Cannery Row

            Cannery Row was certainty a refreshing summer reading assignment. Where Frankenstein had a much more serious tone,(akin to most summer reading novels), Steinbeck's novel was actually humorous and witty. This thought aside, I truly enjoyed this novel for its surprising depth of its characters, the detail put in its landscape, and the overall lightheartedness of the book.

            Some of my personal favorite characters were characters like Dora Flood or Mack and the boys.  These characters, by normal terms, have very questionable jobs or affiliations. Dora Flood runs a brothel, and Mack and the boys are described as a group of scheming crooks. However, these characters are more three dimensional than they seem. Dora Flood for example, feels that she must be twice as generous for her "unorthodox" career choice, and while Mack is a bit of a trouble maker, he is depicted as always having the best intentions in mind. However, the entire community as a whole had one particular interesting quality that I noticed.  While many people strive for more and more, these people are perfectly content with their current lifestyles. Mack and the boys at the Palace Flophouse need little and appreciate much, and whatever they do need they acquire by cunning, Henri the painter is forever building and dismantling his boat so that he may continue building it.

            One interesting thing to notice is the respect that Steinbeck gives to prostitutes. The description of the Bear Flag Restaurant , "A decent, clean, honest, old-fashioned sporting house where a man can take a glass of beer among friends... a sturdy, virtuous club," is drastically different than what one would normally think of. Unlike the shady, dark alleyway stereotypes, this business is run honestly and is beneficial to the community, (albeit indirectly through the conscious of Dora Flood). This description brings to mind a short monologue given by George, from Of Mice and Men. Here George states that a brothel is a place where one can agree upon services paid up front and unlike other "professional" relationships, one knows what he or she is going to get.

            Another point of interest in this novel is sheer amount of detail put into the descriptions of the scenery. Given the fact that Steinbeck based the setting of the novel on a real place (Which was later named Cannery Row in honor of this novel), it should not come as too great of a surprise. However, because of the amount of detail in the character descriptions, the setting, and the unfolding events, this novel was very easy to get sucked into. This is quite easily a book that I would recommend to my friends for a story that is fairly simple, character that are unique, and an unforgettable read.

Frankenstein

                Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was one of the more interesting and complex books I have ever read.  In particular what was the most interesting was the motivation of, not only the characters, but also of the author herself. Why write a "ghost story" with characters like Dr. Frankenstien and the monster?  What was her message?  These were a few of the questions that ran through my head while i was reading this highly engrossing novel.

                First, let us talk about Mary Shelley herself.  In order to better understand the characters of Frankenstein, I felt it was necessary to do some background information on Ms. Shelley. One of the first things that I noticed is that her mother, father, and her husband all had some connection to literature. In fact, her husband, Percy Shelley, was a writer himself. Because of this, it is easy to see how Shelley started writing.  The second point of interest that my research found was the fact that she was a political radical, as evidenced by her holding a job as a writer during the 1700s, a time frame where a woman holding a job was generally frowned upon.  Thus began my search for evidence of her being a radical in her novel.  At first the book seemed fairly normal by today's standards. Well defined scenery, deep characters, and an obvious moral lesson. Nothing that seemed radical overall. But then i looked up the overall writing style of other books written in the timeframe.  That is when it became clear.  During the Gothic-Romantic timeframe, the time when Frankenstein was published, characters were defined by their appearances. The evil antagonist would be obviously evil and the protagonist clearly defined as a good.  In Frankenstein, the line between good and evil is blurred. The protagonist is a vile creature, a monster in every aspect of appearance, where as the antagonist is the schooled and learned scholar. It was with this I began to see how big of an impact the lesson of the book would have. All other novels written told that what was good was good, and what was evil looked evil. Clearly, through this particular novel, this is not the case. Because I now know the impact such a novel would have had during that time frame, I feel that I can appreciate it fully.

                The character Dr. Frankenstein, was likeable enough in the begining. He seemes like a naive school boy in the beginning. However, by the end of the novel, he is a guilt ridden man, driven by a desire to obtain a godlike control over life. Personally, he was the most infuriating character  I have ever read.  I truly hate the arrogant and this man is the prime example of arrogance.  There are things that man should not try and tamper with, death being one of them. But my dislike for Victor Frankenstein does not stop there. He uses the excuse of research to justify horrid acts such as digging through graveyards, disconnecting himself from society, and eventually, trying to play God and create life. Personal preferences aside, Victor, because of his distance from society, is doomed to become a man without anything that makes him humane.  Now, why does Mary Shelley put a true emphasis on this man's character development?  The novel depicts him as a fairly well off man who has an interest in alchemy and the modern sciences.  This sounds like a good thing, but yet he becomes quite the disgusting man.  Again, the reason is simple, Frankenstein is to be the foil to his monster. Whereas he is well off but is the evil character, society rejects the generally benevolent monster.  This enforces the message of "Don't judge a book by its cover" in the book.  Shelley also includes Frankenstein to show that your family status does not make a man into a good person.  To the contrary, because Frankenstein was so well off, he was able to obtain the resources necessary for his horrific experiments.  All in all, Frankenstein is a necessary component to the book that gives the novel a deeper meaning.

                The third point of interest about this novel is the monster. Ironically, it is the monster that is the victim in the novel. Even though he is a benevolent creature, people shun him because of his appearance, a trait that he cannot change. Because of this, he hates his own existance and vows revenge on his creator. I truly liked the development of the character. I am not entirely  sure why, maybe it is because I sympathize with the monster, or it is because I hated Victor. Regardless, I feel that Mary Shelley put a bit of herself in the monster's situation. Like the monster, she was not accepted everywhere because of something she cannot change. In her case, her gender.  Also like the monster, she was constantly underestimated, being thought of as intellectually inferior to her male counterparts. A fact that is not true. In addition, the monster is there to reinforce the message that one cannot judge based on appearance, gender, or status. Rather, it is our actions that people should judge us by.  By depicting the monster as a gentle creature, contrary to beliefs and stereotypes, Mary Shelley holds the book's message in a not-so-inconspicuous way.