Jealousy in Othello

After reading Act III of William Shakespeare’s Othello, another major theme within the play became apparent. The majority of the problems and actions that take place within the story have the root cause of jealousy. Overall, the reason Iago is lying to everyone about everyone is because he is jealous of Cassio and Othello as well. In his mind, Cassio took his rightful position and Othello took his wife. Because of the jealousy he feels towards those two men, Iago makes it his goal to disgrace and ruin them. However, in Act III of the play, Othello states to Iago, “Within these three days let me hear thee say that Cassio’s not alive,” (Shakespeare 1419). Because Othello believes Cassio is sleeping with his wife, he gets jealous and in turn plots to kill Cassio. Othello’s anger and actions are ironic though because first of all, the reader still does not know whether he slept with Iago’s wife or not, which would make him a hypocrite, and second of all, because there is really nothing going on between Cassio and Othello’s wife Desdemona. Iago’s response to his jealous actually inspires jealousy in the others he interacted with, creating unnecessary drama and conflict. Because of the theme of jealousy within this story, Iago is able to successfully get his wish of slowly destroying Cassio and Othello.

Appearance vs. Reality: Shakespeare's Othello

A theme that becomes apparent in the first three acts of William Shakespeare’s Othello is the idea of appearance versus reality. In these acts, it seems as though the way all the other characters view one character is the exact opposite of the truth. While Iago, the antagonist of the story, is constantly praised as an honorable man, Othello, the protagonist of the story, is often questioned or thought to be disgraceful. The separation between reality and the way things appear is what pushes the story forward. Because Iago wants to get rid of Othello, he decides to go about it by ruining the lives of multiple other characters. While in reality he is a good person, Cassio is made out to look like a raging drunk after Othello’s wife. To convince him of Cassio’s treachery, Iago says to Othello, “But such a handkerchief – I am sure it was your wife’s – did I today see Cassio wipe his beard with,” (Shakespeare, 1418). While everyone else is losing their trust in each other and the officers they had put their faith in, they remain in respect of honest Iago. However, behind it all, Iago is the one tearing everyone’s lives apart and manipulating their feelings and actions. In this play, the one person who is remains a respected person is the one person who does not deserve any respect at all.

Othello's Time Period: Men vs. Women

Act II of William Shakespeare’s Othello introduces the reader to the drastically different roles of men and women in marriage. The two couples mentioned are Iago and Emilia and Othello and Desdemona, and while Othello treats Desdemona much better than Iago treats Emilia, they are still not shown much respect. Othello complains constantly about his wife, especially how she talks too much. During this time, it was expected of wives to take care of the household, have children, and keep quiet. Apparently, Emilia talks to Iago, which upsets him. While complaining to Cassio about her, Iago states, “would she give you so much of her lips as of her tongue she oft bestows on me, you’d have enough,” (Shakespeare, 1385). Iago just wanted a wife who would do as told and keep to herself, and Emilia’s talking does not satisfy that wish of his. Furthermore, Emilia understands that Iago thinks nothing of her. When asked whether he could say something kind or good about her, Iago claims that he could not. Desdemona is even affected by Iago’s disrespect for women when he claims that he will not say anything about her because he is too critical. Iago then goes into a description of all different types of women and how he would treat them, and Iago is still critical and obtuse. Through Iago’s treatment of both his wife and Desdemona, Shakespeare effectively portrays the disrespect shown towards women during the time period of his play.

Iago's Revenge: Othello, Act I-II

After reading Act I of William Shakespeare’s Othello, the reader is introduced to the major conflict of the play. Iago, an ensign to a captain named Othello, is angry over the fact that another man, Michael Cassio, attained the position of Lieutenant, or second in command, over himself. This anger towards Othello’s decision is what fuels the plot line as the story continues. While Iago probably did deserve the position over Cassio as he had more battle experience, Iago goes too far and decides to gain revenge on Othello. Iago, in hopes of vengeance, begins to set up different situations and lies in order to disgrace Othello or cause confusion. Even as one reads into Act II, Iago’s lies are what run the story. The conflict that he creates, whether stating that Othello kidnapped Desdemona or trying to create an affair between her and Cassio, is what slowly starts to whither away at each character’s respect and liability. Furthermore, Iago is after Othello because of a rumor he slept with his wife. However, Iago’s unreasonableness shines through when it is realized that he does not actually know whether it happened or not. Iago states, “And it is thought abroad that ‘twixt my sheets he’s done my office. I know not if’t be true,” (Shakespeare, 1382). Fueled by his anger over his military position, Iago chooses to slowly attack Othello through lies and the people around him.

"Getting Out" by Cleopatra Mathis

After reading Cleopatra Mathis’ poem, “Getting out,” the title relates to the poem and its topic quite well. While the end of the poem results in a breakup between to people, the three stanzas describe the various aspects that led to that end. Getting out if something implies a process, and that’s exactly what Mathis’ stanzas do - describe the process of this breakup. Mathis writes, “Every night, another refusal, the silent work of tightening the heart,” (Mathis, 896). From this phrase, the reader can gather that, regardless of what they did to prevent it, the couple slowly fell farther and farther apart as their hearts tightened a bit more every day. The second stanza discusses how things were or used to be. However, when the happiness was replaced with blame and disagreement, things fell apart. Even at the end, when there was so little of their relationship left, the couple in the poem was still upset to leave each other. In today’s world, we hear so many stories about violent and detrimental divorces which are upsetting, but the slow decline in the relationship of this poem actually saddened me even more. It truly seems as though the people in the poem really tried to make their relationship last, but it just was not meant to be. The idea that regardless of whether people want their relationship to last, it just might not, is truly the most saddening part of life represented in this poem.

"Popular Mechanics" by Raymond Carver

After reading Raymond Carver’s short story, “Popular Mechanics,” it became apparent how important the characters actions were to communicate the tone to the reader. There is minimal description of any setting within the story and the dialogue is limited, so the details Carver includes regarding the actions of the characters contribute greatly towards the plot. The story is focused on a couple who is splitting up, but these actions tell the true severity and anger within their situation. Carver writes, “He did not answer. He fastened the suitcase, put on his coat, looked around the bedroom before turning off the light,” (Carver). Because of the man’s lack of response and controlled behavior, it becomes obvious that the relationship between the characters is not good. Furthermore, the fact that Carver mentions the woman wiping her eyes shows that whatever had happened between the two, it had brought her to tears. Lastly, the final interaction between the two people and their baby shows the true hatred behind their relationship. Because they are so upset with each other, both parents become detached enough to disregard their child safety and pull him apart quite literally. While such actions are very unlikely, they truly helped Carver portray the deep hatred within the relationship, to the point where they would destroy their child.

"The Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin

After reading Kate Chopin’s short story “The Story of an Hour,” I recognized the last line of the story to be a major theme. Chopin writes that a character in the story, Louise Mallard, died “of joy that kills,” (Chopin, 327). The strange idea that joy could kill stood out to me after reading of the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Mallard’s death. Because her husband had supposedly died, Mrs. Mallard was incredibly heart broken and upset. She began to think about her husband in Heaven and that she would get to see him again, and the pure joy and happiness she felt over that subject caused her death. In the real world, I believe that this does actually happen. Weeks after a family friend died, her husband died as well. If a person loves another enough that the thought of seeing them again brings them such joy, it, in the end, can kill them just as it killed Mrs. Mallard. Thinking of something unachievable or even dreaming allows a person to let go, and Mrs. Mallard let go in Chopin’s story in order to be with her husband. However, the twist at the end of the story - that Mallard’s husband was still alive - created a sour ending to the story. The original idea that the two Mallards would be together after death was comforting, but the fact that her husband was not even dead was shocking, as Mrs. Mallard would once again be alone, this time having no way back.

"You're Ugly, Too" by Lorrie Moore

While reading “You’re Ugly, Too,” a short story by Lorrie Moore, one is introduced to the main character of the story, Zoë Hendricks. Throughout the story, Moore brings out Zoë’s personality through her eccentric behaviors and perception of certain situations. She is truly an odd character, and in the end, I believe her eccentricities end up making her a sympathetic character. Her interactions with others oftentimes go downhill because of a comment she makes or something she does that is unintentionally rude or inappropriate. In the story, she pushes Earl, a man she met at her sister’s party, as he is leaning on the edge of a balcony. While he does not fall and is alright, the whole action quite frankly freaks him out and he does not understand what is wrong with Zoë. However, even though she did apologize, Zoë does not really understand what is wrong with her actions; rather, “she smiled at him, and wondered how she looked,” (Moore, 370). Because she misunderstands everyday situations and how to act, she becomes a sympathetic character. Readers feel sorry for her that she has not found love and that her students dislike her, both of which are caused by her odd behavior. Furthermore, after Zoë’s sister announces to her that she is getting married, Zoë begins to tell a story to her sister about two people who fell in love, but in the end, one committed suicide. While she chooses not to finish the story, the idea that Zoë would first think to talk to her sister about a suicide after her engagement announcement shows a little more of Zoë’s eccentricities. The audience feels pity towards her that she does not understand love, furthering her role as a sympathetic character.

"Delight in Disorder" by Robert Herrick

After reading “Delight in Disorder,” a poem by Robert Herrick, the idea of “wild civility” becomes apparent. Throughout the poem, the author praises disorder within people’s clothing – a sense of confusion or distraction. Through this theme, the author successfully transmits the idea that being perfect or striving for perfection is not as desirable as it may seem. The poem shows that no one really wants a perfect person, because it is, in fact, people’s imperfections that create the interest and intrigue behind their personalities. The poem states, “A sweet disorder in the dress, kindles in clothes a wantonness,” (Herrick, 979). This restates the idea that a little disorder creates a sense of intrigue in people. Furthermore, perfection sets a person on a pedestal above others, while a sense of disorder creates more of a sense of accessibility to a person. It places them on the same level as everyone else. By avoiding being buttoned-down, a person can make themselves be more appealing to others, as a person who is not intimidating. Perfection is not always the best thing, and Herrick’s poem proves this point.

"Lonely Hearts" by Wendy Cope

After reading Wendy Cope’s poem, “Lonely Hearts,” I could not help but notice the prominence of all different personalities and characteristics of people. This poem was probably one of the most realistic and relatable poems I have read, because the characteristics of the people mentioned within the poem are all characteristics of people I meet on a daily basis. However, the poem also relates all of these seemingly different people to each other. Whether a biker, a vegetarian, Jewish, bisexual, or successful, most people all yearn for the love and care of another. By connecting all of these various and random traits and personalities together, Cope successfully points out one of the most universal and central desires of all people. The poem repeats, “Can someone make my simple wish come true?” (Cope, 974). This phrase clearly portrays the wants of people and the measures they will take to find the love that everyone needs. While everyone is unique in their own ways, there is also someone equally unique out there for each person. Through her poem, Cope was able to not only connect seemingly different people; rather, she was also able to portray the deep desires of people.

"Eveline" by James Joyce

Within James Joyce’s short story “Eveline,” the theme of “spiritual paralysis” becomes apparent. While many places and countries today spark hope and excitement for the future, Joyce described Dublin within this story as a town full of people frozen into “spiritual paralysis.” They have no hope or no expectations for things to get better, and just like the word describes, they are paralyzed, or unable to move or change. This theme comes to life especially for Eveline. Even though she does not have an easy life and has been abused by her father in the past, she cannot, in the end, bring herself to leave Dublin. The story states, “Her father was becoming old lately, she noticed; he would miss her,” (Joyce, 220). She cannot get past the idea of disappointing her father and straying from the norm, and it prevents her from leaving. The city and the troubles she faces are all Eveline knows, and she becomes too stuck in that state of security with what she knows that she cannot escape it. She is truly spiritually paralyzed. The final expression of spiritual paralysis within “Eveline” is at the close of the story, when she chooses not to leave for Buenos Aires with Frank, a sailor. The uncertainty of the future is too much, and Eveline remains in Dublin.

"How I Met My Husband" by Alice Munro

After reading Alice Munro’s short story, “How I Met My Husband,’ I realized the effectiveness of the surprise ending in the story. Throughout the majority of the work, the reader is under the impression that Chris Watters, a pilot, is the husband of main character Edie. However, the reader later discovers that the mailman Edie meets while waiting for a letter from Chris becomes her husband. This ending was especially effective because it allowed for a revelation. While reading the story, I was confused why Edie was so enamored by Chris, especially because their personalities were not compatible and he was rather forward. Edie, on the other hand, was very shy and much younger than Chris. While waiting for Chris’ promised letter and an explanation for Edie’s care for him, the presence of the mailman made me realize the twist within the story. All of the dramatic events surrounding Chris just led up to Edie meeting the mailman, who in the end turned out to be her husband. The surprise ending was also rather inevitable. Seeing as Chris escaped his fiancée Alice by abandoning his plane ride business, it made sense that he would never really communicate with Edie, a girl he knew for a few weeks, again. However, Edie’s naïveté of Chris’ true intentions allowed her to meet her husband, as the story states, “It never crossed my mind for a long time a letter might not come,” (Munro, 145). When she finally realizes this fact, she is able to begin a relationship with the mailman.

Frankenstein: The Purpose of the Frame Story

After finishing Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the distribution and unique separation of time within the novel added to the story. Initially, the novel begins with four letters that Robert Walton, an explorer, writes to his sister Margaret. Just a few pages before the book ends, we return to Walton’s point of view with the statement, “You have read this strange and terrific story, Margaret,” (Shelley, 155). However, after Walton meets Victor Frankenstein, the reader hears nothing directly related to Walton until the last few pages of the novel. Although Walton was retelling Frankenstein’s story, the entire novel takes place in a letter to Margaret. This interesting separation of events is called a frame story, or a story within a story. Shelley’s use of a frame story enabled her to form the parallelism between Frankenstein, the creature, and Robert Walton. Many similarities are present between the three characters, and the format of a frame story allowed the author to formulate these comparisons without actually requiring them to interact with each other.  Furthermore, although she is never actually met, the frame story allowed for the creation and influence of Margaret. No actual response or words from her are ever read, yet her being influences Walton’s decisions and parallels Victor’s Elizabeth. Through her use of a frame story, Shelley was able to create many different aspects and connections in her novel that might have not been possible if she had followed a tradition format.

Slave v. Master: Motif

One major motif apparent in Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, is that of a slave and his master. Throughout the majority of the novel, there is a constant battle for power between the creator and the creature. Initially, Victor had all of the power, as the creation was simply and idea. However, as it became his obsession, Victor almost became a slave to his work or to the idea of the creature. He never stopped to think about the consequences of his actions, because the prospect of what he could do had taken over his mind, leaving no room for reason. While Victor gained some of that power and control back after creating the creature from the dead and bringing him to life, but as the creature grows older and Victor loses contact with him, the tables began to turn. As the creature became more and more angry with the human race’s disgust and fear of him, he begins to deal with his anger by plotting against Victor. He begins to hold the puppet strings that control Victor’s mood, actions, and health. By murdering Henry Clerval, the creature successfully sends Victor into depression and grave illness, while also getting him sent to prison. By making the right, but morally wrong, decisions, the creature is able to control Victor, just as a master controls his slave. Towards the end of the novel, the creature even refers to Victor as a slave, commanding him to do certain things. The creature states, “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension,” (Shelley, 122). Not only does the creature call Victor a slave, but he also calls him unworthy. This change in power and role becomes quite obvious as the creature overpowers Victor.

Frankenstein: Dramatic Irony

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, a misconception about one of the creature’s comments leads to not Victor’s downfall, but that of another. After Victor refuses to create a female being for the creature, the creature explodes with anger and threats of retaliation. He exclaims to Victor, “I shall be with you on your wedding-night,” (Shelley, 123). However, Victor’s understanding of this statement gets him into trouble. While he fully expects that the creature will kill him after his marriage, dramatic irony comes into play as the reader has prior knowledge of the creature’s motive. The reader realizes that the creature is after Elizabeth, Victor’s future wife, as he hopes to bring Victor to a state of misery and desperation. In the past, the creature had killed William and Clerval – and Justine indirectly – and Elizabeth would be the fourth attack on Victor’s family. He speaks to Victor, stating, “I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour of your birth,” (Shelley, 104). This shows how the creature hopes to bring Victor emotional pain through the murder of others rather than Victor himself, leaving him with the knowledge that his own creation killed many of his loved ones. By killing off even more family members and friends, the creature has slowly whittled away at Victor’s resolve, and the death of Elizabeth would be key in breaking down Victor.

The Creature: Internal Conflict

After reading Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, the true murderer of William, Victor Frankenstein’s younger brother, is finally revealed. However, it turns out the murder was committed due to great internal conflict within the murderer, the creature. After being neglected and feared by his own creator and the DeLacey family, the creature decides that the only person on the planet who would not run in fear of him is a child. After coming across William, he reasons, “this little creature was unprejudiced, and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity,” (Shelley, 102). However, it turns out that the creature’s hopes are dashed. Not only is William terrified of the creature, he also brings up that he is the son of Frankenstein. This is then where the creature’s true internal conflict comes into play. Without realizing that William is Victor’s brother, not son, the creature believes that Victor has a family who he did not abandon. The idea that William was accepted and loved by Victor but he was ignored does not sit well with him, and the creature cannot take it. In the end, he unintentionally kills William, but it appears as though the same end might have been brought upon William at some point if the creature did not kill him then. Internal conflict plagues the creature all throughout the novel, and this instance is one time where the conflict gets the best of his temper.

Characterization of Safie

After reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the characterization of Safie, an Arabian woman, helped the progression of the story. Within the novel, it is explained that Safie had come to live with the DeLacey’s, a family that Frankenstein’s creature had become attached to, after tragic and difficult events in her life. However, as the reader learns more and more about Safie, they learn more and more about the creature as well. Because Safie was Arabian and did not speak the language of the DeLacey’s, they taught her French so that she could communicate with them. Through this teaching, the creature was also able to learn to speak. In the novel, the creature states, “…she was endeavoring to learn their language; and the idea instantly occurred to me that I should make use of the same instructions to the same end,” (Shelley, 83). Furthermore, the novels and books that Safie was being taught from aided the creature, as he was able to learn history and manners and of governments and other civilizations. Safie’s character allowed Shelley to answer the questions of how the creature became such a fluent and eloquent speaker and why he knows so much. Safie’s character was also key in the interaction between the DeLacey’s and the creature. Although the family was not receptive of him and chased him away, the creature would have never been able to meet the family at all without the arrival of Safie.

Frankenstein: Hollywood vs. the Novel

Werewolf! Where wolf? There wolf! While reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, I began to notice some interesting differences between the monster of pop culture and Shelley’s real creation. The only Frankenstein-related movie I have seen is Young Frankenstein, which I know was intended to be comedic, but I still did not expect the film to differ from the book as much as it has so far. The classic creature from movies is usually depicted as a dead body brought back to life by Dr. Frankenstein, however in the novel, the creature is created under entirely different circumstances. Frankenstein is not the mad scientist we all expect, rather he is a young college student enamored with natural philosophy and chemistry. Furthermore, his creation is not one singular body stolen from a grave, but rather a patchwork of mismatched body parts that Victor Frankenstein somehow manages to bring to life. Also, although the monster from culture does cause destruction, death is not usually included in that destruction. In Shelley’s novel, the monster becomes responsible for the death of a small child, Frankenstein’s brother, which was entirely unexpected by me. After catching a glimpse of William’s murderer, Frankenstein claims, “A flash of lightening illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect,” (Shelley, 50). It is at this point that Frankenstein realizes his own creation killed his own brother. This novel is the perfect example of how Hollywood can change the outcomes of books without anyone knowing otherwise. If I had never read this novel, I would have never known all of the misconceptions the movie I watched created.

Frankenstein! What Were You Thinking You Fool!

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, one theme that is very apparent is the death and destruction caused by Victor Frankenstein’s creation. This idea is incredibly ironic however, since Frankenstein created his monster in hopes of cheating death and preventing it from affecting anyone else. Yet, in just a few years after the creation was made, it had both directly and indirectly caused the deaths of two of Frankenstein’s close family members, his little brother William and Justine Moritz. Because of the great number of family members who Victor had seen perish and die or his loved ones has witnessed the death of, Victor used his talent and obsession with natural philosophy to try and find a way around the grief and pain caused by death. However, after he creates the monster, he immediately knows that he has made a major mistake. This mistake continues to haunt him as it takes out more close acquaintances and loved ones, and at one point he even considers suicide because of the damage he has indirectly caused. Victor states, “I listened to this discourse with the extremest agony. I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer,” (Shelley, 63). Furthermore, the irony of this situation does in fact add an element of spookiness and horror to the novel. What was made with the hope of saving lives became a cause of destruction, and because this can happen in our world today, Shelley effectively creates an ominous tone.

Frankenstein and Walton: Fast Friendship

Robert Walton

After beginning to read Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein, similarities between Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the classic monster, and Robert Walton, a hopeful explorer, became apparent. The most obvious comparison is the two men’s obsession with attaining a goal that has never before been accomplished. While Frankenstein hoped to restore life to a dead body, Walton wishes to reach the North Pole. Although both of these goals are very dangerous and could have drastic consequences, neither man can let go of the obsession they have formed. Furthermore, both men neglect their relationships with their families in order to attain their dreams. When Frankenstein leaves for college, he does not return to his family for six years because of his creation of the monster. The time it takes to study and create the creature and then the time he loses when it goes missing prevents him from communicating with his loved ones. Walton also leaves family behind for his goal, as is noted by the multiple letters he mails to his sister. Quite comfortable with the idea that he might never see her again, Walton never ceases to remind his sister, Margaret Saville, that he might die during this voyage. He writes to his sister, “I love you very tenderly. Remember me with affection, should you never hear from me again,” (Shelley, 6). Although people do put themselves at risk on a daily basis, both Frankenstein and Walton walk into the face of danger, disregarding the opinions of their families and the effect their disappearance has on them.