The Birthmark
I'm creating this thread so we can discuss the story the Birthmark (we're supposed to post comments on it here as we didn't get to it during Friday's class).
I think that the story is actually fairly similar to Frankenstein. Certainly, the Almayer character is modeled on Victor Frankenstein beyond any doubt. However I think what the story is really critiquing is not the idea that humanity has the the right to interfere with nature, but rather patriarchal values - essentially the idea that the rich powerful white guy (who certainly is Almayer) has the right to impose his will on anything other than himself, because he's apparently making things "better." Of course I'm probably just reading my own leftist views into the story, but the way that Georgiana is treated (even though she seems to lack any will of her own) seems to lend itself to a critique of her husband imposing his will on her rather than the institution of science. The reason things end up so badly is that Almayer always believes that he is doing the right thing and this justifies any risks he might be taking, even with other people's lives. It also justifies him lying to Georgiana, in a move not unlike what Plato said in The Republic - that the educated upper classes have the right to keep everyone else in the dark because they know best. Damn was Plato ever an asshole (pardon my language).
Further thoughts shall appear...
I think that the story is actually fairly similar to Frankenstein. Certainly, the Almayer character is modeled on Victor Frankenstein beyond any doubt. However I think what the story is really critiquing is not the idea that humanity has the the right to interfere with nature, but rather patriarchal values - essentially the idea that the rich powerful white guy (who certainly is Almayer) has the right to impose his will on anything other than himself, because he's apparently making things "better." Of course I'm probably just reading my own leftist views into the story, but the way that Georgiana is treated (even though she seems to lack any will of her own) seems to lend itself to a critique of her husband imposing his will on her rather than the institution of science. The reason things end up so badly is that Almayer always believes that he is doing the right thing and this justifies any risks he might be taking, even with other people's lives. It also justifies him lying to Georgiana, in a move not unlike what Plato said in The Republic - that the educated upper classes have the right to keep everyone else in the dark because they know best. Damn was Plato ever an asshole (pardon my language).
Further thoughts shall appear...
posted by Dustin at 11:19 PM
6 Comments:
Wow, Plato said that in The Republic, hey? So that's where the name of the right-wing American party comes from. Now I see that the control of media is totally justified by some ancient philosophy. Well, I guess they're okay now...
Uh, sorry, got side tracked. I think that Aylmer quickly comes to see Georgiana as another phenomenon to be observed, understood and added to his repertoire of tricks. He doesn't actually seek her consent for the final risky step; that fact that she gives it is irrelevant, as he was already prepared to take it. That she shows little agency (and is even scolded for reading) suggests that she has already internalized the idea that a Republi... uh, a "rich powerful white guy" has the right to decide for her what is fine and good and worthy of respect. I agree that we have a critque of a certain mindset that often attaches itself to the pursuit of science, not of science itself. Technology provides a window through which to view modernity and it's attendant social problems.
Also, I seem to have lost my reading package that contains this story (either at the bar or grocery store); could I borrow one to make a copy of?
I confess, Aylmer also reminds me of W. Bush. But at least the scientist is in pursuit of something, even if it is only for the sake of being in pursuit of it and not in the interest of science itself. I disagree with the Republic comparison though. I think W. is closer to being a modern-day sophist, as opposed to being in pursuit of anything (especially knowledge or justice). Even though he can't talk very well, he relies on crappy rhetoric that seems to suck in a certain audience. And he is getting rich in doing so, much similar to the way the enemies of Plato made their living...or Dr.Phil for that matter.
"The educated upper classes have the right to keep everyone else in the dark because they know best."
The rulers of the Kalipolis, I think were suppose to be the ideological icon for everything that is just or good for humanity - an Aristocracy, where "the best" rule, and not the people that think they are the best (W.), but actually the ideological “best”, if there is such a thing. But I think what Plato might have been trying to get at was that if these rulers actually existed, they would know the best way to create community-wide justice, liberation, and harmony. If that is the case, I don’t think Plato or Socrates are very similar to W. or Aylmer.
Does it bother anyone else in this story that Aylmer talks about love? It's absurd to believe that anything remotely resembling love is part of his understanding. He takes the woman he "loves" and turns her into a science experiment because he can't get past a silly mark that, until he came along, she was proud to posess believeing it was a unique gift. It is apparent that no cost was too great for his pursuit of science or perfection (reminds me of the Stepford Wives). Ultimately her death was preferred over the "appaling" birthmark. Seems like a very loving relationship.
Okay...remeber the first class, how we looked at those early definitions of "monster" and Monstrous... they arose out of bizarre birth defects etc. In this story, her birthmark is perceived by Aylmer to be monstrous- but the birthmark occurs naturally, it is a natural mark. Nature is full of imperfections and inconsistencies, but what Aylmer is aspiring towards is perfection- perfection in the story is thus deemed the monstrous. The birthmark can be seen to simply represent Georgiana, and her humanity, thus it seems that Aylmer is ultimately offended by her humanity.It is an act against nature for Aylmer to remove said birthmark, and, as we have seen in Frankenstein, aspiring against nature is ill advised.
Okay...remeber the first class, how we looked at those early definitions of "monster" and Monstrous... they arose out of bizarre birth defects etc. In this story, her birthmark is perceived by Aylmer to be monstrous- but the birthmark occurs naturally, it is a natural mark. Nature is full of imperfections and inconsistencies, but what Aylmer is aspiring towards is perfection- perfection in the story is thus deemed the monstrous. The birthmark can be seen to simply represent Georgiana, and her humanity, thus it seems that Aylmer is ultimately offended by her humanity.It is an act against nature for Aylmer to remove said birthmark, and, as we have seen in Frankenstein, aspiring against nature is ill advised.
Okay...remeber the first class, how we looked at those early definitions of "monster" and Monstrous... they arose out of bizarre birth defects etc. In this story, her birthmark is perceived by Aylmer to be monstrous- but the birthmark occurs naturally, it is a natural mark. Nature is full of imperfections and inconsistencies, but what Aylmer is aspiring towards is perfection- perfection in the story is thus deemed the monstrous. The birthmark can be seen to simply represent Georgiana, and her humanity, thus it seems that Aylmer is ultimately offended by her humanity.It is an act against nature for Aylmer to remove said birthmark, and, as we have seen in Frankenstein, aspiring against nature is ill advised.
Post a Comment
<< Home