Horror

Heart of Darkness, a novella written by Joseph Conrad, is a sort of monologue by a sailor named Marrow. Marrow’s Journey through the Congo left him In a very emotionally shaken state, as he witnessed multiple deaths, corpses, diseases, and other such calamities. But throughout all of this, Marrow fixates on the most elusive character, a European worshipped by the natives by the name of Kurt. Kurt is portrayed as a very talented man; owing his artistic, musical, and literary skills to a high upbringing in Europe. He later becomes known as also the most talented ivory exporter in the Congo as well.

Quartz’s death, the pinnacle of the novella, reveals to those reading that Kurt Is terrified, of what exactly Is uncertain, as he screams aloud “The Horror! The horror! ” (144) The most correct Interpretation of this statement would be that Quartz’s upbringing in Europe made him an ignorant and greedy man, and thus, when he travels to the Congo, leads him to become a tyrannical leader of both the company (for whom both Kurt and Mill work for) and the natives. Africa had only shown Kurt what was hidden within himself the entire time: A heart of darkness.

Kurt was most likely born with a predisposition to money in the same way a dowsing rod is predisposed to find water. Kurt was amazing at getting the ivory he needs, needs, and not wants, as when Marrow first speaks to Quartz’s caretaker in the Jungle, the caretaker mentions that “[Kurt] would shoot [him] unless [he] gave him the ivory,” Ivory given to Quartz’s caretaker as a gift for hunting big game. The well-to-do Kurt had his normal personality slowly corroded by his experiences In the Jungle, but these experiences all Involved a commodity collected for vanity purposes.

Seeking the class and supposed money he once had, Kurt turns to ivory as an addiction and a symbol of his new found wealth. European Society normal effects on Kurt have no hold over him any longer, and thus his true animal does show. Masked under titles such as artist, writer, and musician, Kurt had been noted as no such “ordinary man,” (125) and yet, surprisingly, these remnants of his past life follow him Into the Congo, but are no longer apart of himself; Rupee’s grasp over his mind Is released and allows him to become Just another “savage. “

Quartz’s hoarding of ivory is completely trivial; he has no real use for it, but became addicted to the prospect of gathering more and more, as if ivory were some sort of drug. Though he works for the company, whose goal it was to gather as much ivory as possible, Kurt still does not send his stockpile of Ivory to their base of operations, and therefore does not get paid, meaning Kurt had only his hut and his Ivory to his name. But because Europe values ivory, and Kurt is the epitome of all that is European, he is mentally wired to gather as much ivory as possible and keep it to myself.

He even went so far as to slaughter enemies of a certain African tribe only so that they may assist him in his conquest for ivory. He would stop at nothing to get even the smallest amount of ivory, and it was this untamed lust which drives him to lose sight of everything but the dead-elephant tusks. His mind Is gone, and the cause time. Being that “All of Europe contributed to the making” (117) of Kurt, it is not difficult to see why both Kurt and Europe want all the ivory to themselves, and will go to any means to do so.

While Kurt threatens the lives of others, Europe sends people Just like Kurt, but with much less of a relevant backstops, into the Congo to also aid in taking down the most dangerous animal in Africa for a cosmetic object of appeal. Quartz’s famous finals words, “The horror! The horror! ” (144) point to him finally having his moment of enlightenment, as he “cried in a whisper at some knowledge[… ] at some image, at some vision[. ]” His realization being that his true being shone through only because of Rupee’s abandonment of Kurt. He was fully nurtured there, made to think like aristocrats in a logical way.

But once Kurt had been hung UT to dry in the Congo, he lost that sense of care and safety, and also his logic, only to be left with his emotional reactions to each situation he encounters. In his final moments, Kurt had finally regained a sense of this logic and realized what he had become because of Rupee’s twisted grip on his being. He realizes how terrible his late existence is because of what level he had sunken to; the level of a savage. Oblivious to his surroundings he says “the horror” twice, twice to reiterate Just how terrible of a person he had always been but did not now.

The first cry was a allegation, the second, an acceptance of the truth. In summary, Kurt begins his life with a heart of darkness and carries it with him subtly until reaching the Congo, where he is then unbound and permitted to act how he pleased without any intervention from Europe. He only realizes how terrible he had always been moments before death, and how Europe had kept his darker side chained up like a punished dog. Europe made Kurt a time bomb, ready to blow up at any moment. And when Kurt does finally blow, he shows not the well-educated, proper Kurt of Europe, but rather a parallel, the Kurt with a blazing heart of

Characteristics of the Postmodern Horror Film In our world today, box offices are flooded with giddy teenagers seeking a thrill from horror movies. Horror movies date back all the way to the 1890’s so what is it exactly that keeps viewers wanting more? According to Isabel Cristina Pinedo, there are four key elements to the success of the contemporary horror film. Today’s successful films constitute a violent disruption of the everyday world, transgress and violate boundaries, throw into question the validity of rationality, and repudiate narrative closure.

The movie Final Destination (2000) is a more recent horror film that consists of three out of four of Pinedo’s elements. While the movie does not apply to all four elements, the characteristics of the three present are strong enough to allow the film to still be considered a horror film. Final Destination is loaded with scare tactics that closely resemble the characteristics described by Pinedo. The film is based off of a series of deaths that are unexplainable and unpredictable, matching the first element of characteristics of the postmodern horror, “horror constitutes a violent disruption of the everyday world” (Pinedo 17).

More specifically relating to this element are the mysterious tragedies that take place throughout Final Destination. In this film death comes at random times violating “our assumption that we live in a predictable, routinized world by demonstrating that we live in a minefield” (18). Death is just that, a minefield. The characters feel they have no control over their lives because while Alex, the main character, figures out that there is an order to these deaths, nobody is certain exactly when their time will come. Also contributing to the students’ constant fear is the way the deaths are occurring.

One boy, Todd slips in the bathroom and is accidentally hung from the shower clothesline, another girl, Terry, is hit in the middle of town by a speeding bus, and a teacher is killed from an unlikely house explosion. All three deaths treat “violence as a constituent element of everyday life” (18). The incidents occur in ordinary settings involving items typically used on a daily basis, creating fear that one cannot escape. Not only are the deaths strange, they are extremely violent and gory. Pinedo states, “the disruption takes the form of physical violence against the body” (18).

Blood is prominent in the death scenes as well as mutilation of the bodies with the use of sharp objects, knives, electrocution, and hanging. Pinedo’s idea that death can happen anywhere does not lack in this movie and the realistic gore provides more evidence to support the idea that this film is without a doubt, a horror film. In horror films, confusion is a great way to create even more fear. The deaths in Final Destination are dramatic and in our world unheard of and fall right into place when exploring Pinedo’s characteristics of recreational terror.

The way these deaths happen “[throw] into question the validity of rationality” (17). The concept of irrationality is Pinedo’s third element and is huge in her eyes. She claims “characters who survive must come to terms not only with the irrationality of the situation but also with their own ability to be as single-mindedly destructive as the monster” (24). Final Destination begins with Alex and his classmates boarding a plane for a school trip however, that trip is short-lived due to a fatal explosion that oddly enough, Alex had already seen in a terrifying premonition.

Alex’s premonition makes little to no sense but he chooses to believe it and is able to cheat death. This is just as Pinedo explains. The rationality of Alex’s world is gone and his premonition leaves him to wonder what is true in his life. The other characters throughout the movie continue to think Alex is crazy for having these ideas that death is following them. They “insist upon rational explanations in the face of evidence that does not lend itself to rationality [and] are destined to become victims of the monster” (24).

Throughout the movie Alex makes it very clear that he believes there is a specific time and place for each character’s death. Alex does not doubt himself or his premonition once and is able to remain alive until the end of the film. This is just what Pinedo means when she claims “the ones that survive necessarily suspend their rational presuppositions and trust their gut instinct” (24). There may be a more realistic explanation for these deaths or, there may be no explanation at all but one thing is for sure: the characters who choose to not believe anything at all is happening, are dead by the end of the movie.

In this film Alex would be considered the protagonist or the hero. When discussing the hero, Pinedo claims, “postmodern horror compels its hero…to rely on intuition; it requires [the protagonist and the monster] to be both violent and to trust their gut instincts” (25). Alex fights hard to get the others to believe in his original premonition as he tries to stop the order in which it will come. He figures out who is next on the list and uses all power to save the remaining students. Generally speaking, the most important part of a horror film is the ending.

Viewers wait on the edge of their seats in fear that the protagonist will not prevail. However according to Pinedo’s fourth element of postmodern horror, it “repudiates narrative closure” meaning that “the film may come to an end, but it is open ending” (29). Throughout Final Destination viewers watch Alex try to solve the mystery of death. At one point in the movie, Alex and his friend visit their late classmate Todd where a mortician tells them “in death there are no accidents, no coincidences, no mishaps, and no escapes…we’re all just a mouse that a cat has by the tail. Alex is certain that now that he knows death has a plan, he will be able to solve the pattern within his high school. Although, by the end of the movie, there is still no resolution. Death continues to seek prey and “we are left with this open ending, unable to determine where the nightmare begins or ends, or whether it ends at all” (33). Alex cheats death one more time and the remaining students are finally able to take their trip to Paris but in the final scene of the movie a hotel sign swings down and comes right for Alex’s head. The audience never does find out whether or not Alex survived or if death is stopped.

Pinedo is right on target with this element and this horror film almost identically matches her characteristics. Violence is a concept easily recognizable in this film, however, does not seem to directly follow what Pinedo describes as “horror transgresses and violates boundaries” (17) where she goes into depth about the importance of a specific monster. Pinedo states “the monster violates the boundaries of the body in a two-fold manner: through the use of violence against other bodies…and through the disruptive qualities of its own body” (21).

In Final Destination the monster is unexplainable. The “monster”, death, does use violence against other bodies by murdering the students in very violent manners although it does not disrupt through the use of its own body. The feared “monster” in Final Destination does not come in a physical form thus creating a more complex mystery for the characters without harming itself. Another point Pinedo makes is that “it is only when the monster is truly dead and subject to decay that it ceases to threaten the social order” (22).

Because death is the monster in this movie and is not an animate object, it is unable to be subject to decay. Alex discovers that if the order of death is disturbed, the pattern will be rearranged and he who cheated death is placed at the end of the list instead. He seems to have accomplished total destruction of the “monster” by solving its mysterious death pattern however, alive or dead, it is impossible to avoid threat to the social order thus proving Pinedo’s point incorrect in this case.

In classical horror films an audience got a little scare yet left the theater with the comfort of a closed ending. As discussed in Pinedo’s fourth element of postmodern horror, movies today leave their viewers wondering what will happen next. Perhaps the fourth element is the most important because it is what follows the audience into their everyday lives. A successful horror film gives the viewer a chilling fright and then leaves an impact on their life after the final scene.

It is those movies that leave us afraid to look under the bed, afraid to walk alone at night, or afraid of certain sounds and images. Pinedo does an excellent job of going into detail about well-done modern horror films. Although, Final Destination does follow Pinedo’s characteristics and leaves viewers with one agonizing question: Can you cheat death? Works Cited Final Destination. James Wong. New Line Cinema, 2000. Film. Pinedo, Isabel Cristina. Recreational Terror. Albany: State U of New York P, 1997. Print.

Angela L. Rhea Professor Mack ENGL-2327-XQ2 American Literature I February 28, 2013 The Narrative Technique of Poe’s Horror Stories Edgar Allan Poe writes “The Black Cat” (695) and “The Tell Tale Heart” (691) in a narrative voice. In writing the stories he uses the narrator to tell about what happened and the acts that were involved when he did what he did. When telling the stories in first person as Poe did, it is hard to determine the real from the false in this type of narrative, as it was with Poe too. He told his stories from the mind of a madman, per se.

He tells both stories from the mind of a mentally ill person or from a diseased mind as in “The Tell-Tale Heart”. The disease had sharpened my senses, not destroyed, not dulled them. (The Tell Tale Hears, 692)He talks about his disease, referring to his alcoholism being a mental disease. He proves many times throughout the story that he is a mad man. He talks about killing the old man because his eye reminded him of a bird, just the craziness of the human psyche. Poe has a way of showing and defining the human psyche in a demonic fashion.

And yet at the same time act like he is not mad and that is what any normal person would do if they are bothered by something or someone. And he shows realism in doing these acts because of how he shows the human emotion in “The Tell Tale Heart”: “Yet for some minutes longer, I refrained and kept still. But the beating grew louder, louder! I thought the hear must burst. (The Tell Tale Heart, 693) When he was describing the guilt he had after killing the man. He thought it was his heart beating when in fact; it was his own heart pounding and pounding.

These events support the idea that he is mad and confirms the fact that we do not know the reliability of the story at all. Edgar Allan Poe chose to tell his stories the way he did so that he would give the impression that he was not trustworthy. This works towards his efforts and would not be the same if told in present tense. Knowing this helps with the message of the story the author is trying to get across as in “The Black Cat”, “For the most wild, yet most homely narrative, which I am about to pen, I neither expect nor solicit belief. (The Black Cat, 695) Here at the beginning of the story he leaves you wondering about the credibility of the details and curious if you can trust his story. Edgar Allan Poe wants us to experience the mystery and the climax and surprise that he presents in telling the story. He will start the story with what seems to be a hint of honesty. In “The Black Cat”, he tells you about his childhood, “From my infancy I was noted for the docility and humanity of my disposition. My tenderness of heart was even so conspicuous as to make me the jest of my companions. (695) Then he immediately tells you of his alcoholism in “The Tell Tale Heart”. Poe does not suggest that any of this would label him as a mad man. He is all to proud of himself on how he was able to come up with the plot in “The Tell Tale Heart” when he stated, “You should have see how wisely I proceeded with what caution, with what foresight, wit what dissimulation I went to work! ” Poe uses the narration to build up the suspense of the stories and how his human nature was pushed to the limits with the old man’s eye and with the black cat and the return of the black cat.

He builds up the suspense and then leaves you a bit feeling sorry for him and trying to understand why he did what he did. Then he goes on to act like he has no feeling whatsoever about the killings. The he is almost justified, I mean, wouldn’t you be if you were him? And then human again as he narrates the apparent guilt he felt over the acts as being the key that ultimately got him caught. His mind played tricks on him and he didn’t notice it. http://www. sparknotes. com/lit/poestories/section8. rhtml MLA Citation “The Narrative Technique Of Edgar Allan Poe”. Anti Essays. 28 Feb. 2013

Schlenz 1 Jarid Schlenz Professor Fahey English 1A 13 October 2011 Scary, creepy, and downright disturbing images have existed in film, art, and literature as long as we have had the ability to invent them, perceive them and construct them. Not only have they simply existed, but they permeate these mediums: “horror has become a staple across contemporary art forms, popular and otherwise, spawning vampires, trolls, gremlins, zombies, werewolves, demonically possessed children, space monsters of all sizes, ghosts, and other unnameable concoctions” (Carroll, 51).

Horror is easily accessible to appease a growing appetite for scary in society. But why? Why would we want to put ourselves through the terror and agony of sitting on the edge of our seats, heart racing, sweaty palms, eyes squinted? It is one of the most frightening experiences to be at the mercy of someone or something else, yet we do it constantly and voluntarily. One of the reasons why we may feel the need to watch this genre of movie is to simply gain the excitement of living on the edge. Another may include the curiosity of the unknown, the unexpected, and the unseen, all of which are elements that that make a good horror movie good.

While at the same time there is a need to watch others feel helpless, act under pressure and deal with the. Even the appeal of seeing a new creature or monster brings people to watch horror movies. But the unifying pull lies in the ability of experiencing something new without losing control. Schlenz 2 One reason often used to explain the desire and need to watch horror movies stems from physical reactions. There is the appeal of the adrenaline rush, which gives horror movies the same draw as a roller coaster at a theme park.

The difference, however, is that horror movies lack the real danger of things that normally give humans an adrenaline rush. Even a roller coaster, which simulates deathly falls and flying at incredible speeds, contains the real danger of death if it malfunctions. But the act of watching a movie contains no danger. Still, “when people watch horrific images, their heartbeat increases as much as 15 beats per minute… their palms sweat, their skin temperature drops several degrees, their muscles tense, and their blood pressure spikes” (Sine, 2). The affects of the scenes people watch are there, without any of the actual danger.

This allows people to experience the thrill, high energy, and, perhaps, new sensations of being out of control, without ever relinquishing control of their surroundings and lives. More than just physical reactions, though, horror equally appeals to and disturbs the mind. One of the primary appeals, mentally, about horror is the unknown. The unknown, unexpected, and unseen disturb our sense of safety and comfort and our ideas of how the world should work. They take away the rules we use to deal with reality and make the familiar become unfamiliar. In the unknown anything could happen and anything could emerge from the darkness.

The unknown takes away control, but it also excites curiosity. Our imaginations are so quick to run away with what is being presented to us that we are left clinging to our seats in desperation. Everything known comes from the unknown so it has an endless power to keep our attention. With our attention captive, and our minds guessing, the unknown allows movies to employ shock. Our stomach plummets when the killer rises again after being smashed in the head, shot, and pushed down the stairs. Unnatural creatures and occurrences make us feel uncomfortable and Schlenz 3 confused.

This is sometimes referred to as the “shock horror,” or the “employment of graphic, visceral shock to access the historical substrate of traumatic experience” (Lowenstein, 37). Shock horror intensifies the adrenaline and physical reactions to horror by engaging the mind as well. Many movies also combine shock horror with a sense of surrealism. The surrealist movement in art and film takes the familiar and adds a sense of distortion or unknown. Surrealism “might be better understood as a violent, embodied assault on the social structures propping up modernity,” (Lowenstein, 37).

Again, people are drawn in by curiosity, captivated by the unknown aspect of surrealist images, and horrified by the results. When you watch a horror movie, most of the time you start to feel compassion for the victim and start to wonder how you would handle the situation and what you would do differently. It is hard to watch a horror movie and not get emotional as you start to ponder these questions and then feel sorry for the victim for having to go through the traumatic ordeal. A feeling of helplessness is usually portrayed to the audience and nothing could possibly feel worse than the inability to affect your own fate.

In horror movies there is a complete lack of power on the victim’s part, they are going to die, the question is when. We can relate to the anguish of helplessness as we all have felt helpless at times. The victims in horror movies are typically helpless because they are under so much pressure. With the slow build of tension becomes the increasing need to do something. When we see a character buckle under the pressure we feel some king of affection for them and when we see the characters rise under pressure you feel yourself urging them on.

Pressure combined with urgency can push a character to accomplish great feats. When we begin to sympathize with the victims or characters the movie can become quite intense. With danger comes a heightened awareness that enhances all emotions, positive Schlenz 4 and negative, drawing attention to every detail. The threat of death often drives people to celebrate life, so we see romance running hand and hand with horror at times. Intensity of emotion and sensation drowns out common sense and this overloading of the senses can appeal to those used to living calmer lives.

Horror movies have the ability to scare you half to death and after watching a horror movie one know that there is no way that they am going to sleep for at least another few hours. A horror movie works by engaging a basic defense mechanism; if there’s something out there to get you, you don’t let your guard down, and you certainly don’t shut off your brain for a few hours. You know that it was just a movie, but some part of your brain, perhaps the part that has the fight or flight reflex, keeps telling you that you are not going to sleep yet, it isn’t safe and that there is something strange in the corner of your room.

You know that it is just your coat but you can’t seem to convince yourself, it wasn’t there last night, you don’t even remember putting it there. Eventually you get up and turn the lights on, confirm that it was just your coat and put it away in the closet. However, you are still not safe because now your brain has fixated on something else. Don’t be embarrassed to feel this way. No matter how scared someone gets when they watch horror movies they are still compelled to watch another one. One enjoys pushing their limits and finding out just what they can stomach is an intense adrenaline rush.

Being scared is fun but only as long as they know that in a few hours it will all be over and they will come out alive and unharmed. Schlenz 5 Works Cited Lowenstein, Adam. Films without a Face: Shock Horror in the Cinema of Georges Franju. University of Texas Press, 1998. Carroll, Noel. “The Nature of Horror” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Blackwell Publishing, 1987 Briefel, Aviva. “Monster Pains” Film Quarterly. University of California Press. Spring 2005 Sine, Richard. “Why We love Scary Movies. ” October 8, 2011.

Many great novels act as representations of their age and time, and of the way in which people thought of themselves in relation to their world. Novels which are set in a particular place and time are generally involved with the major upheavals of their society, to some extent or other. The novel is capable of richly alluding to the general aspirations, perceptions, the general world-view as well as what people think they know about how the world they live in has come about.

In this respect, for instance, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which are seemingly poles apart in their style and content, serve a similar purpose: the former is concerned to evaluate the currents of change of its time as much as the latter is inspired by the revolutionary developments of knowledge of the contemporary world (Walder 135). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus (1818) certainly seems to be entirely derived from a dream or nightmare, something very unlikely to have happened to somebody in real life.

True, some novels can seem to be more fictitious than others, and Frankenstein had been a novel in fictional category of its own. With her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, at the age of 20, in fact inadvertently invented a revolutionary whole new genre of fiction which hardly existed before her time, namely science fiction. In this sense, Frankenstein may not be representative of real life, and yet it was representative of an emerging new paradigm of scientific thinking in her time, during the first decades of the nineteenth century.

Frankenstein is generally regarded as representative of over-the-top fiction, with man acting as God, dead bodies coming to life, monsters, murder and mayhem — yet we will here argue that there is a great degree of realism in this quintessential fantasy story of the early nineteenth century. The every-day realism in Frankenstein is deftly combined with elements of a prevalent genre called Gothic, which more suited Mary Shelley’s soaring imaginings. For instance, in the Gothic novel, one story is often nestled within another and large sections of the narrative come out as a tale told by one character to another.

In this and many other senses, Frankenstein follows many rules and conventions typical of the Gothic genre. At the core of the novel is the story told by the “creature” that exists within the story told by the scientist Frankenstein, which is within the story told by the explorer, Walton (Allen 63). Yet this is no regular horror tale. Though it certainly created one of the two enduring “monsters” of all time in English Fiction, this is not a monster tale in any real sense either.

Frankenstein’s creature, though labeled a monster, cannot be considered a monster, with any true justification, on par with other popular monsters such as Dracula or Godzilla. Frankenstein’s creature is a noble savage, and if anything, is sometimes more human than most humans. For instance, in the most recent revival of Frankenstein’s creature on Hollywood Screen, he sides with the eponymous human protagonist, Van Helsing, to battle against Count Dracula and his forces of darkness. Frankenstein’s creature embodies the quintessential human spirit and human longings.

In a similar way, though being part of the Gothic fantasy tradition, and the most significant harbinger of perhaps the most highly imaginative genre of fiction, besides referring to a Greek myth in its sub-title, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein embodies a little of the spirit, the longings and fears of her age. Frankenstein’s 1818 preface makes a clear distinction between its scientific plot, which was inspired by the scientific leanings of the time, and the more easily recognized action in the vein of Gothic fiction: “I have not considered myself as merely weaving a series of supernatural terrors.

The event on which the interest of the story depends is exempt from the disadvantages of a mere tale of spectres or enchantment. (Shelley 47)” In truth, Frankenstein’s claim to originality lies in its defiant rejection of the supernatural (Alkon 2). Thus, though often regarded as a fabulous flight of fancy, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein contains a powerful dose of realism, as opposed to supernaturalism, symbolism, or pure fantasy, at its core. But much more importantly, for the first time in the history of literature, it seeks out a new scientifically based vision of reality.

By attempting to transpose the status of creator from God to man, and the secularization of the means of creation from the realm of miracles to the arena of science (Levine 27), Frankenstein offered a drastically new way of looking at our world that is devoid of supernaturalism or fantasy. Thus Frankenstein is not only a product of what is known as “realistic imagination,” but presents a deeper understanding of reality more in keeping with the then rather newly emerging scientific mode of thinking.

Terror remains a predominant element, an effect Mary Shelley avowedly sought to create, in the novel, yet it is by no means of a supernatural variety, as for instance in its counterpart Bram Stoker’s Dracula (or even Dracula’s progenitor Byron’s Vampyre which was incidentally created during the same occasion that spurred the creating of Frankenstein). The fright factor in the novel is implemented through natural means involving science and human psychology.

Thus, although affiliated to the accepted Gothic norms and forms of creating a “ghost story,” Frankenstein’s essential realism validates its claim to novelty. The fear that Frankenstein evokes is not one of a spooky, instinctive kind, but rather of more thoughtful and plausible nature. Frankenstein succeeds in inspiring awe and reverence for greatness of ambition, and yet at the same time instills a healthy level of fear and distrust of those who act on it rather blindly.

The ambition of the novel’s protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, that of recreating a living intelligent human form, may seem fantastic to us, yet it was by no means wholly outlandish by the standards of the time, the early nineteenth century being an extravagantly ambitious era when literally almost everything was considered possible by means of science. Great ambitions can succeed in the realization of great dreams, but they can also result in bringing to life unspeakable nightmares.

Thus, though Mary Shelley may have worked on to create a conspicuous element of stark horror merely for the sake of sensationalism, in conforming with the purposes of “ghost story” genre, the fears that Frankenstein gives expression to are more like warnings of consequences when great ambitions take a wrong track or are pursued without sufficient foresight. Alkon observes that: A looming problem for writers in the nineteenth century was how to achieve sublimity without recourse to the supernatural….

The supernatural marvels that had been a staple of epic and lesser forms from Homeric times would no longer do as the best sources of sublimity. Although ghost stories and related Gothic fantasies were to prove surprisingly viable right through the twentieth century, perhaps because they offer respite from the omnipresence of technology, writers sought new forms that could better accommodate the impact of science. Epics were displaced by realistic novels of quotidian life (2). . Fantasy tales normally act as a means of escape from the tyranny of every-day reality.

However the advent and advancement of modern science was making the routine world that we take for granted a place of exhilarating possibilities and endless adventure. There was no need for an escape from our familiar world to seek thrill, excitement and “sublimity” anymore. Science made our every-day world hot and happening. At the same time, the phenomenal progress and promise of science was bound to raise many fears and concerns in the thinker and common man alike, then as much as now.

Frankenstein reflects the dominant theme of a quest for adventure and accomplishment, along with hopes and fears about how far we are willing to go in our relentless pursuit of scientific accomplishment. A significant achievement of Frankenstein lies in the fact that it became a trend-setter in a movement that was to bring more style and substance based on considerations of real-life world into the art form of the novel.

However the most sublime virtue of Mary Shelley’s novel is that it goes beyond even realism into the world of deeper and timeless truths about human existence. The subtitle of the novel, “The Modern Prometheus” says it all. In the summer of 1816, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin had been living with Percy Shelley for two years, going through ordeals and troubled times together. During this particular period they found themselves settled in Geneva, amidst the natural splendor of Alps, as well as in the stimulating company of Bryon.

The origins of Frankenstein can be traced back to the rambling night conversations between these three luminaries, which must have presumably ranged from gothic terrors to galvanism, touching upon the prevalent theories of electricity and the origin of life. However, the fact that the three of them were to compose a major work with Prometheus in or as the title, that very same year, is a clear indicator that the myth of Prometheus and its significance should have been one of the major topics of their conversations.

The subtitle of the novel Frankenstein, alluding to the myth of Prometheus, indeed holds an essential clue as to the original intent and purport of the author (Joseph v). Metarealism, for our present purposes, can be defined as the externalization of interior realities that are transformed into mystical or mythological metaphors. In this sense, transcending the particular context of its contemporary time, Frankenstein becomes a myth and a metaphor for human existence and evolution as such.

Prometheus is generally portrayed as the suffering champion of mankind, but in Mary Shelley’s novel, in the form of Victor Frankenstein, he becomes a creator. The vital spark of fire that Prometheus stole from gods to give it to mortals for their use, and for which he is eternally condemned, is often equated with the spark of creativity in humans. As expressed via the means of science, our creativity can exalt us to the status of gods; at the same time, there is an intrinsic danger that it can cast us into eternal perdition.

Almost two hundred after impetuously and almost naively suggested by Mary Shelley, notwithstanding the realistic scientific garb she wanted to give it, the prospect of us humans creating synthetic and intelligent life would come very close to reality in the years to come, thanks not the miracles of electricity, as depicted in the novel, but to the marvels of genetic engineering. However, the murder and mayhem unleashed by Frankenstein’s creature could pale into utter insignificance when compared to the horrors that could be visited upon us by extremely advanced technologies of tomorrow, especially genetic engineering.

The lot that fell upon Victor Frankenstein could in all probability be the fate of mankind in the near future. Mary Shelley attempted to make what was essentially a gothic fantasy sound closer to our real world, but most ironically, our real world is all poised to assume the weirdness and surrealism of a gothic fantasy if the “Victor Frankenstein” amidst us is allowed to experiment and pursue his scientific ambitions wantonly.

Unfortunately, there does not seem any way to stop him, because stopping him would mean the ending of progress. Our own progress leading to our own perdition, perhaps that is the ultimate tragedy and horror of humankind. References: Alkon, Paul K. “Science Fiction Before 1900: Imagination Discovers Technology. ” London : Routledge. 2002 Allen, Richard. “Reading Frankenstein. ” In, The Realist Novel, ed. Dennis Walder. pp. 61 -96. London : Routledge. 1995. Joseph, M. K. “Introduction.

” Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 1969 Levine, George. “The Realistic Imagination: English Fiction from Frankenstein to Lady Chatterly. ” Chicago : The University of Chicago Press. 1981 Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. “Frankenstein” (Original 1818 Text). Peterborough, Ontario : Broadway Press. 1999 Walder, Dennis. “Reading Great Expectations. ” In, The Realist Novel, ed. Dennis Walder. pp. 135 -166. London : Routledge. 1995.