dknudson

I feel like there are so many similarities and differences between H.P. Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and Shelley’s Frankenstein. They’re both considered to be horror novels (Lovecraft actually coining the term ‘weird fiction’) but are incredibly different. I absolutely love H.P. Lovecraft, not only because of his sweet name, but because of his intense writing style. Lovecraft goes into great detail and has an uncanny way of giving you the most vivid mental picture without really saying anything at all about the subject. In his story The Colour out of Space he describes the indescribable- a type of physical entity that fell from space with unfathomable physical properties. But greater than Lovecraft’s ability to explain the unexplainable is his ability to not explain it. It’s fairly common to find this in a Lovecraft tale. More often than not the main character will experience some universal epiphany so grand and psychically taxing that he dares not even describe it. The perfect example is in At the Mountains of Madness. The plot of the novel is this: A group of scientists and archaeologists set out on an expedition to Antarctica, but once they get there they discover dark things that have been asleep for centuries. They camp out at the foot of an enourmous mountain range, taller than the Himalayas, and, after they return to their camp to find everything destroyed and most living things slaughtered, Dyer and Danforth fly an airplane over this mountain range only to discover that these are no mountains, but the outer walls to a city so alien and strange that the buildings could only be described as “windowless solids with five dimensions”. It turns out that before mankind had evolved these alien beings, known as the Elder Things, landed on and inhabited Antarctica before it froze over and became what it is today. The story gets much more intricate and scary, but Lovecraft’s ethereal writing style makes it nearly impossible to summarize in just a few short words. The main point that I’m trying to make is this: Lovecraft is one of the most terrifying authors because of the way he handles the unknown. When Dyer and Danforth are leaving the city of indescribable evil, Danforth looks back and suddenly loses his mind. “I have said that Danforth refused to tell me what final horror made him scream out so insanely- a horror, which I feel sadly sure, is mainly responsible for his present breakdown…It is absolutely necessary, for the peace and safety of mankind, that some of earth’s dark, dead corners and unplumbed depths be let alone; lest sleeping abnormalities wake to resurgent life, and blasphemously surviving nightmares squirm and splash out of their black lairs to newer and wider conquests.” (Lovecraft 220). I feel that this approach to knowledge is similar to Frankenstein because of Dr. Frankenstein’s refusal to go into detail regarding the process of animating his creature. In a nutshell- Lovecraft is one of the scariest authors of all time. His stories always make you feel so small and insignificant compared to the cosmos.

One might open up Dickens' Great Expectations having just those, and they won't be disappointed. In this classic novel Dickens follows a young boy on his journey into and through manhood. He mainly addresses love and money, and the happiness that they do (or do not) bring. Our main character starts out as a poor boy living on the marshes of England. After aiding in a convict's escape from prison and falling in love with a beautiful (albeit vicious) girl he finds that he has been chosen to receive a very large amount of money from a benefactor who is to remain anonymous. The rest of the novel chronicles Pip's experiences, following him from rags to riches, from love to heartbreak, from health to illness. While this is a truly great novel, the reader must be warned that it's long, tedious, and quite ambiguous. One can speculate what happens after the book itself ends, just as one can speculate throughout the entire book what exactly Dickens is trying to say. No definite sides are taken, and it seems like almost all of the characters have sides to them that are less than likeable, as well as sides that are very loveable. All in all, this entire novel is a very vivid painting of real life. There is no real right and wrong, and for the most part there is no character that you like or dislike over another. It is very much a black and white book, filled with shades of grey. It is no doubt an amazing book- the characters are as three-dimensional as you or I, and the way Dickens ties the plot together is absolutely incredible. If you are feeling ambitious this book is strongly recommended. Great Expectations is by no means an easy read, but when you finally close it there's no doubt that you'll be satisfied.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is widely regarded as one of (if not the) first horror stories ever written. Not only is this one of the first scary novels, but it remains one of the greatest. This book not only contains a chilling tail of an experiment gone wrong, but it raises pertinent questions that every generation should ponder: How far can we push nature? Is there any set morality? Should there be a limit on technological advancement? Does that tie into morality? The questions are endless and eternally relevant. Unlike other classic novels, such as Robinson Crusoe, this is a novel that can still be enjoyed today. While Defoe's novel demands respect due to its classic status, Shelley's Frankenstein feels much more current to the reader. Not only does it involve more than a handful of people and two locations, but the plot and way in which it is written is so much more conducive and entertaining for the readers of today. Frankenstein WAS one of the greatest horror stories ever told because of its intense plot, but it IS one of the greatest horror stories ever told due to the questions it raises. The ideas presented have intrigued people for nearly 200 years.

How far can we go in tampering with nature?

Explanation/ Disclaimer: I got incredibly side tracked while writing this, so I decided to summarize my main point below. You can read my ramblings if you wish, but I don’t think that they’ll make much sense since I didn’t really think out what I was writing, it was more of a stream of consciousness type of approach

Summary: We should keep things natural. We aren’t any better than the animals around us, there’s nothing that makes us special, so to be pompous enough to assume that it’s our place to rearrange the world is a vulgar assumption to say the least. Don’t try to manipulate the natural order of things.

Rant: We as a society seem to be getting more and more arrogant and self important. With each new and exciting stride we make in science or technology we become that much more disassociated from our humanity. There’s a vanity found within us that clouds our perspective. This vanity cannot be attributed to our progress flat out. The iPhone isn’t making us feel higher than we are, we feel higher than we are because of our iPhones.  It’s not the technologies fault; it’s the way we perceive ourselves. Therefore I will say that I do not think that there is a set limit to how far you can go scientifically or technologically, but one should only go as far as he can before he begins to lose himself, and even then he could go farther as long as he was able to maintain a clear self image. When I say self image I mean

Religion- how people define themselves, everyone is different. Religious people will not view themselves in the way that they are. They’re self important and vain, so they will not see themselves on the natural spectrum in which they are, they will think that they are above.

The lust for power is at the core of us. People say that we have emotions and that puts us higher up than other species on this planet. Well we only have emotions and codes of morality due to society. Right and wrong was established through various social contracts, and societies were only started with the intention of power.

People will say that even the most primitive of animals experience emotions- anger, lust, happiness. These aren’t emotions, but instincts, and we share these with all creatures. Morality was established by the big people to control the little people. Religious people will say that our morality is God-given. They’re delusional. Morality is what was decided upon years ago by the people who started our country, and the founding fathers’ morality was instilled in them by the country that they came from, and so on and so forth.

So how far SHOULD we go? That has to deal with your personal moral code. If you’re religious you’ll say to back off of some technology because it’s playing God. I agree that we should back off of technology, but not because of some bearded Jew in the sky. My view is that natural selection should play run course. We shouldn’t save the animals; we should approach medicine cautiously and refrain from pumping our bodies full of chemicals simply because it makes things easier initially.

By the time we get to chapter 15 God has become an integral part of Crusoe's life on the island. While seriously sick Robinson throws up the typical prayer to God and he suddenly has a vision of a man descending from the sky. The man says that all of Crusoes ordeals still have not brought him to God sincerely. After this hallucination Crusoe prays to God, but this time it's honest. Crusoe starts reading the Bible and finds comfort in the fact that God will never forsake him. I'm glad that the book has brought us here. Is Defoe making a point for God or against him? Is he saying that here we have a half believer who prays every now and then finally commits to God, or do we have a mostly sane and intelligent man who prays every now and then and, from a few years of seclusion and suffering, finally snaps and falls on the idea of God because it's all he has. You could approach it from either side. Was this a man who came to the sudden realization of God's omniscience and omnipotence, or was this a man who finally cracked from the isolation of his island? I think it's an interesting idea and should be looked at and weighed carefully. Ultimately it would be very easy to simply believe whichever side you are personally affiliated with (religious people believing in his epiphony, while non believers believing in his now certain insanity). Right now, to me, God is a huge part of the book, and I am very happy about that. It could not have come along at a more perfect time.