the "thing" sacred, he, according to the stage directions, "ris[es] to explain" this claim. After doing so, he says, "You see, she'll be a pupil; and teaching would be impossible unless pupils were sacred." Because this is an explanation for why that thing is sacred, it must connect the two words. But his logic does not connect "her position" to sacredness. It labels her as a pupil and connects pupils to sacredness. Thus, this explanation proves that "that thing" actually refers to the first object in Pickering's line: that girl.

How is it that he both objectifies Liza and labels this object as sacred? The same sentence that connects sacredness to both Liza and the thing (and thus the two latter to each other) also explains how such connections can exist simultaneously. Teaching requires the existence of (the object of) a pupil. Pupils thus enable his profession and, according to him, therefore have value. This appreciation thus comes only from self-respect.

Shaw uses a pun to deepen this irony. Higgins begins by saying, "you see," and then uses a word for student that doubles as the part of the eye responsible for seeing: pupil. The pupil of the eye is inanimate--a "thing"--and yet, it is that which allows the eye to see. This represents how Higgins sees Liza as a thing and highlights that despite apparently being an object, she allows him to teach.

Pygmalion Blog

Page 99

LIZA. So you are a motor bus: all bounce and go, and no consideration for anyone . . .

In this passage, Liza’s comparison of Higgins to a motor bus runs deeper than the fact that buses come and go. Literally, a bus has several uses; most importantly, as a means of public transportation. Higgins, like a bus, picks Liza up from a lower class and, through helping her to master language, brings her to a higher status. But what he doesn’t understand is that one location does not substitute for another. Give a person a far enough destination and it becomes extremely difficult to return. By taking Liza and thrusting her into a completely different environment, he changes everything she knows and is used to. She is no longer a mere flower girl now that she has gained awareness of being a “lady,” and she knows this. Higgins, however, has no consideration for the consequences of his actions and therefore cannot comprehend Liza’s fear and uncertainty. On one hand, he does become emotionally attached to Liza, but without first understanding the consequences of “eating an orange and throwing the peel away,” he can never win her affections. To put it simply, he’s like a bus that picked Liza up in the middle of Compton, exposed her to the luxury of Beverly Hills, brought her back, and now expects her to make the trek from the ghetto by herself. In a Givenchy dress. And heels.

Blog 11

Mrs. Higgins: "She's a triumph of your art and of her dressmaker's; but if you suppose for a moment that she doesn't give herself away in every sentence she utters, you must be perfectly cracked about her." (page 64)

This passage is said by Mrs. Higgins and suggests that Mr. Higgins cannot fully change Liza. It is not how she looks or speaks; it is the things she says that give her away. Higgins was successful in making her look like a duchess, but he cannot truly make her become one. He taught her how to speak perfectly, but this is only an external quality. A common theme of the play is how Higgins gets obsessed with his “art” and forgets that Eliza is actually a real person. She is not an inanimate object; it is much more difficult to change how and what someone thinks than it is to change their appearance. He also admits to Mrs. Higgins that he is “inventing new Elizas” (65). He is molding her into whoever he wants her to be, and this diminishes her identity. Because it takes a lot of time to train someone’s brain to think in a different way, deep down she will still be Eliza Dolittle the flower girl. Liza can look and speak like a duchess, but Higgins cannot change her past. This play shows that appearance can be used to hide the truth and that what we see can deceive us. Similarly, Higgins is sometimes blind to the fact that what he is creating is not real, but artificial. The fact that even Higgins is fooled by is own creation emphasizes the power of external appearances in society.

"You see, we're all savages, more or less. We're supposed to be civilized and cultured – to know all about poetry and philosophy and art and science, and so on; but how many of us know even the meanings of these names? (to Miss Hill) What do you know of poetry? (to Mrs Hill) What do you know of science? (Indicating Freddy) What does he know of art or science or anything else? What the devil do you imagine I know of philosophy?

This passage concretes the author’s claim that all people are essentially equal. For example, Eliza transforms from a flower girl into an aristocrat; in much the same fashion, Higgins is raised as an aristocrat but has the manners of the lower class. Shaw emphasizes this point by the use of “we.” By using “we” instead of “I”, Higgins equivaltes himself to Miss Hill, Mrs Hill, and Freddy – and the rest of society. Furthermore, Higgins overuses rhetorical questioning to reiterate his claims, not only by introducing question after question but also by addressing different people. This passage also undermines the importance of socially defined intelligence, encompassing superficial knowledge of science, art, and philosophy.

Act 3, Line 179

“MRS. HIGGINS. You certainly are a pretty pair of babies, playing with your live doll."

The single line demonstrates the direct correlation the play has with the myth, Pygmalion. Higgins sculpts Eliza, re-shaping her speech and her dress to pass her as something she is not. Eliza is a pawn in Higgins and Pickering’s game; she is the subject of their bet. What Mrs. Higgins sees that the men do not is the humanity of Eliza. She sees the young girl who, when Higgins and Pickering have completed their experiment, will be left with nothing except a better pronunciation of vowels. The selfish pride that Higgins has is similar to the pride Pygmalion feels as an artist. While Pygmalion (creepily) played with a non-living doll, Higgins adjusts a real woman—a woman who he does not see as a woman but a project. Mrs. Higgins sees the problematic situation keenly. She watches the Pygmalion myth before her, and how this story cannot conclude with the same joy because the woman is real, not a sculpture of fantasy.

Bottom of Page 78. Speaker: Liza.

"I sold flowers. I didn't sell myself. Now youve made a lady of me I'm not fit to sell anything else. I wish youd left me where you found me."

On a perfunctory glance these lines simply point to the socialist, Marxist and anti-establishment social views held by Shaw. The equation between the materialization of the definition of social class and the selling of the soul is illustrated by the first two sentences. Then when Liza states, "I'm not fit to sell anything else", she emphasizes the elevation of the proletariat over the elite classes. But there are also more subtle references to other large themes within the play. The natural imagery is consistent with Higgins' preference for the natural self, the self that does not change its manners depending on its company, in other words the soul... an interesting paradox in light of the previous analysis of Liza's claim. The theme of location, and its ties to identity, is also highlighted in Liza's line: "I wish youd left me where you found me." Here use of "found" implies the location and is significant as "left me alone" would suffice as well. Location and geography relate to both Higgins' phonetic GPS abilities as well as the concept of rising or climbing in social class, notions that interestingly imply spatial maneuvering in artificial social concepts. Overall these lines represent a key paradox in the play: while we want to believe Liza and Higgins are meant for each other, two sides of the same coin, in fact the messages of the play are polarized depending upon which character the reader believes is "right" because the messages conflict too much for them both to be correct.

Last Blog!

Close read any passage from Pygmalion. Use this close reading to make one claim about the play.

Blog #10: The Monster's Reversals (Haiku)

Benevolence maimed:
The angel of death, turned, learns
Creator is Man

D'awwww Frankenstein

Sagging, sullen flesh

Jaundiced eyes and fearful form

Hide a beating heart.

Frankenstein Haiku

Call me a monster:

From a creature I'll become

What you say I am.

Meggie' Haiku

What is a creator?
Who's truly responsible
for the creation?

Haiku

Spare parts make a whole,
A repulsing miracle
Where do you belong?

Frankenstein Haiku

Cursed by creation

Alive but abandoned

Yearning for meaning