Monster

Of course, today, when one utters the name ‘Frankenstein’ the first image thought up is that of a detestable, monstrous, green entity with bolts through the neck. This is indeed erroneous when taking Shelley’s novel into account, yet it still offers us an allusion to the idea of the double. It has frequently been suggested that the creature assumes the role of a doppelganger – or alter-ego – to Frankenstein. That he is merely an extension, or reflection of his creator (indeed ‘creature’ implies ‘creator’).

They both assume various synonymous roles throughout the novel; for example, their corresponding isolation, the omission of female influence in their matters, their juxtaposed intentions to take revenge, and of course the simple fact that Victor is presented as a solitary ‘parent’ to the creature – the only person with whom the creature has an emotional bond. So, let us first look at this issue of Victor’s and the creature’s ‘father-son’ relationship. Of course, the common interpretation of this matter is that Frankenstein manages to usurp the roles of both God and the female.

https://phdessay.com/difference-figurative-literal-analogy/

Indeed, ‘like father like son’ has a profound meaning here, and the creature is, in effect Victor’s “own vampire” – his child. The most indicative portrayal of this usurping of the female (the mother) follows immediately after the creature’s ‘awakening’, with Frankenstein’s horrifically symbolic dream of Elizabeth – his potential and prearranged partner – being degraded into the corpse of his dead mother. This does seem to provide an implicit metaphor for sexual depravity – that Victor’s exploits lead him to isolate himself from both the world’s populace and, in turn, any form of carnal satisfaction.

Let us, then, look further into this issue of isolation. The reasons for both Victor’s and the creature’s solitude differ markedly, but are nevertheless explicably connected. Victor is essentially isolated by his ‘Promethean’ strive for knowledge: “… how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” This – Victor’s own claim – provides us with an allusion to a man ‘punching above his weight’ (to put it facetiously).

As with Prometheus – the Greek Titan – Victor, in the early parts of the novel, contemplates the power of fire (this trek into the unknown – when taking into account Walton’s ominous expedition to the Arctic – has also led critics to propose a Frankenstein-Walton double). This knowledge is then utilised by him in the creation of his creature – in parallel with Prometheus, striking discontent with godly authority. As the 1931 film version of Frankenstein adequately made out, “… Now I know what it’s like to be God”. Frankenstein is an introvert – departing the archetypal family life to take up his place at Ingolstadt.

He concedes vast quantities of his own life to create life – the monster being his Adam. It is therefore rather ironic that this concession of life is seemingly deemed worthless – and a waste – after Victor abandons his creature. The reason for this abandonment is essentially predicated on the creature’s repulsive physical appearance – his ominous manifestations striking fear into his creator. This now brings us onto the creature’s reasons for isolation. He is an outcast from the world to the extent that even those he thought to be well-natured and understanding – the De Lacey family – callously repel him.

His solitude – a common theme throughout Gothic literature – forces him into “malignity” (this word having been repeated frequently throughout the novel by Victor as narrator). The creature is, therefore, not just a reflection of Adam, but also of Satan – an outcast from heaven (of course, the monster’s ‘heaven’ can possibly be interpreted to be the respect and understanding of man towards him). Furthermore, the creature strikes similarities with John Milton’s representation of Satan in Paradise Lost (“Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven”).

The monster’s murderous exploits cast an ominous light over him – he is now the villain. What we can see, then, is a complex matrix of doubles – the creature and Adam, the creature and Satan, Frankenstein and God, Frankenstein as the parental dichotomy and, of course, the creature and Frankenstein. Another pointer to there being a bodily union between the two antagonists comes in the form of their intentions – namely, that of revenge. The creature intends to take revenge on his creator and conversely the creator intends to take revenge on his creature.

One interpretation is that this is an embodied symbol of one man – Frankenstein (this introvert) – attempting to suppress the ugly, odious side of his nature. One can draw parallels with Robert Louis Stephenson’s 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde – the split personality indicating a doppelganger motif holding weight throughout the Gothic genre. The creature’s and the creator’s intentions, their natures and, of course, their purpose are all intertwined. The monster is Victor’s “own spirit let loose from the grave, and forced to destroy all that was dear to [him]”.

Indeed, Frankenstein feels equally culpable for the deaths of William, Justine, Elizabeth and Clerval. Like the monster, Victor: “… had begun life with benevolent intentions and thirsted for the moment when [he] should put them in practice and make myself useful to my fellow beings” But progressively they both – as an interrelation – decline into being feeble, ‘malignant’ characters. These intentions and emotional attachments do continue to intricately link both the creator and his creature (God and Adam, father and son).

Other literally presented occurrences in the novel, for example, the arrest of Frankenstein in Ireland for the murder of Henry continue to supply evidence of Shelley’s overriding intention. This detainment was no mistake. It was simply a figurative portrayal of Victor’s arrest at the expense of his darker side – both he and the creature are equally culpable and both are one and the same. Also, Aya Yatsugi offers the notion of a ‘mirror stage’. Frankenstein and the creature’s perception of each other through the window in the Orkneys comparable to a ‘reflection’.

This being supplemented by Victor’s destruction of the creature’s mate and the subsequent murder of Elizabeth by the creature – again, the sequence of events is too intricate and precise for us to rule out the possibility for Shelley’s intentions to have been for that of the double (this dichotomous murder of partners also continues to support the omission of the female). To summarise, then, it is of great import that there is nothing to rule out the possibility of Shelley delivering this work as a purposeful analogy; pointing to a bodily union of Frankenstein with his monster.

Of course, we must understand that if one is to perceive the novel in this manner it will always be subjective and never constant. Yet, the evidence is there, as a supplement, for those who harbour this view. The creature and creator are spiritually one and the same. Their positions in the narrative and corresponding actions are crucially paralleled. Victor is the creature’s father, Victor is the creature’s God, Victor is the creature’s focus of vengeance, and Victor is the only entity with which (possibly with the exception of the De Laceys) the creature has a poignantly governed relationship.

Yet, to say that these two characters are ‘the same person’ is possibly stretching this idea to an unaccountable degree. Indeed, they may just be separate characters with strong parallels – Shelley’s narrative simply outlining their synonymy and corresponding situations. Maybe Shelley’s message is essentially bringing our attention to the fact that these two characters, despite being at each other’s throats throughout, still maintain such a powerful understanding and spiritual bond. Nevertheless, this issue will forever be open to argument.

The monster, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, is the nameless creature whose physical grotesqueness and murderous deeds label him as the embodiment of evil, when in actuality he is a remarkably sensitive and benevolent being. The monster is Victor Frankenstein’s creation, assembled from old body parts and strange chemicals, brought to life by supernatural means. He enters life with the strength of a giant, yet an infant mind. He is abandoned by his own creator and rejected by society. His feelings are the deepest of any characters in this novel, as well as the most conflicted.

He states, “I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other” (Shelley 104) Mary Shelley aims to portray the monster as more of a human with humane characteristics. Unknown to them, the monster collects firewood for the De Laceys and leaves it at their door. He even saves a girl from drowning, but his good deed is rejected and he is beaten for his outward appearance.

The monster is also an extremely intelligent creature. He persuaded Victor to hear his story about how he learned and acquired knowledge through reading and observing the De Laceys. However, his education only made him more aware of his isolation. The monster also desires love and companionship like any human. He ask of Victor, “I am alone and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects.

This being you must create” (Shelley 146) It is his loneliness and rejection by society that makes him so malicious but he might have been a different creature if only his desire for a female companion was satisfied. Unfortunately the monster’s mere physical ugliness is the reason society does not accept him. After being so cruelly rejected, he is enthralled with a desire for revenge. He murders Victor’s loved ones because he himself is denied closeness with anyone and wants to make Victor suffer like he did. However, even after his creator’s death, the monster is only somewhat relieved.

He had taken full revenge on Victor but had also ruined his only relationship with another person. The monster’s life is intertwined with his creator and he is nothing without Victor. He asserts, “He is dead who called me into being; and when I shall be no more, the very remembrance of us both will speedily vanish. I shall no longer see the sun or stars, or feel the winds play on my cheeks. Light, feeling, and sense will pass away; and in this condition must I find my happiness” (Shelley 224-225) The monster is as much a part of Frankenstein as he is his own being, so after Victor’s death he seeks to find peace in death.

Man (Victor) vs. God Half-frozen, trembling, and troubled are all adjectives that could describe Victor Frankenstein when a ship captain by the name of Robert Walton rescued him in the middle of the Artic. From dialogue between the two, we are informed that Victor Frankenstein has spent his entire life trying to learn everything he could about science and medicine. However, Victor used his knowledge differently than his professors had intended for him to.

Written in 1816, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – is vivid portrayal of Victor Frankenstein and the “fiend” he creates. In the early stages of his education, Victor was interested in learning new and foreign things –concepts and ideas about life and death. Though as the story progresses, it becomes clear Victor becomes consumed with trying to “play” God by creating a new life. Frankenstein – tells the story of the age-old battle of Man vs. God. From childhood, Victor had the odd, but unique, obsession of the concept of life and death.

His interest in death first sparked when a carriage killed his dog, Bruno. Victor desperately wanted to change fate and bring Bruno back to life, but being young and without proper education, Victor did not know how to go about reviving the dog. During a thunderstorm the very next night, Victor witnessed the unmatched power of lightning and electricity when a tree was struck during the storm. He was amazed and astonished at how much destruction the electrical storm had caused – but the lighting was not the only thing that sparked that night.

Something also sparked in Victor that night. He wondered if he too could also create something as beautiful as life. A few short weeks later, Victor’s mother became very ill after contracting the common illness of the time, scarlet fever. She died a few short weeks later. Victor was utterly devastated by his mother’s death and he longed for a way to bring her back to life. I fell that Shelley uses instances, such as this one, to portray how we as humans are not only enthralled with power, but also with being powerful.

I believe that the plot used by Mary Shelly, particularly with the death of Victor’s mother, illustrates how Victor wanted the same power God has – and ultimately tried to play the role of God by creating life. After arriving at the University in Ingolstadt, Victor’s enrolled in Science classes so he could learn everything there was to know about the human body and medicine. He would spend class time and stay up hours on end at nigh, continually reading his texts. But as Victor’s knowledge of the sciences grew, so did the ever-burning desire he had to create a new life.

However, Victor would ignore his own warning given to his friend Walton, urging him to not follow his example, warning him, “Learn from me . . . how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow. ” His notion that he could use what he had witnessed as a child to create a living creature, consumed his life so much that Victor would rarely leave his room.

After he felt that he had learned enough to bring a body to life – he did. Ironically, during a storm, he is successful in his quest to possess that God-like power of giving life to the non-living. However, Victor is immediately repulsed, stating, “…the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. ” His life had become so consumed on bringing it to life, that he did not take the time to think of the consequences of his actions or his creation.

Here, Shelley seems to argue that ignorance is bliss. After the creation of the fiend, Victor is so frightened that he spends the night in his courtyard, afraid to reenter his home. Saddened by the reaction of his creator upon initial sight of his creation, the fiend leaves Victor’s house while Victor is still in the courtyard. Victor lets be and does not search for the monster. We learn about the misfortunes of Victor’s family. The fiend, as revenge for Victor’s actions, murders several of Frankenstein’s family members.

Everywhere the monster goes, he is faced with the realization that most people are frightened by just how he looks. Years of being an outcast of society leave the creature cold and spiteful. The creature explains his anger, saying, “There was non among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery. But pity can be felt as the monster describes the moment he learns that the most respected men in society have wealth and influence, he states, “I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property. ” Shelley uses this quote to underscore the theme of man’s cruelty and injustice. She also uses scenes like these to describe and depict how horrible the situation can end up being when humans try to play the role of God and attempt things that humans don’t have the full power or knowledge to do.

In conclusion, it is more than safe to say that throughout the novel Victor Frankenstein was constantly consumed with learning new things about life and death, stating “Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest sensations I can remember. ” That obsession lead to Victor’s attempt to assume the role of God. Victor’s quest for knowledge proves he is determined to do anything and everything that it takes to become more educated in the sciences – ultimately attempting and succeeding at giving life to a human being.

Unlike the majority of the people of his time, Victor did not believe that God is the only one who can create a life – he felt that he could do it as well. The outcome of his actions and – multiple deaths, a terrorized populace, a monster – is concrete proof that things such as the creation life should be left in the hands of the true creator…God. Mary Shelley used her novel to paint a vivid picture for the audience. The image illustrates that if we try playing God, it will likely end in disaster, just as it did in the case of Victor Frankenstein.

The idea of man as monster is one perpetually peddled not only by Gothic writers, but throughout literature; Shelley toys with the concept in Frankenstein, and Shakespeare himself explores the dark fringes of humanity in character such as Richard III. Yet Macbeth is not quite so simple – whilst he certainly possesses irredeemably features, it is difficult to bracket him with the Duke of Gloucester; similarly, though he begins the play a hero, his descent cannot be easily compared to that of the archetypal .

Rather, he is a complex hybrid, challenging audiences and critics to consider the nature and definition of monstrosity itself. Perhaps Macbeth’s most ‘monstrous’ feature is his ambivalence to his own tyranny; whilst the natural order of Scotland is turned upside down, he acknowledges that he is ‘in blood stepp’d in so far that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er’.

Here, Shakespeare summons a viscerally violent image of Macbeth wading in a river or lake of ‘blood’ before having him casually dismiss it as ‘tedious’; the contrast of surreal horror and offhand flippancy highlighting what would appear to be Macbeth’s complete lack of empathy. Combine this with the fact that, in the context of production, Macbeth’s regicide would have represented one of the greatest possible breaches not only of judicial but of moral code, and his fate as a character seems sealed.

It may even be argued that the play’s archetypally Gothic conclusion: having the characters embark to meet ‘at Scone’ – the traditional site of Scottish coronations representative of all the social strictures Macbeth flouts – would lose impact if Macbeth’s evil was not absolute; if his downfall is to serve as a warning against the breaking of societal regulation, then the audience must surely be without doubt that his actions were irredeemable.

Though this may be an easy argument to superficially impose in pursuit of a clear-cut moral message, we must not forget that Shakespeare was a dramatist, not a sermoniser, and that to impose definite meaning on his work is to undermine it. Throughout the text, there are suggestions that Macbeth is in fact a form of Renaissance man, bridging the gap between the Medieval and the modern.

In Act I, Scene iii, Macbeth ascertains that the witches’ predictions ‘cannot be ill, cannot be good’; a phrase not only reminiscent of the witches’ chants of ‘fair and foul’, linguistically linking him to the misty supernaturalism they represent, but also unintentionally echoing the literary debate which Macbeth is most famous for; whether the witches can or cannot be seen to have any direct impact on the events of the play.

In this way, Macbeth inhabits a self-aware, meta-literary role in which his monstrosity makes up just one part; his Act V, Scene V speech in which he brands himself ‘a poor player who struts and frets’ supports this idea, suggesting that whilst Macbeth may appear to be ambivalent to his actions, he in fact recognises their ‘poor’ insignificance in the grand scheme of life. Though these metaphysical ponderings may not elevate him to the lofty philosophical heights with which critics regard Hamlet or Lear, they certainly lift him from the more simplified view of Macbeth as pantomime villain.

Finally, Macbeth must be viewed in the context of the play’s other characters; most notably that of his wife, Lady Macbeth. Before Macbeth has committed any physical crime, Lady Macbeth cries for dark spirits to ‘unsex [her]’ – the use of a compound adjective such as ‘unsex’ representing – in it’s linguistic irregularity as much as in its meaning – a total betrayal of all that it ; to have a predetermined biology.

In breaking the bonds of gender, Lady Macbeth finds the ability to foster ambition in Macbeth with sexually provocative blackmail (‘When you durst do it, then you were a man! ‘); perhaps Shakespeare’s suggestion is that Macbeth only acts as a vessel for evil, whereas the witches, and Lady Macbeth, both of whom actively embrace the supernatural, represent the seed of evil which can take root in a man even as ‘brave’ and ‘noble’ as the formerly heroic Macbeth.

To brand Macbeth as a monster feels far too simplistic; though, if Macbeth is to be viewed as a pre-Gothic text, the interpretation of him as an archetypal villain is understandable, this is an aspect of the play in which the imposition of a stylistic code feels reductionist and irrelevant. Instead, Macbeth ought to be viewed as a complex character in his own right, whose actions and words throw up as many conundrums as the critic or audience member may hope to find.

From the ability to change physical form to a blood-thirsty nature society has always been morbidly fascinated with the concept of Dracula. It has not only seduced literature such as Bram Stoker’s Dracula but also infected mainstream music and film industries. Many composers have expanded and appropriated much of the vampire genre such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula and Slayer’s Bloodline. The ideas surrounding vampires has been of good versus evil, the nature of religion and immortality.

It is due to these notions which allow us to assess the visual and literary techniques, and context of these texts where vampires have long grasped the general population’s interest. Bram Stoker’s Dracula deals with the concept of vampirism in a ‘black and white’ view. The main antagonist is seen as a demonic monster that defied the status quo and attacked the innocent. Stoker purposely uses the technique of writing the novel in first person of every character except for Dracula creating a sense of mystery and foreboding, as the characters and readers themself is uncertain about Dracula’s true nature.

However, the reader is hinted that Dracula is characterised as a sinister monster by small occurrences such as his feeding of a young child to the three vampires where Jonathan recounts, ‘there was a gasp and a low wail, as a half-smothered child… I was aghast’. This scene in the early chapters of the book highlights the inhumanity of Dracula where Stoker demonstrates that this character is not only evil but also void of any morals. However in later appropriations, the monster is no longer seen as pure evil, but in fact has the ability to be more humane.

In Coppola’s Dracula the opening scenes showcase the creation of Dracula, demonstrating the transition from human to monster. Not only does this allow the audience to understand the existence of this monster but also empathise with this creature, blurring the lines between good and evil. However the audience is still reminded that Dracula is still an evil monster despite him being given the human capacity of love as he feeds the three vampires a baby and says ‘Yes, I too can love. And I shall love again.   Despite this, Slayer’s Dracula sticks with the original characterisation of Stoker’s Dracula. The imagery that is used throughout Bloodline heavily coincides with the gothic motifs of vampirism such as ‘Blo11od fests’ and supernatural nocturnal manifestations such as ‘Night hides’ and ‘hunting packs. ’ Both Draculas are also void of human emotions and only seek to infect and destroy human lives. This is outlined when Stoker’s Dracula goes to England and attacks the innocent, where he forces Mina to become a vampire ‘flesh of my flesh’ by drinking his own blood as revenge to the slayers.

This inhumane nature of Dracula attacking the innocent is also portrayed throughout the chorus of Bloodline, ‘I’ll kill you and your dreams tonight…Bleed your death upon me, Let your bloodline feed my youth. ’ Symbolism is a significant link between Stoker’s, Coppola’s and Slayer’s Dracula. Stoker and Slayer’s Dracula represents the anti-Christ, a forbidden entity which engaged readers from the repressed Victorian Era. It is through this symbolism that Dracula is portrayed as a supernatural evil where Stoker’s Dracula is repelled by any holy relics such as the crucifix.

The believed ulterior motives of Dracula is made apparent by Slayer’s Dracula as he feels “Betrayed eternally’ by God and seeks to inflict his pain onto others as he chants ‘‘I’ll rip inside your soul, contaminating the world, defying God and son. ’ This strong inclination demonstrates the extent of how evil Dracula is and that his chosen actions are done to be the twisted parallel of God’s. In addition, Dracula’s blood consumption in all three texts acts as a perverse parallel of the Holy Communion as it is gruesomely similar to Christian believers who re-enact the ‘drinking’ of Christ’s blood.

However Dracula’s strength comes from consuming people’s blood rather than giving it freely, as Renfield suggests, ‘The blood is the life! ’ in an epiphany whilst undertaking his sadistic experiments. This is evident as Stoker’s and Coppola’s Dracula grows stronger as Lucy’s health continues to deteriorate after his feeding on her. However society’s fascination is not based purely on the occult of the vampire but rather the more alluring attribute of being immortal. Stoker’s Dracula represents a creature that does not age nor fall ill, aspects which society today continues to strive to obtain.

Thus a time limit is of no great significance to Dracula as he continues his attacks on turning many innocent people into vampires and in turn, inflict the same curse onto them as he states ‘My revenge has just begun! I spread it over centuries and time is on my side. ” Similarly, Slayer’s Dracula also deals with the concept of immortality where he also feels the desire to attack innocent people as he states ‘I will live forever… in my veins your eternity. ’ Both these characters are obsessed with turning masses of people into their own kind with the knowledge that immortality comes at a grave rice- a trade up for the soul. This price however is acknowledged by Coppola’s Dracula as he cannot bring himself to completely turn Mina due to his feelings for her. This decision allows the audience to empathise with Dracula as he is given a human emotion of compassion where he cannot bear to let Mina be cursed to live a life of being hated, feared and soulless. This is shown during the scenes when Dracula has cut open his vein for her to drink but stops her as he exclaims ‘You’ll be cursed as I am…I love you too much to condemn you. Thus the concept of immortality is an object of desire by Mina as she yearns to live eternally with Dracula but this resistance by him allows the audience to witness the little ‘good’ that he has and in turn, demonstrates that society’s fascination of immortality should be viewed as a curse rather than blessing. Throughout the analysis of these texts, it is apparent that the key elements of Dracula are good versus evil, the role of religion and immortality.

It is due to these elements which capture our interest in the concept of vampirism where we are continually enticed to delve into the darker realms of an occult and explore the concept of immortality. Stoker’s Dracula as well as its appropriations effectively portrays the possessive nature of this character where there is a dependency on people’s blood for life as well as the ease of manipulating victims into giving their life force which accounts for the obsessive fascination of Dracula.

I had everything. Loving family, supportive friends, good grades, degree in ballet… etc. Not much, but there’s no shortage for anything. But life isn’t always perfect, especially when the monster inside you starts to show. I was at the dance studio half an hour earlier before the rehearsal starts. Determined to be the best as I got the first role for the upcoming ballet production “Swan Lake”. I got all the applause and compliments from all the musical directors and choreographers. Everything was meant to be, I was the brightest star. But life isn’t always fair.

The door cracked open as I was doing my last stretching before heading to the stage. The director walked in, along with another girl from the ensemble group. “Charlotte,” She said. “She will take the lead role from now on, you’ll be her backup,” the director continued. “Five minutes on stage. ” They went out the door. I was stunned. Everything happened in just a blink of an eye. I worked so hard for this role and everything was meant to be. I couldn’t accept the fact that someone is better than me. Someone that can make the choreographers and directors think for a second thought.

I wasn’t satisfied. I went up the stage and argued with the director. Thinking of something that could make him change his decision. “Your figure is not what we want for the role. ” I was beaten by that. Never in my life did someone actually point out my imperfection before. I thought I was perfect. I rushed to the toilet to hide my tears. I am strong, or in the other word, I was afraid to lose. High self-esteem is what I got since the day I was born. I highly believe that I was worth everything because I spent much of my time striving to achieve perfection in every aspect of my life.

What I did not realize was that in my desperate need to be perfect, I sacrificed the very body and mind that allowed me to live. I looked at myself in the mirror. The reflection of mine started to twist. I saw an ugly, worthless and hopeless girl. Her empty eyes weren’t showing anything but angers. Her body began to grow bigger and bigger. She seemed to be the brightest among all, but when the darkness comes, she’s nothing but an empty shell. From that day onwards, my life changed. I was never happy before. Jealousy was what controlling me. I felt very inadequate and unsuccessful.

I started to believe that my life was a failure. And what had caused it like this is no doubt but my weight. I had always been an average size. But I was convinced by my inner voice that I was overweight. I found myself involved in a competition again. But this time, I was competing against myself. I started of with a normal diet. Thought I’ll just lose a few pounds and everything will be okay. I was wrong. When the first pound was lost, I was addicted to the numbers on the scales. My mind became obsessed with beating my body at this game. Though I know I’m slowly killing myself, but jealousy was my biggest motivation.

I was dying to win my pride back and prove them wrong. I slowly cut back on what I eat each day. With every portion I didn’t finish or meal I skipped, I told myself that I was succeeding, and in turn, I felt good about myself. That was my darkest secret. I still join my family dinner. Just to avoid my family to notice my odd behaviour. But I felt disgusted and useless after every meal. I was then introduced to purging. Purging had sort of changed my life because I could eat what I want and what I had to do is just purge them out afterwards.

My parents had no idea that their loving and caring daughter is a total different soul now. Every time I finished meal I will make a beautiful excuse to my room. They had no idea what is happening behind that door. Toilet bowl and icy tiles was what I face every night. My reflection from the mirror is nothing but an empty soul. My eyes were like two empty holes burning in flames. I just want my role back. My inner voice told me that it will be worth it every time. There, I slide two fingers down my throat and began to purge out everything.

Not just the food I ate, but every bit of my soul. The monster inside me had taken over everything I had, purging out my original self. My mind was possessed by jealousy, anger and desperation, and I couldn’t help it. I was lost and desperately searching for the light at the end of the tunnel. Even so, I had never gave up my hope on ballet. I lost a lot of weight, losing more that I could have imagined. I just couldn’t control myself, my soul was lost, life was empty and I couldn’t figure out why. But my spirits were high and I was still so motivated and determined to get my role back.

I knew I still had to convince the directors that I was the main star. I saw my reflection on the mirror, I saw the beautiful me. One day before the show, I was on the backstage. Anxiously waiting for the right time like lion waiting for its prey. There she came, going down the stairs. My eyes were flaming. Jealousy had driven me to my limits, the limits where I could do everything just to get my role back. I have to vanish her. I was possessed by the monster inside me, I ran towards her in light speed and pushed her off the stairs with the last energy I reserved.

My heart was racing. She was admitted to the hospital. I have no regrets on what I’ve done. Never in my life that I was so happy by the feeling of winning. But I wasn’t me anymore, the bright and loving girl had completely turned into a devil. The feeling of snatching back of what belongs to me was what pleased me. I was insane. Standing on the stage, the lights were on me. I gave a revengeful smile to the directors and as soon as I finished my last step, I collapsed. Heart attack hits me. The sounds of sirens were apparent and soon after, I noticed a medic trying to resuscitate me.

I knew my time was done, my heart was failing. It was beating weaker. “Perfection, I finally found it. It was perfect. ” I saw my body, it was lying down on the ground like a doll. There were people mourning and weeping. At first, I couldn’t understand why. I saw more and more people, the people whom I recognized came over, filled with unbearable thoughts of sadness and grief. I knew then I was gone, I was no longer a part of this world. I thought I did what I had to do. In the end, I defeated the purpose and paid it with my life.

Rebecca Scheinert Monsters and Myths September 16th 2012 Van Helsing and Unorthodox Monster Narrative Monsters have become a regular fixture in the contemporary movie industry but it is important to remember these supernatural creatures were born from ancestors in nineteenth century gothic literature. These creatures were a cultural product of the social, scientific, and psychological concerns of a society that had lost its faith in religion. Each monster was a manifestation of a ubiquitous fear that remains relevant today.

In the 2004 film rendition of Van Helsing, the director Stephen Sommers calls upon the famed vampire hunter from Bram Stoker’s Dracula to restore order to a world interweaving the plots of Frankenstein, and The Wolfman. The hero of Van Helsing has been stripped of any memory of his character’s history and triumphs but must seek to vanquish his enemy aided only my the folklore of 19th century Eastern Europe. Without a sense of identity, Van Helsing accepts this task joined by the beautiful Anna Valerious who is cursed by her ancestors’ promise to destroy Dracula.

The duo must face endless threats, apply knowledge of the occult, and confront their inner demons to reach the climatic final battle with Dracula where they must cling to their disappearing humanity in a world of monsters. Although Van Helsing and Dracula are dramatic foils for one another, their similarities become as apparent as their differences as the storyline develops. In this final scene from Van Hesling, Stephen Sommers employs and distorts traditional monster mythology to prove to its viewers that the dichotomy between hero and monster is not mutually exclusive.

Initially, the physical character of the scene is the vehicle that transports its viewers from the couch in 2012 to the recognized world of monster myths. The viewers’ acceptance of the setting is imperative because it invokes a “willing suspension of disbelief” from the audience in which the time-honored mythology of the classic monsters’ stories is embraced as historical fact (Tudor 121). The horror film genre employs setting conventionally “to facilitate our entry into the fiction” where the unbelievable characters and events are embraced (Tudor 122).

For this particular scene, the audience finds the characters in an archetypical gothic setting, the laboratory where Frankenstein was created (Van Helsing). In the Gothic tradition, writers “built plots around restless spirits, ageless monsters, and unresolved sins of the past that reappear to bedevil modern characters” (Worland 12). Stephen Sommers places the characters in their imagined place and time by interweaving “Frankenstein’s middle-European village, Dracula’s Transylvanian mountains, and The Werewolf of London’s fog-shrouded setting” into a location familiar to the genre audience.

In this scene, the nineteenth century stylized lab is tall and imposing with rich architectural detail. In the darkness of night, moments before midnight as indicated by the baroque clock, clusters of fire and blue electrical charges are the only source light. The midnight hour is universal symbol for the time when monsters roam the earth while the men sleep (Philips 515). The evident destruction in the laboratory conveys that it has already failed terrifically. The setting is a reminder that in gothic horror the “stakes are high because the struggle is mortal and metaphysical” (Worland 17).

This elaborate laboratory is paradoxical setting because the events are occurring in a time with scientific knowledge but in a part of the world that remains unchanged by industrialization. Furthermore, by combining Frankenstein and Dracula, the powers of science are directly conflicting with the religious themes of the legend of Dracula (Tudor 87). While inside the burning laboratory it is evident that both science and religion have failed the characters. The integration of the monster’s settings is only the first device Sommers plays with.

Horror operates through the tried strategy of “placing stereotypical characters in cumulatively eventful situations” which is a structure the audience expects through out the movie (Tudor 112). The genre hero is titled by Andrew Tudor as the “expert” and given the responsibility of bringing the world or disorder back to order. When we enter this scene in the shambled laboratory, it is undeniably recognized as disorder. Tudor goes onto say that “Dracula’s traditional opponent, Van Helsing” is the common ancestor of all of the genre’s experts (114). The original bestows Van

Helsing with the capability and knowledge to vanquish Dracula but was written as “scholastic and eccentric” as a fold to a vampires ruthless charm (114). Sommers introduces Van Helsing in this scene defeated by battle, fragile, limping, and gasping for breathe. Although he is introduced as man, the identifiable wolf scratches across his chest and the striking of the clock foreshadow his transformation into a werewolf monster. Sommers reminds the audience of the human expert and monster foil when Dracula enters as a flying monster and Van Helsing enters as a wounded human.

The audience is aware they are rooting for Van Helsing and weary of Dracula. Furthermore, Van Helsing’s monster is a werewolf, who are seen as “demonic innocents” entangled in a “complex web of ritualistic expectations” (117). A werewolf is a sympathetic monster because the audience can compartmentalize the humanity from the lupine cruelty by his separate physical forms. Van Helsing reluctantly assumes his monster form writhing during his transformation. However, he embraces his fate by tearing off his jacket and engaging in battle.

Van Helsing’s internal conflict between embracing his monster form to complete his task to vanquish Dracula and fearing the loss of his human control is illustrated when he frightens himself from his lupine form into his human form while choking Dracula. This narrative trick confounds an active audience who is inclined to remain loyal to the expert protagonist who has become what he is destined to destroy. In addition, the characterization of Dracula in the scene manipulates religious iconography to further the juxtaposition between religion and science that was introduced in the setting.

In this scene Dracula exhibits the expected traits of a vampire when speaking in his human form. He is “elegant” “clean” “attractive” but “evil” and manipulative (116). Upon discovering Van Helsing is now a monster as well he tries to coerce him into joining his fight. Dracula sees all monsters as equals on the side of evil united against humanity and the greater good, as “a part of the same great game” (Van Helsing). Dracula is a satanic character, the of the evil side in the eternal battle between good and evil.

This character parallel is supplemented by the physical characterization of Dracula in his monster form. Sommers employs the standard devil veneer with horns, wings, and red coloring as a universal symbol for evil. Dracula is charming and sophisticated in his human form but as a monster he is the hideous disconfigured archetype for evil. This proves to the viewer the humans can be monsters and the monsters can appear as humans. The naked eye cannot discern between what is evil and what is good, even when the monster is as obvious and Judeo-Christian devil.

In these cases, Sommer’s is manipulating with the monster iconography by transforming orthodox characters. Monster iconography has “developed through statements, repetition, and variations that the audience has come to understand” (Worland 18). There is an expected viewer response of hatred for monsters and empathy for humans, which the director is playing upon. Through this device, he makes the social commentary that any man has the ability to become a monster and there is a monster in all of us.

At the same time, he is loyal to the narrative by making the expert an empathetic monster and Dracula a deceiving monster. Ultimately, the audience’s psychological response to the scene is necessary for Sommers to manipulate the genre’s traditions and mythology effectively. Through out the scene there is a shock cycle of tension construction and release. Within the smaller context of a singular scene, the microscopic shock cycle will build and release pressure, keeping viewers engaged until end (Tudor 109).

There is relief with the “grotesque and painful end” of Dracula. Rick Worland titles this event a “bad death” that challenges the traditional conceptions of mortality and the social good (8). The audience does not feel sadness for the revolting murder of Dracula but they experience devastation at the loss of Anna. Although Anna’s death is more troubling to the audience, the producers do not let us see her “bad death”. Anna is mauled by Van Helsing as a werewolf as well but in a moment of suspense and ambiguity we can only see the back of the werewolf’s body.

While the audience watches this genre for the suspense and gore, it is still troublesome to see the end of the heroine. The audience can digest her death as a necessary sacrifice and the final shock rather than cruel an unusual when they are spared the visual impact of her death. This can also be looked at through a Freudian perspective. Freud advocated a “resonation of the return of any actions or desires repressed by the dominant social order” through experiences such as watching horror movies or nightmares (Worland 15).

All of the audience members have felt repression, whether it is from an external societal source or an internal repression of feelings or memories. The monster is a manifestation of this repression. All varieties of repression can be overcome by vicariously living through this scene because the monster is both a triumphant hero and a defeated antagonist. In the end there is silence and the tension is released because both monster threats has been nullified. Antithetically, because of the dual bad deaths, the audience is left to contemplate if the ends justified the means.

The audience has released their feelings of repression through the shock cycle but is left to contemplate the questionable victory and the tragic death long after the scene is complete. At the heart of this scene, Sommers challenges viewers to question the traditional protagonist and antagonist relationship in the movie and with the audience. He does this by presenting characters and settings that elicit expectations for the course of the scene’s plotline. Then, by choosing a different path, there is a psychological response from the engaged viewer.

Over the course of the brief scene, there are series of surprises that are not from the blood and gore but from the distortion of century old stories. At the conclusion of the scene, the audience has worked through feelings of repression by witnessing the destruction of two monsters and the death of two characters but are more importantly inspired to question what the true manifestation of good and evil are. Works Cited Phillips, William H. Film: An Introduction. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 1999. Print. Tudor, Andrew. Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie. Oxford [England: B. Blackwell, 1989. Print. Van Helsing [video Recording]. Dir. Stephen Sommers. Perf. Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale. Universal, 2004. DVD. Van Helsing [video Recording]. YouTube. YouTube, 16 June 2011. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. ;http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=jr60kvuKw3w;. Worland, Rick. The Horror Film: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. , 2007. Print.