Is there Permanenance in Today’s Technology?

Technology is all around us in our society. Today, many turn to Google, Wikipedia, and other reference websites for answers. Besides just computers, technology is all around us; look at the device you use in order to get in touch with someone. The I-phone has turned into a world-wide sensation that millions have invested in, especially because of the phone’s lightning fast response time for efficient texting. In just the past not even thirty years, the portable phone was a clunky and rather unnecessary device. Before that, people used a house phone, and earlier, writing letters was the basis for even the most urgent messages. Texting has become the norm for communicating, leaving mail in the past. Now, a thought can be deleted with a stroke of a key, leaving many to wonder the permanence of a text. It can be said that letters have a sense of permanence, whereas texting lacks tangibility. Given the evolution of communication, many believe that we as a society are moving towards an environment in which technology rather than the written word is the basis for communication—with less permanence.

There seems to be a great deal of debate regarding the state of reading in our culture. Currently novels that were once “tangible” have now been converted into links via the internet. This change in appearance raises some questions about a novel’s status. But is it true that a novel which has been placed on cyberspace is now not entirely “permanent” due to its new form?

Birkerts argues that by placing a work on the internet, the work itself loses its permanence. “The configuration of impulses on a screen is not [a thing]-it is a manifestation, an indeterminate entity both particle and wave, an ectoplasmic arrival and departure,” (Birkerts, 154). I can make sense of Birkerts’ view from my personal experience. Just last semester I was required to write a lengthy paper for my sociology class. After extensive research and hard work, I was able to finish and decided to admire my work. Only three minutes into rereading the paper did I hit a key that ultimately deleted the draft forever, leaving me panic stricken and starting from scratch.

Although, yes, the paper was lost in that situation, it technically would not have if I just pressed the save button. Once something is saved on the internet, it is in fact permanent. Think about high school for a second, and the talks about the wonderful world of Facebook. For four years, teachers would preach about excluding any photos of illegal or improper activity from cyberspace because colleges and potential employers could discover the evidence at any time—now or in the future. Countless stories were recited; all ending the same way. Every person who pressed that save button did not realize that even though the pictures could be deleted from the initial site where they were posted, these photos could soon be beyond the student’s control. These photos could have already been imported to other places on the internet by friends—or enemies—without the student knowing. And so, such photos would still come to haunt the student.

Although many argue that the “outer garb” of a word depending on where it is placed changes its impulse of the meaning, it is not always true. “The same word, when it appears on the screen, must be received with a sense of its weightlessness- a weightlessness of presentation. The same sign but not the same,” (155). Birkerts states that if a word is used in a new medium, then the meaning of a word itself changes. But what would a hypertext of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” be considered? Even though it may be placed onto the internet, it still tells the exact same story. In fact, it is even easier to maneuver than in paperback. One can quickly and efficiently find a desired page, with the same information, word for word. The only real change is presentation. To create a hypertext requires skill and creativity, especially as is seen in “The Museum.” Adam Kenney is able to set up a variety of different ways to tell the exact same story. Although it may not be viewed as “permanent,” it still tells a story.

A problem, though, with the hypertexts is the distractions that they often cause.
Unlike “The Museum,” “The Dream Life of Letters” is one big distraction. The poem being told through animation is extremely creative and very well put together but lacks the ability to keep the reader focused. As I gaze at the screen, the lines of the poem float across the screen. As I stare at these lines, which are not conventionally flashed on the computer, I cannot help but have difficulties. As I attempt to read the first line, in which the words are presented in a circular fashion, I struggle to absorb their meaning and then somehow also take in the next few lines. Although familiar words are included in the poem, they are presented in a very untraditional fashion. The word “your” is displayed in an “internet slang” script, making it harder to read. One of the more difficult parts, however, is when the word “dream” is centered on the screen and then the word “Ream” keeps flashing through the “d” of “dream” in a half circle starting from the top to the bottom of the screen. If the poem was conventionally printed on paper, there would be much less of a distraction.

Although it is safe to say that technology is evolving rapidly and bringing inherent distractions with it, it is not entirely bad. Birkerts describes technology as being the “devil,” in the “Gutenberg Elegies” and claims that the devil is a suave individual luring man down a tiresome unknown path. Birkerts says that “the devil may himself be at the crossroads, but we have already picked our direction and started toward it,” (Birkerts, 220). I would not say that technology is this threatening, but I will say that it is definitely impacting our society. Just looking back at our history, we as a society have definitely come a very long way from using verbal speech as just our form of communication. I would like to think of technology as Birkerts describes as a “highway” or a “train station.” As people, we each have the choice to essentially board the train of technology. The question is if an individual will want to get on and use the new technology or not. Birkerts seems hesitant and almost unwilling to take a chance on riding this train, but the extent to what he makes technology a bad thing is a little extreme. Like Birkerts says about “permanence,” the different trains entering the train station come and go; there will not be just one.

Essentially, technology presents different complications. Due to our reliance on changing technology, we seem to lack the focus we once had and needed to complete even the most trivial tasks. Clearly, the permanence of art that once existed has disappeared as well. Hypertexts challenge our ability to block out distractions and to remember what we have read. Our experience with these hypertexts seems fleeting. Perhaps no ageless classics will emerge from this technology. However, they reflect our own hurried and distracted world. In that sense, like art of times past, they reflect the age in which they are written.

Rough Draft of Project #3

Technology is all around us in our society. Today, many turn to quick and efficient sites, including Google, Wikipedia, and other reference websites for answers. Besides computers, we reach for a variety of devices to entertain ourselves and communicate with others.  Look at the device you use to get in touch with someone else. The I-phone has turned into a world-wide sensation, which millions have invested in. Its portability and lightning fast response time and mind blowing applications have sent many people into a frenzy.  In fact, it seems many forget how recently people were using slower and simpler means to communicate. Only twenty years ago the mobile phone was a clunky and rather uncommon device. Before that, humans used a house phone, and even earlier writing letters was the basis for even the most urgent messages. This constant movement often keeps us from focusing on the task at hand. Concentration has almost disappeared, and multitasking has become a norm. Given this evolution, many believe that we as a society are moving towards an environment in which technology rather than the written word is the basis for human connection. As a result, some believe we have traded our patience and ability to focus for immediate and constant access to information.

Nicholas Carr gives an interesting perspective on this topic in “Is Google Making us Stupid.” Carr includes many of his own personal experiences to help bring his whole argument to light. He describes how his reading habits have suffered due to the technology that has come into our possession, “the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” In an attempt to read one article, he says he is constantly being side tracked, which Carr describes as “multi-tasking.” As he is trying to absorb the words, he says he becomes “fidgety” and lacks concentration as he skims over the designated work. While reading this first-hand account, I can’t help but relate to his battle. As I am bringing myself to finish this assignment now, I not only have Facebook up, but I am also playing music, and checking my I-phone for notifications. After every few sentences I find myself looking for silly excuses to waste my time and further delay my accomplishing the glog. It is not that I find the glog a source of pain but more that I am distracted by everything going on around me, mainly the technology at my disposal. It can be deduced from this account that since technology has developed, there is a certain patience that has been lost.

Birkerts would most likely agree with Carr when he states “our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” We as a generation read, but do not entirely comprehend what is being placed in front of us. But what Carr slightly expands on is how beneficial technology is to us, and Birkerts would find issue with this view. Birkerts would conclude that due to technology, there will no longer be a written word, which is not true. Today, textbooks are still required in schools and are largely popular among students. Staring at a computer for too long only strains my eyes and keeps me distracted. This isn’t to say that reading a novel in paperback is not distracting enough. As Carr states in his article, he has many issues concentrating while reading. It seems the mind wants to wander when staring at a page for a long enough time. There really is not a true distinction between reading a hypertext and a paperback novel. Still while one attempts to read a novel, there are distractions whether they be technological or not.

There seems to be a great deal of debate regarding the state of reading in our culture. Currently novels that were once “tangible” have now been converted into links via the internet. This change in appearance raises some questions about a novel’s status. But is it true that a novel which has been placed on cyberspace is now not entirely “permanent” due to its new form?

Birkerts argues that by placing a work on the internet, the work itself loses its permanence. “The configuration of impulses on a screen is not-it is a manifestation, an indeterminate entity both particle and wave, an ectoplasmic arrival and departure,” (154). I can make sense of Birkerts’ view from my personal experience. Just last semester I was enlisted to write a lengthy paper for my sociology class. After extensive research and hard work, I was able to finish and decided to admire my work. Only three minutes into rereading the paper did I hit a key that ultimately deleted the draft forever, leaving me panic stricken and starting from scratch.

Although, my paper was lost in that situation, it would not have disappeared if I had pressed the save button. Once something is saved on the internet, it is in fact permanent. Think about high school for a second, and the talks about the wonderful world of Facebook. For four years, teachers would preach about excluding any photos of illegal or improper activity from cyberspace because colleges and potential employers could discover the evidence at any time—now or in the future. Countless stories were recited; all ending the same way. Every person who pressed that save button did not realize that even though the pictures could be deleted from the initial site where they were posted, these photos could soon be beyond the student’s control. These photos could have already been imported to other places on the internet by friends—or enemies—without the student knowing. And so, such photos would still come to haunt the student.

Although many argue that the “outer garb” of a word, depending on where it is placed, changes its impulse of the meaning, this is not necessarily true. “The same word, when it appears on the screen, must be received with a sense of its weightlessness–a weightlessness of presentation. The same sign but not the same,” (155). Birkerts states that if a word is used in a new medium, then the meaning of the word itself changes. But what would a hypertext of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” be considered? Even though it may be placed onto the internet, it still tells the exact same story. In fact, it is even easier to maneuver than in paperback. One can quickly and efficiently find a desired page, with the same information, word for word. The only real change is presentation. To create a hypertext requires skill and creativity, especially as is seen in “The Museum.” Adam Kenney is able to set up a variety of different ways to tell the exact same story. Although it may not be viewed as “permanent,” it still tells a story, and it allows readers to access the story from a variety of points more effectively than it would in a paperback version.

A problem, though, with the hypertexts is the distractions that they often cause.
Unlike “The Museum,” “The Dream Life of Letters” is one big distraction. The poem being told through animation is extremely creative and skillfully structured but lacks the ability to keep the reader focused. As I gaze at the screen, the different lines of the poem float across the screen. As I stare at these lines, which are not conventionally flashed on the computer, I cannot help but have difficulties. As I attempt to read the first line, in which the words are presented in a circular fashion, I struggle to then absorb the meaning and then somehow also take in the next few lines. Then, specific words are included in the poem but presented in a very untraditional fashion. The word “your” was displayed in an “internet slang” script making it harder to read. One of the more difficult parts, however, is when the word “dream” was centered on the screen and then the word “Ream” kept flashing through the “d” of dream in a half circle starting from the top to the bottom of the screen. If the poem was conventionally written down on paper, there would be much less of a distraction. Instead of moving my eye across the poem on the printed page the way I might want to, this medium forces my eye to follow the animation. It changes my whole experience as a reader.

Although it is safe to say that technology is evolving rapidly, to the point of distractions arising from this change, it is not entirely bad. Birkerts describes technology as being the “devil” in the “Gutenberg Elegies” and claims that the devil is a suave individual luring man down a tiresome unknown path. Birkerts says that “the devil may himself be at the crossroads, but we have already picked our direction and started toward it,” (pg 220). I would not say that technology is this threatening, but I will say that it is definitely impacting our society. Looking back at our history, we as a society have definitely come a very long way from using the spoken word as our only form of communication. I would like to think of technology as Birkerts describes it, as a “highway” or a “train station.” Each individual has the choice to board the virtual train of technology. The question is whether one will want to get on and use the new technology or not. Birkerts seems hesitant and almost unwilling to take a chance on riding this train, but the extent to which he makes technology a bad thing is a little extreme. Like Birkerts says about “permanence,” the different trains entering the train station come and go; there will not be just one. Technology will keep changing whether one chooses to use it or not, and it may even change the way we think and the way in which we communicate. But technology is not the devil; it is our invention and is ultimately under our control.

Permanence is in the Eye of the Beholder

There seems to be a great deal of debate regarding the state of reading in our culture. Currently novels that were once “tangible” have now been converted into links via the internet. This change in appearance raises some questions about a novel’s status. But is it true that a novel which has been placed on cyberspace is now not entirely “permanent” due to its new form?

Birkerts argues that by placing a work on the internet, the work itself loses its permanence. “The configuration of impulses on a screen is not-it is a manifestation, an indeterminate entity both particle and wave, an ectoplasmic arrival and departure,” (154). I can make sense of Birkerts’ view from my personal experience. Just last semester I was enlisted to write a lengthy paper for my sociology class. After extensive research and hard work, I was able to finish and decided to admire my work. Only three minutes into rereading the paper did I hit a key that ultimately deleted the draft forever, leaving me panic stricken and starting from scratch.

Although, yes, the paper was lost in that situation, it technically would not have if I just pressed the save button. Once something is saved on the internet, it is in fact permanent. Think about high school for a second, and the talks about the wonderful world of Facebook. For four years, teachers would preach about excluding any photos of illegal or improper activity from cyberspace because colleges and potential employers could discover the evidence at any time—now or in the future. Countless stories were recited; all ending the same way. Every person who pressed that save button did not realize that even though the pictures could be deleted from the initial site where they were posted, these photos could soon be beyond the student’s control. These photos could have already been imported to other places on the internet by friends—or enemies—without the student knowing. And so, such photos would still come to haunt the student.

Although many argue that the “outer garb” of a word depending on where it is placed changes its impulse of the meaning, it does not necessarily. “The same word, when it appears on the screen, must be received with a sense of its weightlessness- a weightlessness of presentation. The same sign but not the same,” (155). Birkerts states that if a word is used in a new medium, then the meaning of a word itself changes. But what would a hypertext of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” be considered? Even though it may be placed onto the internet, it still tells the exact same story. In fact, it is even easier to maneuver than in paperback. One can quickly and efficiently find a desired page, with the same information, word for word. The only real change is presentation. To create a hypertext requires skill and creativity, especially as is seen in “The Museum.” Adam Kenney is able to set up a variety of different ways to tell the exact same story. Although it may not be viewed as “permanent,” it still tells a story.

Technology and Comprehension

Today, people around the globe rely on technology often just to get through their day. Many turn to quick and efficient online resources, such as Google, Wikipedia, and other reference websites for answers. They hunger for instant information about their medicine and their doctor’s reputation, their neighbor’s tax bill, movie trivia, and a recipe for tonight’s dinner.  Besides looking for answers to help us get through the day, we rely on technology to communicate with each other. Look at the device you use in order to get in touch with someone. The I-phone has turned into a world-wide sensation. Its portability and lightning fast response time and mind blowing applications have sent many people into a frenzy, waiting in line for hours to get the newest version. Many forget how people used to communicate. As recently as thirty years ago the portable phone was a clunky and rather unnecessary device. Before that, humans used a landline phone, and even earlier, writing letters was the basis for even the most urgent messages. Given this evolution, many believe that we as a society are moving towards an environment in which technology rather than the written word is the basis for communication.

Nicholas Carr gives an interesting perspective in “Is Google Making Us Stupid.” Carr includes many of his own personal experiences to help bring his whole argument to light. He describes how his reading habits have suffered due to new technology, “the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” In an attempt to read one article, he says he is constantly being side tracked, which Carr describes as “multi-tasking.” As he is trying to absorb the words, he says he becomes “fidgety” and lacks concentration as he skims over the designated work. While reading his first-hand account, I can’t help but relate to his battle. As I am bringing myself to finish this assignment now, I not only have Facebook up, but I am also playing music and checking my I-phone for notifications that may be related to this assignment. After every few sentences I find myself looking for silly excuses to waste my time and further keep myself from accomplishing the glog. It is not that I find the glog a source of pain but more that I am distracted by everything going on around me, mainly the technology at my disposal. It can be deduced from this account that since technology has developed, there is a certain patience that has been lost.

Birkerts would most likely agree with Carr when he states “our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” We, as a generation read, but do not entirely comprehend what is being placed in front of us. But what Carr slightly expands on is how beneficial technology is to us, and Birkerts would find issue with this stance. Birkerts would conclude that due to technology, there will no longer be a written word, which is not true. Today, textbooks are still required in schools and are largely popular among students. Staring at a computer for too long only strains my eyes and keeps me distracted.

Technology from Different Perspectives

In Marshall McLuhan’s, The Medium is the Massage, he confronts the idea of change in society. In McLuhan’s work, he concentrates especially on the development of technology and its impact, rather than the impact of history, on culture. The beginnings of the spoken word, the advancement to the written word, then finishing at what the written word has become today, are key points McLuhan considers.

In within just the first seventy-five pages, McLuhan discusses the extremely fast speed at which messages are sent and received. “We can no longer build serially, block-by-block, step-by-step, because instant communication insures that all factors of the environment and of experience coexist in a state of active interplay,” (63). McLuhan relates this to earlier history, such as 18^th century, when George Washington would remark about how he hadn’t heard from Franklin in over a year. Today, a year is considered almost an eternity. With our current state of technology, it is easy to click only a single button to send a message and then have it received in under a matter of only sixty seconds through cell phones. Media sites, including Facebook, make it extremely easy to keep tabs on friends and family. Birkerts would most likely agree with the statement McLuhan is making, but would later state how our growing reliance on these social media is taking away from human interaction outside of technology. I disagree, as a user of Facebook, I still participate in outside activities, such as volleyball. Although “my generation” may be more technologically savvy, it does not mean as a whole people my age are entirely wrapped up in technology. Technology today just makes social interactions much more efficient, especially in situations when spoken language cannot be used.

McLuhan also discusses how the earliest “technology” has evolved. Using the example of methods of communication, McLuhan delves into the idea of hearing and how it is applied. Homer’s, The Iliad, was the premier “encyclopedia” of ancient Greece. The work taught of the culture of the time period as well as traditions to be handed down. Various Greek philosophers including Plato and Homer describe how the spoken word is misused during their time period. Plato frowned upon the use of words in a musical form saying, “it discouraged disputation and argument,” (114). McLuhan even references the popular group, The Beatles, who “put on their environment,” (114), and seem to lack substance.  Birkerts would most likely agree with the statement that “our technology forces us to live mythically, but we continue to think fragmentarily, and on single, separate planes,” (114). There is the thought presented in the Gutenberg Elegies, that the written word has become essentially “dumbed down.” Birkerts argues that my generation cannot seem to comprehend works from earlier time periods and to him it is unsettling. His believed source of the problem stems from technology. I believe that the issues presented don’t stem from technology, but from the educators themselves.

How Hugo Parallels Frankenstein

In The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick, the main character, Hugo Cabret, an orphaned Parisian youth, has to maintain the clocks of a train station while attempting to complete an automaton. This automaton Hugo believes will release a hidden message that will bring him a step closer to figuring out the message that his father is trying to tell him. Building this automaton is not an easy task, though, and along the way he comes across many obstacles that he overcomes and bring him a step closer to his dream of magic.

Hugo parallels the character of Frankenstein in many different ways. Frankenstein was seduced by science, particularly the idea of creating life. He neglected his family and friends for years while studying at college in order to create a living being. Like Frankenstein, Hugo becomes obsessed with science. Hugo is enraptured with creating the automaton and bringing it to life. He spends most of his day tending to the clocks, but in his free time he keeps a journal with sketches of the automaton.  “Hugo had continued thinking about the note that it would eventually write. And the more he worked on the automaton, the more he came to believe something he knew was completely crazy. Hugo felt sure that the note was going to answer all his questions and tell him what to do now that he was alone. The note was going to save his life,” (132).

In contrast to Frankenstein, though, Hugo would achieve positive results in bringing the automaton to life. Hugo was able to uncover the past of the toy shop owner, Georges Melies, and restore “life” to the retired magician and filmmaker. “If you lose your purpose…it’s like you’re broken,” (374). The automaton was able to piece Melies back together and enable him to regain his well-deserved recognition. Unlike Hugo’s automaton, Frankenstein’s daemon created struggle and strife for Frankenstein. The daemon not only slaughtered Frankenstein’s best friend, Henry Clerval, he also murdered two of Frankenstein’s family members. Even more painfully, a family friend was wrongly blamed for the murder of Frankenstein’s brother. Ultimately the havoc that the daemon wreaked only resulted in Frankenstein deciding to dedicate the rest of his life to bringing an end to the life he so desperately wished to send into the world.

Despite their different outcomes, the stories of both Frankenstein and Hugo echo that of Prometheus. In the Greek myth, “Prometheus had created humankind out of mud, and then stolen fire from the gods as a gift for the people he had made, so they could survive,” (370). Hugo steals different items from Melies’s toy shop in order to create the automaton, including a toy wind up mouse. Frankenstein also corresponds to Prometheus in that he stole life from others in order to create the daemon. Physically, he took body parts from various cadavers so that the creature would have human-like qualities. As Shelley stated in her novel, Frankenstein is the story of the “The Modern Day Prometheus.”

Frankenstein Draft

My argument is the idea that Shelley incorported herself into her novel. She put part of her self as a “creator,” into the characters of Frankenstein and the daemon.

Mary Shelley is known as one of the premier female writers of her time, and her novel Frankenstein, which delved into the human psyche to the point of fear, is regarded as her greatest “project.” One of the first science fiction stories, this novel not only focuses on the surface story of creation gone wrong, but also on the hidden theme of the need to belong. Frankenstein reflects Shelley’s own personal experiences, alluding to her rather humble and difficult beginnings. Shelley was raised in a very unorthodox home with her father, William Goodwin. Goodwin was a former minister, who later became an atheist and was criticized for his writings on politics and ethics. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was also a “revolutionary” writer of her time. Wollstonecraft wrote many different works based on women’s rights and was a feminist. The marriage between the two created an interesting basis for Shelley’s early life. Shelley’s early adulthood was also very complicated. At a very young age she married Percy Shelley a poet, who was already married. Their marriage was frowned upon, and Percy was not always faithful, but he always encouraged Mary to live up to her family pedigree and produce written works. Besides the marital issues, Mary also endured a few miscarriages before she was eventually widowed. When Shelley wrote Frankenstein, based on her own experiences, Frankenstein and the daemon became symbols for the different traumas she endured.

Although Mary Shelley resisted writing autobiographical works, she did include many of her personal experiences in Frankenstein. “I did not make myself the heroine of my tales. Life appeared to me too commonplace an affair as I regarded myself,” (Shelley, 21). Many of the events that happened in Frankenstein paralleled the traumas that Shelley endured as a child. In fact, the daemon and Frankenstein may be seen as extensions of Shelley herself. Shelley never knew her mother, who died ten days after her birth, and was raised by her father and unresponsive stepmother. It is said “certainly Mary felt that the new Mrs. Goodwin resented her, and she may also have felt rather neglected,” (Shelley, 9). Like Shelley, the daemon lacked a mother figure and also a loving parent. After being created, the daemon was quickly abandoned by Frankenstein. Frankenstein reveled in the fact he created such a “hideous” being, but he soon shunned it and continually tried to escape the daemon’s presence. “Mingled with this horror, I felt the bitterness of disappointment; dreams that had been my food and pleasant rest for so long a space were now a hell to me; and the change was so rapid, the overthrow so complete!” (Shelley, 61). It can be interpreted that Shelley can identify with the daemon at this point in the novel. The daemon being brought to life represents the birth of a child, who is immediately plunged into rejection and abandonment. Given the circumstances of both Shelley and the daemon, the different obstacles that they survived follow them later into both of their lives.

Besides identifying herself with the daemon, Shelley incorporated a part of herself into Frankenstein. As a creator, Frankenstein gives life to a creature that he does not expect. Frankenstein originally devoted his existence to giving life to something that would defy science. “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should break through, and pour a torrent into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me,” (58). Frankenstein studied and was seduced by chemistry as well as the thought of life. He believed that this monster’s life would give him a sense of completeness, and so he risked his health and family in order to bring the daemon to life. “Every night I was oppressed by a slow fever, and I became nervous to a most painful degree; the fall of a leaf startled me, and I shunned my fellow-creatures as if I had been guilty of a crime,” (Shelley, 60). Similarly, Shelley approached the idea of writing the novel with the expectation of pure enjoyment. She would write out of leisure when visiting the shores of Scotland. Eventually her husband, who was intrigued by her family history, pushed her to publish the novel, before his death. “He was forever inciting me to obtain literary reputation, which even on my part cared for then, though since I have become infinitely indifferent to it,” ( Shelley, 21).By the end of this project, she was almost cursed by its existence. The novel inevitably became a reminder of her past, and in a way, it haunted her like the daemon ended up following Frankenstein to wreak havoc on Frankenstein’s life. “And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper,” (Shelley, 25).

Throughout Frankenstein, there is the recurring theme of “playing God.” Frankenstein is characterized as being the creator of a new life, the daemon. Frankenstein struggles with knowledge that he produced a monster, who inevitably continues to haunt him. When Frankenstein describes the falling of the leaf, it relates back to creation. Genesis tells the story of Adam and Eve, the first living beings that God placed on the planet. After Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge and “fallen” from grace, they hide their nakedness with leaves. Frankenstein seems to be equated with God in this allusion, and, like God, he is disappointed by his creation. “Oh! no mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch,” (Shelley, 61). Shelley can further be compared to both Frankenstein as well as God in Genesis. Initially, Shelley wrote her novel as a creative outlet, just a form of leisure for her time on the Scotland coast. After all the traumatic events that occurred during the time of writing this novel, Shelley realized the outcome of her publishing it. “I have affection for it, for it was the offspring of happier days, when death and grief were but words, which found no true echo in my heart,” (Shelley, 25).

Frankenstein further represents the ability to carry on after so much destruction has occurred in one’s life. Frankenstein himself continuously seeks retribution and hunts the daemon down to no end. The daemon, likewise, even after not receiving the mate he requested moves on. Although he wreaked havoc on Frankenstein’s life, the daemon eventually feels he has caused enough destruction and flees across the globe. Like Frankenstein and the daemon, Shelley also constantly fights to overcome the obstacles that are placed in her way. Even after one of the final blows, the death of her husband, she still carried on with her life. In her novel, as in her life, an intense yearning to find one’s place in the world, to belong and be accepted, plays out as a great animating force. It is as if the creation itself, whether the daemon or the novelist, has finally taken on the power to create a life of its own choosing.

My paper needs a bit of work on the last portion of the paper. The conclusion needs some more detail, and to be a little bit clearer. The last body paragraph needs to probably be a little more detailed. Overall, I think I chose pretty good quotes, which related to what I was saying. I may want to also think of a different way of writing my introduction.