Category: ENG 420: QCQ’s

“I cannot help feeling terribly excited as the time draws near for the visit of Dr Van Helsing, for somehow I expect that it will throw some light upon Jonathan’s sad experience; and as he attended poor dear Lucy in her last illness, he can tell me all about her.” (162)

Comment: Dr Van Helsing is a very interesting character and did not for so long tell anyone about his ways. His ways of dealing with Lucy when she died or even the meaning of his methods when she was dying. All of this is very suspicious yet everyone trusts him so much. Mina writes that she looks forward to his visit because he has information about Jonathan and Lucy. People seem to trust him so much, despite his secrecy, due to his knowledge and his being a doctor. Mina, on the other hand, has proven more times than any to be a very strong and tough-minded individual but was left out on many occasions. I know that this was because she was a woman. But, why trust Dr Van Helsing when he was being so secretive? Especially the fact that people around him were dying but he held true to not telling anyone the truth or at least what he knew.

” I seem to have seen all that happened as in a glass darkly, – with about it all an element of unreality. As I have already remarked, the things which revealed themselves, dimely, to my perception, seemed too bizarre, too hideous, to be true.” (243)

Comment: I found it very hard to find a quote that really wrapped up my interpretation of the book. At first, I only thought about this book as a creature that’s main goal was to seduce and control anyone that it could. But, reading different essays about this book got me thinking. It is easy to see this book as just a shapeshifter that likes to torment people but digging deper into it to it, people have dipicted the book as expressing that the victorian era was being tested or that the book is talking about gender and feminism concerns.

The essay ” Conservation of Energy, Individual Agency, and Gothic Terror in Richard Marsh’s The Beetle, or, What’s Scarier Than an Ancient Evil, Shape-shifting Bug?” by Anna Maria Jones, dives into the victorian stigma and if the books meaning is the de-masculinity of some of the characters. This would explain some of the horrors that a character such as Lessinghan felt because being coerced by a being and losing his sense of control made him feel as if his masculinity was tested. He also felt as if his identity was gone for some time, losing the “man” that he once was. Lessinghan talks about this when he said: “I was aroused all at once, to a sense of freedom; to a knowledge that the blood which coursed through my veins was after all my own, that I was master of my own honour.” (244) To me this meant that only when he had a sense of his masculinity, was he able to break the spell upon him.

Another article shows a different but somewhat the same view called “Out of Time: Queer Temporality and Eugenic Monstrosity” by Thomas Stuart talks about how the book to him just expressed the victorian views and how books like The Beetle tested those views. This essay also talked about how the book goes beyond gender boundaries. I agree that the view of the transformation of the creature turning from male to female would be viewed differently with the views of the victorian age. Also characters like Marjorie who actually had a voice when women typically did not showed how the book pushed those classic victorian views. Marjorie reminded me of Jane Eyre and how they both were not afraid to speak their mind but both had people look at them differently because of their opinions.

I see both of the points made from these essay but I saw this book as seeing something different at a period in history when “different” meant bad. Whether someone was gay, or a woman who spoke their mind, or even a person who turned into a beetle was not only unspeakable but evil. You would typically read this book and only look at the creature as the one who needs to be analyzed but seeing the different perspectives showed that different was with ever character. Lessighan was not liked by many because he was a politician with a past that no one knew about. Holt was different because he had no job and was found on many occasion with little to no clothes. Marjorie was different for speaking her mind and loving a man that everyone advised against and lastly, Sydney was different for being smart and thinking that somehow Marjorie was his. But when you learn more about each of their stories you see that there is way more to them then what the differences they have to say about them.

Question: Was the beetle created to push the victorian views of what people should and should not be?

Quote: “I was not only incapable of resistance, I was incapable of distinctly formulating the desire to offer resistance. Some compelling influence moved me hither and thither, with completest disregard of whether I would or would not. “(page 69)

Comment: For class, we always talk about what the monster is. I say what, because it isn’t always a physical person that can be monstrous. You could say that in Jane Eyre the monster was her love for Rochester or you could look at Frankenstein only being a monster due to his monstrous looks and hatred towards Victor. For me, the monster in The Beetle threw Holt’s perspective is his fear. Holt’s fear not only left him frozen on MANY occasions and for most of it, even unable to speak showed how much fear consumed him. Holt broke into Lessingham’s house because, as the quote said, something was driving him to do so. I believe that thing was his fear. When he was trying to get into the locked drawer, he fired a gun which he knew would surely be heard and he would be found but he was still driven so intensely to get what he came for. I think his fear of the creature and man overpowered his fear of being caught.

Question: How strong can our emotions be and can they be the reason that our actions are sometimes monstrous? Does that mean the action is monstrous or we are?

“But you were simple, natural, and affectionate then. You were the most unspoiled creature in the whole world. Now, I don’t know what has come over you. You talk as if you had no heart, no pity in you. It is all Harry’s influence. I see that.” (143)

Comment: Doian is described by everyone in the book as a very attractive man. Dorian seems to be modest and embarrassed by this when he first meets Harry, but as the book goes on and Dorain and Harry talk more, Dorian’s ego seems to increase. He even finds himself admiring himself in his picture until of course, it starts to appear different which is connected with how he acts. Even wanting to marry Sibyl was only due to her looks and talent but once her love for him made her talent disappear, he wanted nothing to do with her.

Question: Would Dorian have shown his selfishness eventually if he never had Harry to emphasize how much looks matter?

Quote: “I am quite sure of him,” replied Jekyll……”You fear, I suppose, that it might lead to his detection?” asked the lawyer. “No,” said the other. (52)

Comment: Throughout the beginning of the book I noticed when Jekyll would have conversations with others, the person responding would go from Jekyll said to the other said. This gave me the indication early on that Dr.Jekyll was not the only one in his head. It was interesting that no one caught on to his changes in tone or what he said. I think the biggest reason was the hunt for Mr.Hyde and him being the only one people cared to find or uncover. Mr.Hyde was constantly described as someone who would instantly make the hair on the back of your neck stand up or make you feel unsettled. Having Mr.Hyde being the only one that people knew was bad left room for the oversight of Dr.Jekyll being off.

Question: Was Dr.Jekyll playing everyone the whole time? He seemed to have cared for Mr.Hyde before he killed that man, so was he in control the whole time as to how he responded to Mr.Utterson and everyone that talked to him about Mr.Hyde?

Quote: “Divine Justice pursued its course; disaster came thick on me”

Comment: Throughout the whole time hearing about Mr.Rochester, the question constantly comes up as to whether he is a good or bad person. And from that in these last few chapters, if he was a bad person, did he get the punishment that he deserved. I did not think Mr.Rochester to be a good person but he risking his life to not only save his “crazy” wife but also the servants in the house. Doing so Mr.Rochester lost his left hand and his sight. I just wonder mostly about Bertha. I wonder if Jane had been told about her from the start if they could have become friends? I believe that Bertha was not always the way that she was portrayed. I think she may have had a mild mental illness which was intensified by being locked away. Because Bertha was nice to Grace, I think she would have warmed up to Jane.

Another question is if Jane was told about Bertha from the beginning, would she have stayed? I think she would have. Not only because Jane is tough and could handle hearing something like this, but given the torment she went through when Bertha would “visit” her occasionally, Jane would have felt safer knowing what that was.

Quote: “Love me, then, or hate me, as you will,” I said at last, “you have my full and free foregiveness: ask now for God’s; and be at peace” Poor, suffering woman! it was too late for her to make now the effort to change her habitual frame of mind: living, she had ever hated me – dying, she must hate me still” (324)

Comment: We have discussed in class many times about what makes someone or something a monster. Last week my group and I discussed how someone can be considered a monster to one person but maybe adored by another. We talked about how Mrs.Reed must have considered Jane a monster but Bessie did not. Jane had many moments in which one may look at her actions and say that she was acting monstrously. Jane had originally stated that she will not like those who treat her poorly. She had said this to Helen who had a more Christian view of that opinion but Jane stuck with her first opinion. Seeing what she went threw, I could see why Jane felt this way.

She had left Mrs. Reed and her cousins for years but in this chapter, she returns due to Mrs.Reed’s health. To my surprise, Jane actually forgives Mrs.Reed even after finding out more devastating actions that Mrs.Reed took to spit Jane. These would include withholding the letter from Jane’s uncle, telling Jane’s uncle that Jane was dead, and not apologizing for how she treated Jane. All of these awful actions would have been hard for me to forgive let alone seeing Jane forgive her. Even when Mrs.Reed dies Jane is still okay with the fact that she died still hating Jane.

Seeing this from Jane showed me that maybe what Helen said stuck with her more then she thought. Or, was it her new surroundings? Seeing that Jane is able to forgive those who wronged her, will she be able to do that again? Mr.Rochester has played her ever since she met him. She even was willing to marry him after finding out that he was lying about getting married to another and that he was actually currently married to someone who was the one tormenting Jane at Thornfield.

Question: Given what Jane previously stated about not accepting those who do wrong to her, but now seeing her forgive Mrs. Reed. Will Jane be able to forgive Mr.Rochecster for his MANY lies and, if so, does Mr. Rochester deserve to be forgiven? Also, who is the monster now in the book?

Quote: “But I feel this, Helen: I must dislike those who, whatever I do to please them, persist in disliking me; I must resist those who punish me unjustly. It is as natural as that I should love those who show me affection, or submit to punishment when I feel it is deserved.” (page 119)

Comment: Throughout the book, Jane had been mistreated everywhere that she lived but all of the people who mistreated her were “in charge”. Jane had to endure what Mrs. Reed and her awful children did to her and then dealt with teachers and Mr.Brocklehurst at Lowood. All of the people that punished Jane seemed to do so for no reason. Jane was tormented by Mrs.Reed and her children for doing absolutely nothing and then punished at Lowood for accidentally breaking a plate. Jane may have dealt with bad people where she lived, but she also had kind people trying to look after her. At the house, she had Bessie who tried to treat Jane better than the rest in the house. I think at the time Jane thought that everyone was trying to belittle her. Only at the end when Jane was leaving for Lowood did she realize that Bessie cared about her. At Lowood, she had Miss Temple who was extremely kind to her and tried to look after her every chance that she got. I agree with Jane saying that people who treat others badly should be treated badly in return and those who treat others kindly should receive the same attitude back. Jane did stand up to Mrs. Reed who backed down and seemed to agree with Jane’s argument. When Jane was publicly shamed in front of her classmates at Lowood she did not stand up for herself because maybe she thought that she deserved the punishment for breaking the plate. Jane seems like a kind and smart girl and endured more then he should of.

Question: Was Jane treated so poorly because she was knowledgable and continued to strive to learn more? Did people resent her because of her knowledge and at such a young age?

“For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires. They were for ever ardent and craving; still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me?”

Comment: The creature seemed to desire what anyone desires, love, friendship, and compassion. When he first ran away from Victor he had to learn everything from the beginning alone but whenever he saw anyone they instantly rejected him because of his appearance. It would have been understandable if the creature killed anyone that treated him poorly, but he didn’t. In the end, the creature, even having killed all of the people closest to Victor, seemed to me to be the victim. Victor created the creature and then abandoned him, of course, the creature would develop some sort of anger towards that.

Question: If the creature was so upset about how the people reacted to him anytime they came in contact, why did he not kill everyone that treated him poorly?

I think one of the biggest misconceptions about monsters is what makes someone or something a monster. Many think that anyone who looks abnormal or doesn’t act normal is a monster. But this is a bad way to identify who is and isn’t a monster. Cohen’s 4th thesis is “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference” (Cohen, 7) which talks about this very point. People are extremely quick to judge what makes someone a monster and one of the biggest reasons is due to the first thing we typically judge on is appearance. Not only is it the first thing typically judged but it is the first thing that we see when we meet someone new.

Cohen talks about a man named Richard from the Renaissance time who used to transform from monster to man by raising his arm to look deformed (9). This showed that people judged him and called him a monster only when he looked, unlike others. Another example of this is when Cohen talked about people in Africa with black skin. “Dark skin was associated with the fires of hell” (Cohen, 10). People believed that because their skin was black it signified hell and people with dark skin must have come from there. This is another visual trait that caused many to judge another based on appearance.

Another factor contributing to the idea of someone being a monster is how they act but this can be affected by how they are treated. In modern movies, creatures do not start out wanting to destroy cities or kill people but after armies come in and try to kill the creature, only then do they typically become violent and destructive. Something is not built to be dangerous but becomes that after being mutually hated and feared. Frankenstein is another example of something that turned into a monster because of how people reacted. I remember movies with Frankenstein and how he did not like fire and when someone had a torch he would become scared and violent.

Being able to tell if someone is truly a monster puts minds at ease because we can stay clear of people ho could cause us harm, but when people found out that someone could be a monster and not look like one becomes scarier. I believe this is why people only wanted to call people who looked different monsters, because we could see it with our eyes. Knowing there are people who are as evil as some look but we are unable to tell is terrifying. This still does not give us the right to judge someone or call someone a monster just by there appearance.