Response 2

http://aahblog.blogspot.com

Hooray! This is the first creative project I have seen proposed, so I am very happy to try and help you with some ideas. For those just joining, this project is a poem set in some old yet modern place in some unidentified time, the story involving murder, ghosts and revenge. It sounds exciting. I have a lot of jumbled thoughts about your proposal, so here is my attempt to tell you about them...

There always seems to be a "moral of the story". The morals I got from some of the books we read: Don't focus on one thing all your life (Frankenstein); Follow your heart (Whethering Heights); Fight temptation instead of avoiding it (The Monk); Appreciate what you have or your own power (Interview with the Vampire). These seemingly innocent morals from fairy tales are twisted into something ugly and horrifying by adding some kind of monster. Is your ghost the monster in your story? What moral might it be acting on or against?

As long as we're talking about it, what is the moral of your story? Will you be talking about women's rights or the family or aristocracy? What will make your plot uncanny? Will your story be a metaphor? That might be kind of difficult if you don't have a definite time period or setting.

I like that you are talking about a ghost. We had discussed that ghosts are never just there but that they stand for something. What does your ghost stand for? Think about the other ghosts we've encountered, the bleeding nun, Catherine's ghost, Beloved... What do they do in their stories? How do they relate and iterract with the characters?

A quote for you from Whethering Heights: Heathcliff talking to Catherine's ghost, "He got on to the bed and wrenched open the lattice, bursting, as he pulled at it, into an uncontrollable passion of tears. "Come in! come in!" he sobbed, "Cathy, do come. Oh, do -once more! Oh! my heart's darling hear me this time - catherine, at last!" (Pg. 23). Her ghost is an obsession for him, symbolizing his past, his only love, all his regret. What does it mean that she returns to his house but doesn't talk to him? Does he get anything out of her appearance? Why does she show up in the first place?

Have fun writing!

Response 1

http://leahgriesel.blogspot.com/

I like this idea: that the "outsiders" or "different" characters are desired. I would have liked a better taste of this idea, perhaps a few quotes and/or a more solid thesis. Why are they desireable?

What stands out for me when I think of Heathcliff is that he was able to "play the game" and manipulate the social network of society even though he was an outcast. I remember talking about that in class. It was the coolest thing for me to see it that way. Heathcliff has the ability to see what those trapped in "the game" cannot. He is allowed to do more things because he is not bound by the rules. Why could he do what he did (Tear apart two households, marry out of spite and downright torture people)? Why couldn't they stop him? Why is this desireable?

Louis is an interesting guy. But desireable? When I read, "Interview with the Vampire" in your list of two books, I thought that Claudia was the one that would be the proclaimed outcast. The head woman vampire was jealous of Claudia's beauty and that's why she wanted her gone. (That might have been the movie...). A quote that kind of describes this situation, "Estelle and Celeste... fondled Claudia with the license of the blind, running their hands over her radiant hair, touching even her lips, while she, her eyes still misty and distant, tollerated it all, knowing what I also knew and what they seemed unable to grasp: that a woman's mind as sharp and distinct as their own lived within that small body." (241). Again, I think that Armand tells Louis somewhere that Celeste was jealous.
As for Louis, I think he was desireable for his reluctance at accepting any truth until the end. I know that Santiago says he likes Louis on Pg. 239 when Louis doesn't hear him approaching. Perhaps you could look into why Louis is desireable to different characters, definitely Santiago, Lestat, Claudia and maybe Armand (Since I thought Armand liked Louis because they were so alike, but at the same time different in their views about "gradations of evil" ..."

Anyways, Good luck writing your paper. Have fun!

Final Project

Extended Literary Analysis Paper: I am confident in the paper Vampires and Humanity in and through Time I wrote for Interview with the Vampire. I feel that the topic of vampires as a metaphor is one worth exploring, and might even be fun, especially with all the Twilight and many more pieces of vampire entertainment about us. I would like to take this opportunity to become an educated viewer and get something deeper out my experience than just a good story. Anyways, in my first paper, I explored the possibilities of immortality and vampirism, what time means for immortals, and the search for truth and origin. In the final project I would dig further into the topic of time for vampires while applying them to the time/generation of the book's publication. In other words, vampires are a metaphor for issues of the time that the vampire book was published. To do this effectively, I would reference the works of The Postmodern Condition, Simulacra and Simulation, and Tendencies. These works on postmodern views and ways of thinking are what was going on at the time of Interview with the Vampire. A quote that I would like to use: "there are important senses in which "queer" can signify only when attached to the first person. ... to make the description "queer" a true one is the impulsion to use it in the first person". (Tendencies) I think this quote would be a good one to look at what Interview points out about thought. From Interview, Armand says, "is this th eonly power that obsesses you, so that yo must make us gods and devils yourself when the only power there exists is inside ourselves?" (237). The two quotes relate to each other because they refer to true meaning, or the purest source of information and thoughts.
To emphasize how the vampire is a metaphor for the time it was introduced I would also bring in Dracula and talk about it's metaphor to Britain, Victorian times and views. A most valuable resource for this part of the paper would be the literary analysis The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the Anxiety of Reverse Colonization. I like that it talks about a variety of things. For instance, vampires being indicative of a country's ruin. The metaphor is that British appearance in a country means "game over". The analysis also talks about how vampires take over and transform their victims' "personal identities... cultural, political, and racial selves" (465). This is getting at the metaphor of colonization being a mix between the country and britain, but to really exploit this idea a quote about the "mother" vampire and it's child vampire interracting should be used. I should also look into the other analyses to see if there are any more historical accounts of Britain's views, politics or other relevant issues.
Through both novels, this would also be a good opportunity to see how each time viewed women, their place, and their rights. To do this I would examine how women interracted, responded and related to the vampire, which is a metaphor for the time and, in both novels, a man vampire. The same idea goes for gay or lesbian views in both novels.

Interview with the Vampire: "Queering" of the Family

There is a saying that goes something like, "You can't choose your family". Well, in the realm of vampires you can! Regarding Lestat, he chose very strangely his companions for the rest of eternity. Lestat created his first child, Louis. Already, the uncanny nature of the book reveals itself in this act. As in "Frankenstein", Victor creates without a woman a fully grown and functional vampire son and must teach it how to survive in the world, which he doesn't seem to do a very good job of. Louis tells the interviewer that Lestat's reasons for turning him were for Pointe du Lac to keep his dying father. Louis also suggests that Lestat was not that great with finances, "If he were not picking the pocket of a dead man in the alley, he was at the greatest gambling tables in the richest salons of the city, using his vampire keenness to suck gold and dollars and deeds of property from young planters' sons... But this had never given him the life he wanted, and so for that he had ushered me into the preternatural world that he might acquire an investor or manager..." (Pg 39). Louis was a security measure for Lestat so he could live forever in luxury. In this sense, the son was more of a slave: someone who only came to be in order to better the living experience of the master, which is what happened. Could this be a critique on the function of the American son? that he is only born to support his father? Or could it be a broader question of the function of future generations? Are people born only to support the lives of who came before them? (Social Security?).
When Louis finally drank from a human of his own will, Lestat bonded with him. This bonding seemed to be some sort of marriage for them and Lestat was all for it. Lestat finally suggested that they "talk" for the first time and he was very encouraging of Louis to accept and embrace the act of taking human blood. After they were married, Lestat was urgent about having a child. Lestat exclaimed, "I am like a mother... I want a child!" (Pg 88). This is another uncanny moment for Lestat. Instead of just playing the part of a human mother, he readily admits to this quality in him as feminine. Does this make him the wife of the couple? Well, Lestat had Louis suck the little girl almost to death and then he brought her into vampirism as their daughter. So here we have Lestat, a mother of two and spouse to the first, and Louis who contributed to the "birth" of his sister. This is very possible for a human family, an incestuous human family, to accomplish so it is not entirely far fetched. If Lestat had been a woman then it would not seem so entirely strange, but he is indeed a man. Is this a critique on what would happen if men were given the ability to reproduce?
As if it could not become weirder, the relationship between the little vampire daughter, named Claudia, Louis and Lestat becomes different over time. At first, Louis and Lestat are strictly teachers to her. It is kind of funny that Lestat is more of a father to her and teaches her to hunt while Louis teaches her to appreciate "vampire eyes" and literature. This suggests that it is Louis who is the mother in their couple. Then as Claudia's mind grows older, Louis notices, "She sees herself as equal to us now, and us as equal to each other" (Pg. 105). Their fear is that she does not understand the slavery and power structure that is part of the vampire family and she threatens the balance of their harmony by even questioning it. She plays on Louis's affection for her to help overthrow Lestat and to run away with her. During their adventure she confesses loving him and even kisses him. Louis and Claudia go from a mother and daughter relationship to being equally enslaved by Lestat and running away as equals, to being lovers, which Louis doesn't seem to object to. All of this is happening while she is trapped in the body of a little girl, which makes it really disturbing. Is this pointing out the flexibility of the woman's personality?

ALSO

I thought it was kind of funny seeing them as Lestat = Father, Louis = Mother, and Claudia = Daughter and the situations they were in. When Louis was interested in Babette, Lestat seemed rather jealous and short tempered with Louis as if he was cheating on him. Then when Louis described Lestats interest in the young musician he seemed very particular and personal about his obsession. I just thought it was funny that they were so petty about it with each other as if they really were lovers

DRACULA: Children

In Dracula, children do not play a major role. The few glimpses we do have of them are rare and revealing about what is happening in the story.

The "Bloofer Lady", who is actually Lucy as a vampire, attracts children away from their play in order to take their blood. The children do not seem to realize their danger for in the newspaper it accounted one of her victims as, "this poor little mite, when he woke up today, asked the nurse if he might go away... to play with the "bloofer lady." (Pg. 174). The symbolism of this child's opinion of the "Bloofer Lady" reflects the opinion of most of the heroes of the story at the time. The men who had loved Lucy were still so and, since they were ignorant or in doubt of her condition, would have ran away with her. Arthur's response to her seduction supports this theory: as she pleaded for him to rest with her he "seemed under a spell; moving his hands from his face, he opened wide his arms" (Pg. 188). His suceptibility to her spell was probably more potent because he had been her fiance and was childlike in his refusal to believe she was dead.

While the group of men confronted the vampire Lucy, she held in her posession a child which she would have fed on. When she became preoccupied with the men, "she flung to the ground, callous as a devil, the child that up to now she had clutched strenuously to her breast, growling over it as a dog growls over a bone" (Pg. 188). The child's situation mirrors that of Arthur as she seduces him. He is has helpless to her as a child is to a vampire with the strength of twenty men.

In a less significant situaiton, Jonathan is trying to get ahold of information regarding the boxes of earth. To get an address sent to him, "one of the children went off with a penny to buy an envelope and a sheet of paper, and to keep the change" (Pg. 230). This situation reflects Jonathan's usefullness at the moment. He is thrilled to be useful to the vampire hunt cause and the information he is getting is most important to him as the penny would have been to the child.

DRACULA: Role Confusion

One of the many staple elements of the Gothic Novel diet is the uncanny issue of distorting the boundaries of roles. In Dracula there are a few sentiments that leave this distinct taste. The three characters that mix up their roles are Jonathan, Mina and Dracula.

From the start, Jonathan has come across as a rather feminine male character. He takes a lot of time to explain his feelings and to talk things through with his diary, which is generally perceived as a feminine activity. He does not spare many thoughts no matter how irrelevent they may seem. Thus his feminine quality of writing out all of his observations and feelings serves as an effective narrator but also reveals his character as one that is more feminine. Jonathan also finds comfort in the prison/castle by staying in a room in which he assumes was occupied by women at one time. Jonathan explains that he would rather disobey the Count in order to sleep in a room where, "old ladies had sat and sung and lived sweet lives whilst their gentle breasts were sad for their menfolk away in the midst of remorseless wars" (Pg. 41). Jonathan would probably have preferred any place of another connotation than a jail, but it is strange that he should find comfort in a woman's room than to continue searching for a manlier resting place. His decision to stay in this room expresses his desire to be like those women and detach themselves from the horrible situation they were really in. Jonathan's excess of feminine qualities blurs the line of defining him as a man and gives off the uncanny feeling of gender crossing.

Ironically, Mina, Jonathan's bride to be, comes across as more masculine when compared to her expected role. This is especially apparent when she is writing to her childhood friend, Lucy. In stark contrast, Mina neglects to use any italicizing, which is foot noted to, "announce that... she is a traditional Victorian Lady" (Pg. 56). Mina also holds a job, where Lucy is free to be pampered and adored. Lucy is the embodiment of the the woman's expected roles at the time and Mina seems to be everything that Lucy is not. In comparison to Lucy, Mina is very masculine.

Dracula also experiences some role reversal. As one of the few occupants of his castle, Dracula must tend to the work that servants would normally take on. The foot notes attempt to explain to us modern folk that, "Dracula [as] his own servant... may have looked evilly unmasculine, and thus inhuman, to some Victorians" (Pg. 32). This may seem noble and self sufficient of Dracula, but it wasn't taken that way when it was written. The point is that being a servant and a master are polar opposites and are uncanny to exist together in one person.

The characters of Jonathan, Mina, and Dracula distort the boundaries of their character roles. They take their given appearances and flip them upside down to be seen as something they are not. To be accepted as one title but to exibit behavior that is socially unexpected is to whip up a recipe for a very uncanny novel.

Wuthering Heights: The Women are to Blame?

Who is it that should be blamed for what happened between the families of Earnshaw, Linton and Heathcliff? The book has made it difficult to put any single person at blame. The fault is an entire web of connections. It is striking that some of these connections could have been avoided and the diabolical plan foiled instantly. These points are held by Catherine, Nelly, and Cathy.

Catherine's change in the beginning from tyrannical child to socially acceptable lady is what ultimately drives Heathcliff to destroy everything that revolves around her social happiness. Immediately, Catherine belittles Heathcliff for being so dirty when they are reunited. Heathcliff at first wants nothing to do with being civil, but he tries to in order to be with Catherine. She does not appreciate his attempt and this deters him from accepting himself as being able to join her in society. The blow of Catherine leaving Heathcliff for Edgar made him resent himself, for not being able to make her happy, and her, for denying that he could ever satisfy her. Catherine explains to Nelly, "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him;" (Pg 63). If Catherine had been true to her heart and married Heathcliff for love, then the majority of Heathcliff's revenge would have been negated.

Nelly is also a major connection of the web. Her importance is spurring on this hellish cycle is allowing it to proceed. Her earlier acts of negligence were granting Heathcliff and Catherine to indulge in their sick romance. Nelly watches silently as they kiss at the Grange while Edgar is not home. Nelly knew that Edgar would not be pleased to have Heathcliff in his home and also knew that Heathcliff's presence would stress Catherine. Later on, Nelly is granted a second chance to deter the chaos of Heathcliff's wrath by influencing Cathy. However, Nelly yeilds to the child's whims instead of being firm with her. Nelly discovered the love letters between Cathy and Linton and would have shown them to Edgar, but Cathy pleaded for her to burn them instead. Nelly thought, "I esteemed it all girlish vanity, I at length relented in a measure..." (Pg. 175). Had Nelly been firm in her giving the notes to Edgar, he would have been better at stunting Cathy's pursuit of Linton.

Cathy's part in this web of blame is her disobedience and wild passion. Her instances of defiance, issued at her father and Nelly, had undoubtably secured Heathcliffs plan of ultimate revenge. The first defiance that started the snowball effect was inspired by Cathy's thurst for adventure and she came across Wuthering Heights by accident. Had she simply regarded Edgar's and Nelly's wishes for her to remain on Thrushcross grounds she would have never allowed Heathcliff to initiate his scheme to use her. Cathy's wild passion for Linton drives her to disobey even further. She takes full advantage of her guardian's illnesses to go and see Linton in secret. These visits allowed for her to become more and more attached and, simultaneously, succeptible to Heathcliff's powers of manipulation.

Had any one of these points been severed in the process, the web of Heathcliff's revenge should have failed. These women could have stopped his evil rampage at any point, but instead they seemed to have no choice but to play along in his scheme. Should Heathcliff be blamed, then it is the fault of everyone who created him. The women of the story had the power to end the reign of this bitter creation, so then it is their own fault that he succeded.

Wuthering Heights: Catherine

Regarding Catherine's character, she gets herself into a pretty situation by the hundredth page. The story becomes filled with lies, confessions and all around blasphemy! I am not sure whether or not I feel sorry for her, support her or resent her.

Should we feel sorry for Catherine? For starters, she lead an unfortunate childhood. She grew up very attached to Heathcliff which bred a sense of mischievousness in her. Nelly relates to us that, " [Catherine] laughed if I told her to say she was sorry for her faults, and beg to be forgiven" ( Pg. 34). On top of that social hindrance, her father died while she was still young and that would have undoubtedly scarred and stunted her growing personality. Heathcliff seemed to be the only one that could console her, or at least Nelly nor Hindley did not try, so is probably why she holds him so dearly. The affect they had on each other was most obvious after Mr. Earnshaw's death, ""The little souls were comforting each other with better thoughts... no parson in the world ever pictured heaven so beautifully as they did, in their innocent talk;..." (Pg. 35). The strange relationship that Heathcliff and Catherine had when they were children, one that was detrimental yet friendly, makes me unsure of whether or not to feel sorry for her. It's true that she grew up in a sorry way, but she was content to be with Heathcliff. I say that I feel sorry for her because she could not have known any other way than Heathcliff.

Should we support Catherine? Her scheme seems to be keeping Heathcliff to herself. Initially, I do not support her since she was so mean and heartless to Heathcliff. She confessed to Nelly, while Heathcliff eavesdropped, "It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him;...Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same,..." (Pg. 63). It was tense for me to read that part, as I felt the foreshadowing that Heathcliff would want revenge for her selfish declining of her love for him. After three years of separation, she gratefully welcomes him over despite her husband, Linton, and his obvious discomfort. They all should have nothing to do with each other yet she persists. The mixture while at tea is described as, "The meal hardly endured ten minutes. Catherine's cup was never filled, she could neither eat nor drink. Edgar had made a slop in his saucer, and scarecely swallowed a mouthful" (Pg. 76). Heathcliff's presence is so unnatural to their regular lives. I rather feel sorry for Heathcliff for wanting to come back to suffer their harshness. As far as Catherine's support goes, I feel she should be at least granted the chance to see Heathcliff and be able to discover his true intentions so she might move on.

Should we dislike Catherine? To this I say she is as succeptible to the pitfalls of every human being. She is selfish of her friend and has a quick temper, which are not uncommon faults. However, they are so extreme when she learns of Isabella's affection for Heathcliff. She tells Heathcliff in an exaggerated tone about Isabella's apparent obsession with him and forces Isabella to witness her rant. This is a too-cruel thing to do and I do not blame Isabella for resorting to violence in order to free herself from the situation. I fear that is the reaction Catherine was waiting for so that Heathcliff would come to detest Isabella for her rashness. This is contradictory, though, because Catherine was being so much more rash that Heathcliff should come to dislike Catherine more than Isabella because of this encounter. By using this underhanded tactic and taking advantage of her reknown bad temper, I dislike Catherine.

Frankenstein: The Climax (?)

At the conclusion of the story Frankenstein, I became disappointed at the lack of a solid climax. With some difficulty, I strove to come up with where the climax of the story was and came up with a few possibilities. The climax may have occurred at Victor's destruction of the female monster, Elizabeth's death, and Victor's promise to live in order to take revenge.

I felt that the obliteration of the female monster by Victor's hands was a contender in the contest for the climax of the story. My main reasoning for this is that it is the only act of violence read as it happened. Victor described the event as, "trembling with passion, [I] tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged. The wretch saw me destroy the creature on whose future existence he depended for happiness, and, with a howl of devilish despair and revenge, withdrew" (Pg 115). Since it was so emotionally charged and the events that followed afterward were not entirely predictable, I felt that it satisfied the peak of intensity.

Elizabeth's murder by the monster may also be considered the high point of the story. Knowing that the monster wished to expose Victor to the same loneliness and despair that he felt, it was foreseeable that Elizabeth would be a prime target to meet this end. At destroying the monster's desired mate, he swore to be there at Victor's wedding. Victor puts so much emphasis while he tells his story on this threat, I believe he repeated it more than three times, and laments before telling it, "Great God!if for one instant I had thought what might be the hellish intention of my fiendish adversary, I would rather have banished myself for ever from my native country, and wandered a friendless outcast over the earth..." (Pg 132). This excessive build up to the event is why I consider the event to be a climax.

The other situation I feel is climax worthy is when Victor finds himself at the tomb of his departed family, friend and wife. Victor says, "I swear to pursue the daemon, who caused this misery, until he or I shall perish in mortal conflict...." (Pg. 140). For me, this was a great relief. I was disappointed in how he and the monster were regarding how their lives were not worth living and that they would rather die. The declaration of Victor saying that he would live, despite it being for the sole purpose of destroying the monster, was a nice and well overdue twist. Also I liked how it foreshadowed an impending meeting between Victor and the monster in an exciting end.

Frankenstein: The Pursuit of Knowledge

To be informed should be a relatively good thing. "Knowledge is power", as one might say. We exibit in The Monk that knowledge has the power to endow many benefits to its beholder, for instance, that Matilda should know how to suck poison from snake bites to save Ambrosio's life. However, sometimes it is lack of knowledge, or innocence, that is better suited for a person, as when Antonia is purposefully denied the uneditted version of the bible to spare her of learning harshness. For Victor Frankenstein, of the book Frankenstein, he exibits both of these effects and their opposites.

Victor is a very well read student of outdated science and philosophy. With this knowing, he made it his life's endeavor to be able to create life in objects. Knowing about what he did inspired him to dream of his ideal occupation, which is a very noble quest. Victor was persistent in attaining fluency of the expired art and his reward was further want of information so that it might occupy the rest of his life. This, I believe, is a worthy cause for knowledge.

Despite the wonderful opportunity the ancient studies of animation gave Victor, his store of knowledge was quite incomplete by just knowing of this one area. Wanting to extend his knowledge, he went off to college, but, due to his abence of earlier lectures, he became biased against modern chemistry since he did not understand even the basics of the far advanced class. He clung to the old arts that he knew well and did not regard the new as credible. A gracious teacher, M. Waldmon, explains, "A man would make but a very sorry chemist, if he attended to that department of human knowledge alone. If your wish is to become really a man of science, and not merely a petty experimentalist, I should advise you to apply to every branch of natural philosophy..." (Pg. 28). Victor was unsure of whether or not he should continue learning into a modernized version of his beloved philosophy, even if it seemingly had nothing to do with his goals. With only theories of old, Victor would have surely been at a severe disadvantage while searching for life and, if Waldmon's prediction is correct, would have ended in mediocrity and waste.

Victor lived a sheltered childhood. In this fashion, he was spared the trauma of ghost stories and, at the same time, fear of the night, darkness, and all things regularly associated with it that are steriotypically frightening. Victor seems to be proud of himself as he explains his special situation. With his lack of fear of normally disturbing things, he is able to pursue his goal in digging up bones and working in grave yards to fashion his human creature. In this instance, his not knowing of ghost stories is beneficial to his cause.

Regarding the same lack of knowledge, he finds himself completely unprepared for the arrival of his creation to life. He explains his actions while in search for the monster, "I threw the door forcibly open, as children are accustomed to do when they expect a spectre to stand in waiting for them on the other side" (Pg. 37). If he was boasting of his courage towards the objects of ghost stories, he was then trembling at this very real monster. Having not experienced similar fright, he is ill prepared to deal with anything of the like. Victor is reduced to childish antics because he knows not how else to approach the situation. His lack of knowledge has rendered him lame and ineffective in the search of his monster.

Victor Frankenstien's knowing of profound sciences enables him great feats of intellectual progress. At the same time, it inhibits him to rely on it soley and without up to date information that would most definitely speed his actions. Not knowing seems to be the more tragic of the two prospects. To be ignorant of ghost stories granted him freedom in the dark, but only at the price of being unprepared for the sight of his demon. Knowledge is power; that much cannot be denied. The difference in the outcome is the favor in which the scale of power leans.

The Monk: To Fall in Lust

I do not believe that Ambrosio ever truly loved either of his mistresses. His state of mind, personality, and upbringing do not strike me as having qualities that foster love. His extreme affections for the two girls should rather have the label of lust.

Love is a curious subject to which there are many definitions. Ambrosio questions Antonia whether or not she has felt the effects of a man who she may be in love with, "Have you seen no man, Antonia, whom, though never seen before, you seemed long to have sought? whose form, though a stranger's was familiar to your eyes? the sound of whose voice soothes you, pleased you, penetrated to your very soul? in whose presence you rejoiced, for whose absence you lamented? with whom your heart seemed to expand, and in whose bosom, with confidence unbounded, you reposed the cares of your own?" (Pg 224) Upon infatuation with Antonia, he abandoned Matilda's bed and pined for that of Antonia. Ambrosio, at the time of his questioning, was boiling with madness for Antonia's embrace, and so it was reflected in his opinion of love. This is apparent in the words and subjects he used to describe it: familiar form, soothing, pleasing and penetrating voice, expanding heart and bosom. His deprivation of pleasure, previously satisfied by Matilda, left him desperate for such an encounter with the new object of his fantasies. He was bluntly set on having his way with Antonia and this state of mind does not strike me as being romantically in love. In the same manner, Ambrosio was too preoccupied with exploring the prospect of Matilda's charms and pleasures to be too interested in her personality and, thus, did not romantically love her.

Due to the circumstances of his monk upbringing he should only have been permitted the love of heaven and that of friends. At the same time he was deprived exposure to romantic love. This contributes to Ambrosio's lack of it when dealing with his mistresses. He does not love them properly because he does not know how to. Ignorance has left him uneducated in such arts. Ambrosio had no idea how to approach Matilda, in her moment of suicidal intentions, and only knew of seduction to secure Antonia's fate with him. His lack of knowledge and experience inevitably doomed both his mistresses.

Ambrosio's personality is such that, in his love life, he needs constantly increasing stimulation in order to sustain gratification. This becomes extremely apparent when he discovers he can no longer stand the company of Matilda and her favors of love. The narrator comments, "Her charms becoming accustomed to him, they ceased to excite the same desires which at first they had inspired. The delirium of passion being past, he had leisure to observe every trifling defect; where none were to be found, satiety made him fancy them. ... when the moment of passion was over, he quitted her with disgust, and his humour, naturally inconstant, made him sigh impatiently for variety." (Pg 202-203) The narrator helps the reader to understand his personality to this extent and, once again, it is apparent that physical pleasure is a prevalent theme. His character thrives on this passion of the body and with this observation comes to light a preference that reflects his flightly personality. This obsession, again, does little to kindle romantic love.

Ambrosio's lack of experience and theme of bodily pleasure, in both his mind and personality, had left his romantic life to ruin. If he ever intended to love Matilda or Antonia it never became apparent, for his insatiable lust for their lovely charms distracted this noble pursuit. With these hindrances, it is not possible for Ambrosio to have ever loved the two girls for anything more than the moment of physical satisfaction.

The Monk: Secret Identities

A theme that I felt recurred was the effect of hiding ones identity. At the start of the novel, Antonia refused to unveil her appearance to the inquiring Dons, Lorenzo and Christoval. Her reason for being so shy was, "It is not the custom in Murcia-" (Pg 14). In my opinion, her timid nature was to be expected as a result of one so young and inexperienced being sought after by curious eyes. In my own experience in the realm of courting, I find it hard to approach someone who I cannot see or perceive fully. In one mind, I can sympathize with the two men. In another, perhaps the lady wished not to establish a relation and thus unveiling her attractive qualities would have done little to preserve herself from their pursuit. In her case I support her venture to disguise herself. The young ROsario of the Monk society also strived to retain a secret identity. This had worked over the course of about two years, however, Rosario had professed to Ambrosio, only at his inquiring of Rosario's sudden melancholy, that Rosario was not a young lad but a young woman. She pleaded her case, "I am Matilda; you are her beloved!" (Pg 55). This statement was made all the more powerful by Rosario previously explaining the story of Matilda, while pretending to be her brother, at which Ambrosio expressed pity towards. I was a bit disappointed at the time that the author Lewis decided to unveil the identiy of Matilda because I was expecting something much deeper and tedious about their relationship. Now that I am much further in the story I can appreciate the intricacies of how all the characters are related and I am simultaneously satisfied at the depth at which Matilda and Ambrosio's relationship is described. I believe that her securing his interest via the painting was underhanded of her and that perhaps if she only wanted his admiration, like she claimed to, then she would have been satisfied with his purchase of her portrait. This inclines me to believe that even before her statement: "My bosom burns with love, with unutterable love, and love must be its return" (Pg 80), that she knew this would be the result of her spending time with Ambrosio. This situation mirrors that of her previous love in which she entered the servitude of a house under the pretense of being closer to the husband and was banished due to her confession, and this is why she should know that Ambrosio should not act any differently. All of her previous statements of admiration sufficing her appetite, in my opinion, were more in effect to fool herself into believing that she could belong, without consequence, by his side all the while still entertaining thoughts of passionate love. Another instance of identity concealing is that of the Marquis de las Cisternas. His mentor suggested to him that he might gain more friends by denying his name of status and soley going by Don Raymond. I believe it is good advice, but inevitably people wish to associate with those they can relate to on an economic level. As noble as it is to found friendship on basis of personality, one may find it awkward and even offensive to discover the true status of their friend. I must also mention that the Bleeding Nun wished to hide her identity as Beatrice de las Cisternas from Raymond, who is of her decent. I do not recall comprehending why she decided to keep this from him, since he was fated to discover her bones and put her to rest.