Eward2's Blog

While leaving my Drawing class the other day with my roommate, our friends asked us if we wanted to join them at the Lit House to see a poetry reading. Having nothing to do, we agreed to accompany them. We did not know what to expect or who was even presenting their poetry to us. We sat down and a woman stepped up to the podium and began telling us stories about her life and the poetry the came out of it. Patricia Smith, it turns out, was reading to us, a Four Time National Slam Poetry Champion. I later learned the slam poetry was a competition that she competed in multiple times. Her words captivated me and even gave me chills. She spoke about a class that she taught poetry to and the struggles they’d been through living where they did. The poems were more like stories and every word she said had meaning. This was not an ordinary poetry readings, though I know little of how they usually go. The emotion the poet used in her voice as she spoke was very powerful. She also read poems from a book full of poems she wrote about Hurricane Katrina. She used real stories and real people that died during the disaster and she gave them voices; a glimpse into the terror they endured. At the end of the reading she told us about how she writes her poems better under a deadline and the things that inspired her to write. Though I”ve never really attempted poetry and do not feel like I could ever be too successful at it, her poetry was inspiring and emotional. This reading made me want to attend more poetry readings and really listen to the words the poet is reading.

Reading and writing has changed dramatically over the years. From the spoken to the written word and the invention of the printing press, the way we spread words and stories is changing. Currently, with the influx of technology and online usage, electronic texts have come into view, challenging what we know about literature and learning. An example of these newly popular electronic texts is “My Body- a Wunderkammer” by Shelley Jackson. This text takes us on a journey through the author’s body by using hyperlinks. She describes her body parts and tells the reader stories about growing into her body when she was younger. Though some readers would call this text shallow and distracting, I believe the literary value is evident in its ability to engage the reader physically and emotionally. And even though each passage by itself is short, the reader walks away feeling like they know the author personally. I believe that the way the author wrote this text challenges any opposition to its literary value.

The author uses pathos to make the reader feel connected to her. Her stories are sometimes comparable to the way we, the readers, grew up and help us to generate sympathy and understanding toward her. Sven Birkerts’, author of “The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age”, is a skeptic for sure. In his book, he addresses the current change in the way that people read. Birkerts recalls in his book a moment that he tried to embrace the change in literature by reading an electronic text but is distracted by the involvement and confusion of the text. One of Birkerts’ main concerns is that our generation, growing up in this technological and fast-paced atmosphere, is becoming lazy. He is concerned that we are not taking the time to sit down and read novels or the newspaper or things such as that. Nicholas Carr addresses the same issue in an article he wrote about our technological lifestyle as well.

In “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, Carr discusses his noticeable and growing inability to sit down and read a lengthy article or novel without becoming distracted and moving on. He goes on in his article about the ways in which reading is changing for us. He discusses a study that was done about how the average person today reads which concludes by stating, “They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would ‘bounce’ out to another site”. In this day and age we are all guilty of skimming an article or chapter in a novel to get through it quicker. However, skeptics like Birkerts, believe this is serious and due to the fast-paced world we are living in. Further along in Carr’s article, he challenges this view altogether.

Carr states that, “The human brain is almost infinitely malleable” and he quotes a study that says that the brain has, “’the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions’”. So, if the brain reprogrammed itself to read lengthy novels when the printing press was invented and is now reprogramming itself to read short excerpts and take in small bits of information at a time, we aren’t getting lazier. Our generation is simply being trained to learn differently. Our minds are now able to read small passages but learn at the same time. And if we want to change, our minds are malleable. We can reprogram ourselves by reading longer and longer passages to gain back our ability to read more for longer periods of time. Laziness is not the reason for Carr or the rest of our generation’s inability to read lengthy texts; it is because we are bombarded with things like Google and text messaging every day. Our quick lifestyles force us to learn faster and in smaller amounts, but we are not, by any means, getting more stupid or even lazier, as Birkerts fears.

Let’s get back to the electronic text, “My Body”. If we look closely at the way it is set up, we can compare it easily to Google. This is a great example of the way we read today. Google is a search engine that allows us to read small amounts of information and make connections to other things that are related to our topic. Jackson’s text, “My Body” is made the same way, according to the way we read today. It allows us to read something like a novel but it caters to the reading style we have adapted to over the years. Just like Google still maintains scholarly value even though it allows us to read in the manner we are used to, “My Body” still maintains literary value. Novels that are usually the most popular are written so that the reader can relate and understand the author’s motivation for writing. A sense of connection to the author is usually highly valued in most novels. This electronic text gives us that and also allows the reader to engage in more ways than just reading pages in a book. The hyperlinks that connect one story to another and scattered throughout her writing. The reader is forced to interact with the text to move to the next story. In this way, the reader becomes more personally involved in the way the stories play out.

The interaction and emotion that this electronic text brings out of the reader makes this text comparable to a novel, which proves without a doubt its literary value. Obviously Jackson’s text is not a novel, as Birkerts would like, but advanced times call for advanced texts and new reading styles call for texts that cater to them. Times are changing, but we are not getting lazier. Because we are less likely to sit down with a good book these days, authors are looking for new ways to keep us reading their work. Electronic texts help us to keep expanding our minds in the kind of world we live in today. They have literary value and it shows while they are being read, especially in Jackson’s, “My Body”. And in this day and age, it is good to know that we are still learning and advancing as a people.

Works Cited

Jackson, Shelley. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc, 1994.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, 2010.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archieve/2008/07/is-google-making-us-

stupid/6868/>.

Jackson, Shelley. My Body-A Wunderkammer. 1997. <http://collection.eliterature.org/1/

works/Jackson_my_body_a_wunderkammer.html/>.

Honor Code- Erica Ward

For our next writing project I will be arguing that “My Body”, by Shelley Jackson, is in fact a literary text and not a distraction. The focus of my paper will be about learning styles and how they have changed. I will argue in favor of electronic texts like Jackson’s because they are innovative, engage more senses than many novels today, and can in fact allow for deep reading. I will use Birkerts’ especially as a critical view, specifically his  concern that computers and electronic texts will take away from the reading experience. He uses the term “deep reading” often concerning novels and would probably believe that texts like “My Body” will take away from our ability to read deeply because of its short excerpts and links to other pages. In opposition of Birkerts, I will use “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, an article by Nicholas Carr, to support my argument that this electronic text is simply a different way to learn and not a distraction. I will use the point in the article that mentions that our minds are malleable and we can adjust and learn to learn in other ways. This new age of people are changing the way their minds read, not getting dumber. We can now read and gather more information by reading small amounts and even skimming. This electronic text just caters to our new method of learning and reading.

“My Body-a Wunderkammer”, is a hypertext by Shelley Jackson that pushes the reader to interact and choose where they want the story to take them. The text starts out with a sketch of Jackson’s body with links on different body parts. Depending on which the reader chooses first will decide what story you will read first. All of the stories talk about Jackson’s particular body part and certain stories about growing up and into her body. That story takes you to another body part and so on until the reader is finished. Electronic text, especially this one, push the reader to interact more than just mentally. This text in particular asks the reader to choose where he or she wants to go from the starting point. The hyperlinked words will lead them to another body part story and they must make the decision; almost like an investigation. Sven Birkerts would probably not like this text because the navigation has more options and isn’t quite as simple as the turn of a page. The story can change at any moment. He would probably argue that the impersonal nature of the medium doesn’t allow for the private reading he has deemed so important. Maybe Birkerts is right in his belief that the experience of reading is very important; that curling up on a chair with a good book, not a computer, can be nostalgic. However, as right as he may be, I don’t believe that the  medium can take away from the meaning of the text. I was able, even though I was reading from a computer screen, to relate to Jackson’s stories about learning and growing into herself. The stories became close to me and I began to feel like I understood her and knew about her life personally. The way the writer chooses to put together their story and they way they write has more of an impact on the text than the medium. I became more personally involved in this electronic text than I have while reading some classic novels and I believe that in the end, Birkerts would understand and even soften his heart towards this new age.

A ventriloquist dummy appears outside Jamie Ashen’s car window. In the dark light of the graveyard the doll looks even scarier than in daylight. Jamie jumps, startled, and tries to escape. The doll appears outside the window again. Shadows flash across Ashen’s face. He cannot escape the stalking of the doll. Dead Silence, a movie released in 2007, is basically a story about a dead ventriloquist and her killer dolls seeking revenge. When the film hit theaters, most movie-goers did not leave thinking about how well the storyline compared to Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Even those who made the movie probably did not notice the similarities, but by taking a closer look at certain aspects of the film, similarities can be seen throughout. A creation scene can be found as well as similarities in the mood of the story. Another scene in Dead Silence can be compared to the encounter between Victor and the creature on Victor’s wedding night.

The comparison can begin as soon as the movie starts. In the first scene, we see a situation much like the one in Frankenstein’s creation scene. A person who can later be identified as Mary Shaw is sitting at a desk in a dimly lit and ominous looking room excitedly making plans and designs for what we learn is supposed to be “the perfect doll”. In the creation scene in Frankenstein, Victor studiously works on his designs in what the reader usually pictures as a “mad scientist” kind of atmosphere. The scene continues as the doll is actually made and painted. As the doll is being painted, we are reminded that Victor chose all of his creation’s features as beautiful as he created him. The dolls features go along with the plans for perfection and Victor’s creature’s features were supposed to be beautiful, however, both creations turned out frightening. The mood of this scene is shown mostly by the dark lighting. This scene and the creation scene in Frankenstein are also very similar, as both of the scenes are ominous and dark. The creations seem to be the most wonderful ideas that their creator have ever had, but they leave the audience with a feeling of anxiousness and a curiosity as  to what will happen next in the story.

As the story develops, we learn that Mary Shaw, a ventriloquist who has been dead for years, is killing people using her ventriloquist dolls. A repeating poem that is heard throughout the movie is, “Beware the stare of Mary Shaw, she had no children only dolls. And if you see her in your dream, never ever ever scream.” Mary Shaw saw her dolls as her children. They were her creations and much like Victor, her creations were her children. “Offspring” is used repeatedly in Frankenstein to describe his relationship to Victor. While Mary Shaw wants her dolls to kill certain people, Victor never really wanted the creature to kill. Victor’s lack of love for his monster causes him to turn away from love and begin to kill those who don’t accept him. Whether inadvertently or purposefully, both creators make their creations kill.

The main character in this movie is a man name Jamie Ashen who used to live in the town that Shaw was from. One day a package containing a doll shows up on Jamie’s door and his wife takes it out and embraces it being in their home. Days later, Ashen comes home to see his wife horribly murdered and the doll seems to be the only culprit. Jamie decides he will investigate the story behind Shaw himself and travels to his old hometown. This brings us to the second comparison scene. Mary Shaw continues her killing spree as the main character continues to search for answers as to why she is doing so. The search brings Ashen to an abandoned theatre that houses all of Mary Shaw’s dolls. While he is searching the scary old building, he is being chased by Mary Shaw and one of her dolls, Billy. This scene is relatable to the scene in Frankenstein on Victor’s wedding night. Victor is outside searching for the monster so the terror can end like Jamie searching for answers so the killing will stop.

Jamie sets fire to Mary Shaw’s dolls while he is in the theatre to try to stop the killings which only seems to make things worse. He ends up hanging by only his arm from what would be a pretty deadly fall while Shaw is trying to kill him. He gets away unharmed the same way Victor is unharmed by the creature on his wedding night; his wife, however, is not so lucky. Both of the characters, Jamie and Victor, leave their battles alive but their wives turn out to be innocent victims, killed to destroy their husbands lives. Both characters as well have to live with what they’ve seen and been a part of because of the creations. The scene in the old theatre is suspenseful and dark like the wedding night scene in Frankenstein. We aren’t sure what will happen next and are led to believe that Victor will be killed, not his wife. As the characters of both stories are followed by a terrifying presence, the audience feels nervous and jumpy.

Now we will return to the scene we began with. The ventriloquist dummy is stalking Jamie in a graveyard. The connection is now apparent. The comparisons have been given and the door has been opened to looking at Dead Silence as a Frankenstein film. We understand now that the doll was following Jamie just like Victor’s monster was following him through the novel. Though there are obvious differences between the two stories, there are also obvious similarities. The comparison of the two creations scenes is undeniable. The same mood is evoked from the audience when we see the ominous setting and the plans for a perfect ventriloquist doll. The audience knows that something bad is going to happen, much like we know during the Frankenstein scene that the creature will be frightening and probably cause problems. The overall mood of the two stories is very similar. The movie is dark throughout the entire thing and if we were visualizing Frankenstein, it would be dark and ominous as well. Mary Shaw’s offspring were her dolls, her creations, much like Victors offspring was his creation. Innocent wives of both of the main characters were killed because of these creations. Victor tried to make a perfect human and Mary Shaw tried to make the perfect doll. In the end, only death and destruction was a result.

Dead Silence as a Frankenstein movie-

1st scene closeup – Creation Scene

-In Dead Silence: A person is shown working on designs for the perfect doll

-lighting is dark and ominous

-almost like a “mad scientist” scene

-can be related greatly to creation scene in Frankenstein

-Victor is frantic and works studiously to create a human like Mary Shaw is working furiously to create the

perfect doll

-Also, scene shows painting of the dolls face and body- all of Frankenstein’s features were chosen and deamed

beautiful, however both creations turned out very scary

2nd Scene Closeup- The Curse

-The “Curse of Mary Shaw” and the promise of appearing on Victor’s wedding night by Frankenstein are very

similar

-Jamie Ashen is on a mission to expose the truth behind the curse while trying not to be killed by Mary Shaw

and her dolls

-The scene is dark and happens very quickly in an abandoned theatre

-Frankensteins promise haunts Victor until the wedding night-the comparison scene

Victor is outside searching for Frankenstein like Jamie searching for the truth

-both characters are being followed by danger

-both scenes are nerve wracking and scary

-Jamie escapes unharmed and so does Victor, though his wife is killed-earlier in the movie Jamie’s wife is

also killed by one of the dolls

-both characters have to live with what they’ve seen and experienced from these two creations

Throughout the Movie-

-Mary Shaw poem throughout- “Beware the curse of Mary Shaw, she had no children only dolls….”

-Mary Shaw’s dolls were her children

-This can be related to Victor and Frankenstein’s relationship; “offspring” used a lot

- The entire movie is dark and scary-much like most of the imagery we get from reading Frankenstein

-Mary Shaw made her dolls kill certain people for revenge; Victor never wanted Frankenstein to kill, he

unintentionally makes Frankenstein do it by showing him no love.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has been around as long as we can remember. Whether in the form of Hollywood horror movies or books, we all have a basic idea of what Frankenstein is about. Basically he is a terrifying monster that wreaks havoc on innocent people. Reading Shelley’s novel, however, can change our minds and make us feel sympathetic towards the creature. Although this insight is available, many readers still believe that Frankenstein is just another horror story. If you take a closer look at the introduction, you will realize that a comparison between Frankenstein’s creation and Mary Shelley’s novel is not farfetched. Opening this door can completely change our views on the meaning of this novel as well as the purpose for writing it.

The second to last paragraph in Shelley’s introduction points to a more complicated relationship between Shelley and her novel. In the introduction, Shelley describes how she was pushed to write a novel by her husband and the way she got started writing in a horror story contest. Near the end of her introduction she states,” And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper”. This is one of the most compelling quotes relating Shelley’s novel to Frankenstein’s creation. Shelley refers to her novel as a “hideous progeny”. The word hideous was used over and over in the novel to describe the creature’s appearance. The creature was let loose into the outside world and prospered. He learned, grew, and developed emotions, becoming more and more human as time passed. Shelley may have been wishing her novel would gain popularity and “prosper” as Frankenstein’s creature did.

The parallel continues as Shelley says,” I have an affection for it, for it was the offspring of happy days, when death and grief were just words, which found no true echo in my heart”. In this statement, Shelley compares herself undoubtedly to Frankenstein and the way he felt about his creation. Frankenstein saw the creature as perfect while he was designing it. His passion was coming to life and though he was in a frenzy, he was happy and excited about his project, just as Shelley was happy about her novel. When she says,”…when death and grief were just words, which found no true echo in my heart”, we are reminded that while Frankenstein was making his creation, he had no thought of the outcome of his design. When let loose, unloved, the creature sought revenge on him, showing him how death and grief felt. Relation can even been seen in the quote,” Its several pages speak of many a walk, many a drive, and many a conversation, when I was not alone; and my companion was one who, in this world, I shall never see more”. While Shelley was writing her novel, it was her companion. Much like throughout the entire story, when Frankenstein was followed by the “monster”. Whether he liked it or not, it was always around him and it was his companion.

Opening up this door, allows the reader to find parallels throughout the entire story. One could even say that like the creature, the novel consumed Shelley’s life as it grew. Much more can be shown to support this comparison. Knowing that Shelley’s popular horror story could have just been a story about herself and her own creation changes our entire perspective. As we read now, we can wonder if this was her intent. With this idea out in the open, ignoring it is impossible. Instead of a story intended to scare an audience, this novel could have been written to explain in different terms to the reader, what this novel meant to her and how it affected her life.

In Chapter 17 of Frankenstein, the creature tries to reason with his creator to make him a companion. The creatures struggle to find someone who understands him had left him depressed and lonely. He had found no comfort in any humans, including the cottagers that he thought he could trust. His quest to find someone who he could love and would love him back, without judging his appearance was fruitless and he was left with no other options except to give his creator an ultimatum.

After telling Frankenstein his tale, he offers to completely separate himself from the human world and live in peaceful seclusion if and only if, Frankenstein makes him a companion of his own. Someone he can love and that will love him back and offer him understanding. Frankenstein, moved by the creatures story, agrees to make his creation a companion. The scene ends and the two go on the separate ways, agreeing that Frankenstein will create another.  However, after much thought, Frankenstein decided that making another creature could have devastating effects. Frankenstein’s creature see’s that Frankenstein has destroyed what he had begun and confronted him about it. The creature tells Frankenstein that he will be with him on his wedding night because of his decision.

Having only seen the Washington College production of Frankenstein, I remember that once Frankenstein and Elisabeth are married, the creature kills Elisabeth. I wonder if the production was true to the story or not. In earlier parts of the novel, the production did not match up. In the scene where Frankenstein is supposed to kill his creations companion, he does not. There are many other times in the novel where the play is inaccurate.  The creatures threat seems very serious and I believe that unless Frankenstein takes precautionary measure, the creature will fulfill his promise. It has been interesting to follow the story, comparing and contrasting what I thought I knew about the story. It has turned out to be very symbolic and much more interesting than the Hollywood versions. It is also very interesting to wonder if Mary Shelley meant to make us think that her novel is symbolized by the creature. I am eager to find more symbols in the novel that point towards this.