The Genesis of Crumb

Amongst the many foci of Crumb, the film makes a point to emphasize the multiple artistic evolutions of its subject. However, despite his changes from the psychedelic to the photo-realistic and beyond, he never relinquished his unique personality that permeates all of his work. Admittedly, there are pieces by Crumb that I wouldn’t have immediately associated with the man, but upon closer inspection, it’s not impossible to find his DNA in those illustrations. This closer inspection is required to see Crumb in his illustrated version of Genesis. Crumb’s Genesis is less a “straight illustration job” than it is a reflection of his own his genesis and growth into the man he was when he illustrated the book. The unique genesis of R. Crumb can be traced to a competitive nature within him that stems from experiences with his siblings and feelings of inadequacy as a youth. While I believe Crumb did try, to the best of his ability, to omit his “neuroses” and “perversions” from Genesis, Crumb’s competitive nature drove him to infuse his “brilliance” as much as possible.

In Crumb, after discussing his attempts to imitate his peers and realizing that he was not a “normal teenager”, Crumb summarizes his thought process at that time when he says, “I’ll go down in history as a great artist. That’ll be my revenge.” It is in this statement that we not only see the beginning of his unwavering dedication to his work, but we also get a taste for his competitiveness. Since he couldn’t compete with his classmates in high school in terms of popularity, then he would beat them in the end by his place in history. How this competitive ambition translates into Genesis can be seen in Crumb’s Introduction when he describes previous artists’ attempts to transform Genesis into a comic book as “an attempt to streamline and ‘modernize’” the biblical text. After viewing Crumb, it’s not difficult to see the contempt Crumb has for these other artists, when he describes the respect he has for “fermented” culture and his disgust with modern trendiness. Therefore, for Crumb to see other artists insert “completely made-up narrative and dialogue” into their comic versions of Genesis, he felt compelled to create a version that respects the culture and longevity of the ancient text. By creating this new version, and infusing his “brilliance”, he is outdoing other artists’ attempts at translating Genesis into comic form.

The experiences Crumb had with his siblings when he was growing up add to, and were perhaps the foundation for, this competitive nature within him. Referring to when Robert and his brother, Charles, lived in the same house pre-adulthood, Crumb mentions there was the existence of sibling rivalry. Obviously, this is not a remarkable fact considering how ubiquitous sibling rivalry is within the traditional family household. However, Victor G. Cicirelli, in his book, Sibling Relationships across the Life Span, adds some valuable insight into sibling psychology that supports the assertion of a strong competitiveness that persists within Crumb. Cicirelli writes, “evidence from studies that used clinical interview techniques or projective methods… suggests that the prevalence of sibling rivalry may be considerably greater in adulthood than previously thought, with little decrease in age” (Cicirelli: 56). Crumb details this in the film when he explains that he still thinks of whether or not Charles would approve of the work he creates, even as a grown adult. This sibling-bred competitiveness not only helped motivate Robert Crumb to create Genesis, but also permeates the work itself.

Crumb states in his introduction that he “approached [Genesis] as a straight illustration job”, a result of him attempting to omit his “neuroses” and “perversions” from his book. Nevertheless, I believe Crumb’s illustrations in Genesis do reflect his own life. On one hand, we have the way he depicts sibling relationships in Genesis. In the story of Cain and Abel, we see Cain suggest that Abel follow him to the field with a completely endearing, friendly expression on his face. Crumb could have illustrated Cain with a malicious countenance considering that, according to the story, no murder had taken place in history and, therefore, Able would not be suspicious. Instead, I believe Crumb showed him with the expression that he did because, as revealed to us in Crumb, Charles often pondered killing Robert; a fact which Robert didn’t find out until later in his life. Perhaps then, the unsuspecting Abel is akin to the unsuspecting Robert Crumb, yet, thankfully, the stories didn’t end the same way.

So far I’ve discussed Crumb’s work in Genesis as a deliberate attempt to create a superior illustrated version. However, there are many instances in which Crumb’s life and personality manifest themselves in Genesis, but not in respect to his competitive nature. For example, Crumb’s depicition of women in Genesis are congruent with his depictions of women in previous works. In Crumb, an individual describes his portayals of women with the following: “They’re not wimps. He gives power to women.” This can be clearly seen with his illustration of Eve in the beginning of Genesis. Her body size and stature are far from the traditional conception of Eve as the “delicate female” which we see on the cover illustration of Robert Alter’s Genesis. In fact, in Crumb’s Genesis, when Adam and Eve are rolling around in the grass immediately prior to Chapter 3, it’s rather difficult to tell them apart. In his interview with Vanity Fair regarding his work in Genesis, Crumb explains, “Yeah, I just can’t help that. I can’t help but draw women that way.”

Another example of Crumb’s life in his work not in respect to his competitive nature can be interpreted through his depiction of God. Although Crumb claims for his work to be a “straight illustration job”, one reading is sufficient for the audience to understand the liberty taken by Crumb with respect to his creative input. This adds to the significance of instances where Crumb chooses the “standard” route of illustration, unlike Eve, as with his imagery of God. I believe Crumb’s far-from-outlandish sentiments about God were the motive for him to depict God in this traditional manner. In R. Crumb Conversations, edited by D. K. Holm, Crumb states the following in an interview: “I actually believe in God, to tell you the truth. I believe in a superior force in the universe, a superior intelligence. I believe it. It’s there”(Holm:196). Most peoples’ conception of God, whether they believe in him or not, is an omnipotent, all-knowing being, which Crumb’s conception appears to be very similar to. For this reason, I believe Crumb portrays God in the physical manner that he did.

Ultimately, Crumb’s Genesis is an attempt to create the supreme version of an illustrated Genesis in order to best the other artists who attempted to do the same, yet ended up ruining it in an attempt to “modernize” it. There is also the other element of this competitive nature which is to still impress and best his brother, Charles. Aside from this, despite Crumb’s claims of Genesis being a “straight illustration job”, we see the unique personality, artistic and psychological, of Crumb manifest itself in the book. As Crumb himself states in R. Crumb Conversations, “So there’s a kind of dialectic, a kind of give and take between living life and living for your art. There’s a push and pull there, a tension, maybe that’s part of what makes the work interesting…”(Holm:204). I have to agree with Crumb’s statement here as Genesis became much more profound and interesting once my knowledge of his life, feelings, and previous work expanded. While he may have tried to contain himself to a degree in Genesis, at the end of the day, there is no man like R. Crumb, and no version of Genesis quite like his.

Bibliography

Cicirelli, Victor G. Sibling Relationships across the Life Span. New York: Springer Pub., 1995.

Crumb, R. The Book of Genesis Illustrated. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc, 2009.

Holm, D. K. R. Crumb: Conversations. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 2004.

Spitznagel, Eric. “Robert Crum Thinks God Might Actually Be Crazy.” Vanity Fair. Oct 27 2011.

Crumb, Dir. By Terry Zwigoff. 1994; Sony Picture Classic.


Original Post:

http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/straight-illustration.html

Revision 2: The Younger Peter Stillman: More Than Just Damaged Goods

The younger Peter Stillman is a very interesting character in Paul Austers, "City of Glass." When readers are introduced to him for the first time, they are bombarded with a speech that consists of made up words and short fragmented sentences. After Peter concludes his ramble about his childhood, one would initially believe that he is the result of a detrimental childhood that was spent in darkness and isolation. When his language is analyzed in terms of his life, however, it is evident that the younger Peter is not just damaged goods; he is rather a representation of a different kind of human potentiality than "ordinary" people due to the fact that his father performed a biblical language experiment on him as a child as an attempt to recreate the language of innocence. In the language of innocence, words correspond to the things they represent; therefore, related concepts must have related words and disjoined concepts must have disjoined words. This is the underlying reason as to why the younger Peter Stillman is indeed more than just damaged goods. This argument is confirmed in three occasions of “City of Glass:” Peter Sr.’s novel, the first meeting between Peter Sr. and Quinn, and in the younger Peter’s speech.

Peter Stillman Sr. became obsessed with the biblical language when the younger Peter was a young boy. Peter Sr. wrote several books on the matter, and Quinn came across this during his investigation. Specifically, in “The Garden and the Tower,” Stillman wrote about the significance of language in a reading of the Babel. Stillman proposed that, "If the fall of man also entailed a fall of language, was it not logical to assume that it would be possible to undo the fall, to reverse its effects by undoing the fall of language, by striving to recreate the language that was spoken in Eden" (Auster 76). Essentially, he was obsessed with this idea that the language spoken in the Garden of Eden was the language of innocence and the only way to recreate this language was to completely undo the current language and teach the original language of innocence. Several parts of Stillman’s book highlight his obsession with corresponding and disjoined words. He dwells on the paradox of the word ‘cleave,’ “which means both to join together and to break apart” (Auster 39). To Stillman, however, this makes no sense. He did not comprehend nor agree with the fact that the same word could mean opposite things. Because of this disagreement, it seems as if Stillman is questioning the extent to which humans will continue, "to express [themselves], despite the fact that language, the only tool...for self-expression, falls miserably short of accuracy and completeness" (Worthington). Because, “a thing and its name were interchangeable,” Stillman believed a word only had one essential meaning (Auster 39). Stillman’s book continues to describe his ideologies with respect to the language of innocence, and it is at this moment that readers begin to develop an understanding as to why the younger Peter represents a greater human potentiality. Peter Sr. was strongly influenced by such beliefs because he believed, “If man could learn to speak the original language of innocence, he’d recover the state of innocence within” (Auster 43). He attempted to do this by experimenting with the younger Peter because he thought, "depriving a child of human language would provide that child access to the prelapsarian language of God" (Worthington). By isolating the younger Peter for nine years with no outside connections to the world or to humans, he attempted to undo Peter's language in order to recreate this language of God. The reason why Peter Stillman Sr. wanted to accomplish the original language of innocence was to, "recover, whole and unbroken, the truth within himself" (Auster 77). He believed that the language of innocence would emerge the innocence within him. His religious beliefs and loyalty led him to use his only son as a live experiment in order to recreate this religious language. As a result, he hoped Peter Jr. would speak as God did: "Actions to his words accord, his words; To his large heart give utterance due, his heart; Contains of good, wise, just, the perfect shape" (Auster 76). This is the underlying reason as to why the younger Peter Stillman speaks with what some refer to as "damaged goods" language. Although it is not in fact language that reflects damaged goods, it does reflect his father's attempt to undo and recreate his language in order to achieve the original language of innocence: the language of God.

After Quinn becomes familiar with Peter Sr.’s book, the two meet in person for the first time. During their first encounter, it is evident that Peter Sr. has a true obsession and dedication with the language of innocence. Stillman shares with Quinn that he is inventing a new language and furthers his assertion by questioning, “When an umbrella breaks and you get wet, is it still an umbrella” (Auster 70)? This reveals that Stillman recognizes the disconnection between an umbrella that functions properly and an umbrella that does not function properly. Essentially, Stillman is acknowledging that a broken umbrella should not be called an umbrella because it will not keep you from getting wet, which is the original and correct function of an umbrella. This is an example of a disjoined concept in the sense that a broken umbrella and a working umbrella should have different words because they are not the same thing. Stillman continues by commenting, “It has changed, but the word is the same. It is imprecise, false” (Auster 70). Once again, Stillman analyzes words in terms of what they represent. He believes related concepts must have related words and disjoined concepts must have different words. This is the only way words can actually and factually represent what they stand for. It is evident that Stillman is completely fixated with the idea that words and concepts must correspond to the objects they represent. This is confirmed when he reveals to Quinn, “I invent new words that will correspond to the things” (Auster 71). Because this is Stillman’s driving force, he attempted to prove the recreation of the language of innocence by experimenting on the younger Peter Stillman.

Once readers are familiar with Peter Sr.’s fascination with the language of innocence, it is apparent that the younger Peter is merely a representation of his father’s obsession. Take for example, the part of younger Peter's speech to Quinn when he reveals his father's loyalty towards God: "She says the father talked about God. That is a funny word to me. When you put it backwards, it spells dog. And a dog is not much like God, is it? Woof woof. Bow wow. Those are dog words, I think they are beautiful. So pretty and true. Like the words I make up" (Auster 33). Although one would initially feel as if that is a statement from a man who is significantly impacted by his childhood isolation and misery, it is learned that he is actually speaking that way due to his father's language experiment. The nine year isolation experiment undid younger Peter's language and recreated his language to represent the language of the Garden of Eden. His sentences are short and fragmented with many made up words. It is also very technical in the sense that he depicts words as they are spelled. If dog spells God backwards, then that certainly makes no sense to him because God and dog are two completely different things. He does not understand this and finds it absurd. He would rather create his own words. His father was interested in the fact that the first man created, Adam, had the ability to look at things and name them whatever he desired. Like younger Peter stated, the words are, "pretty and true. Like the words I make up" (Auster 33). He is essentially his father's son in the sense that he depicts language and often creates his own words so that the words correspond to the things they represent. In this case, the younger Peter expresses the words “Woof woof,” which demonstrates his knowledge of related concepts having related words, even if he made them up. Words such as “woof” often relate to dogs because of the noises they make. However, the word God is completely different than the word dog. According to the younger Peter, this makes no sense because it is a disjoint concept, so they should be disjoined words. Because the younger Peter was molded by his father’s experiment, he speaks the language of innocence, and in that form of speech, the two words ‘dog’ and ‘God’ represent a disjoint concept, and thus should have disjoined words.

After analyzing Peter Sr.’s, “The Garden and the Tower,” the meeting between Quinn and Peter Sr., and the younger Peter’s speech, it is proven that the younger Peter Stillman does not speak a language of damaged goods. The fact that his language was experimentally undone in order to be recreated as the language of innocence proves that he represents a different kind of human potentiality. He had the potential to adapt to a completely new language and furthermore, make sense of the language and why it is spoken as is. He was exposed to a long term nine year experiment that essentially erased his original language and enforced the language of innocence. So the broken sentences, short phrases, and made up words are not a result of a horrific childhood tragedy; instead, they are representations of his extreme human potentiality to adapt to a new technical and biblical language that reflects innocence. Because words correspond to things in the language of innocence, Peter Sr. was convinced that he could recreate that. He believed that the invention of words in the Garden of Eden reveals the essence of the things name. He wanted to recreate this state of innocence and prove that related concepts must have related words and disjoint concepts must have disjoined words. The result of this experiement was the younger Peter Stillman: Not damaged goods but a representation of the language of innocence.

Works Cited:

Auster, Paul. "The New York Trilogy." Penguin: 2006.

Worthington, Marjorie. "Auster's City of Glass." The Explicator 64.3 (2006): 179+. Academic OneFile. Web. 17 November 2011.

Original Link:

http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/11/younger-peter-stillman-more-than-just.html

Revision 2 -- Anthony Garuccio

Robert Crumb is a fascinating and complex individual, as clearly and thoroughly illustrated by the 1994 documentary Crumb, with complex and difficult views on many subjects, especially relating to women and sexuality. The film Crumb selectively shows elements of Crumb’s work that lead the viewer to classify him as a womanizer with sadistic sexual fantasies. Adding to this body of evidence against him, the documentary supplies commentary from feminist writers—as well as Crumb’s past relationships—which acts to interpret and contextualize these elements of Crumb’s work to bring us to the conclusion that Crumb has problems sexually connecting with women in a healthy way. However, in reality, this broad characterization is not as clean-cut as the film presents it. While much of Crumb’s work does support the film’s opinion, Crumb’s illustrated version of Genesis is a glaring contradiction of this simplistic classification of him as a misogynist. Through his subtle variations from the source text, we can show that Crumb values women’s independence and rights. This provides a counterexample to the claim, made by the film, that Crumb is wholly anti-feminist, disproving the absoluteness of this characterization.

The most extreme example presented by the film to portray Crumb as misogynistic was the comic in which Mr. Natural shoves a woman’s head into her own body and then gives her to Flakey to be used as a sexual object. Flakey proceeds to have sex with the headless girl after which he feels guilty and returns her to Mr. Natural. The story is peppered with offensive one-liners stating things to the effect of “I removed her head and now all my problems are gone.” This comic is heavily discussed by the interviewees of the film, each of which find the imagery repulsive. While it is possible to argue that this comic is meant to be a satire of society, the film postulates that one would be hard pressed to argue that this work is completely in jest and not at least partially reflective of Crumb’s true views. This is the climax of the film’s argument to show Crumb as being anti-feminist – while his work is clearly meant to be controversial, the sheer quantity and sick creativity of it shows that there is truth behind the satire.

While there is at least a partial truth to the above claim, when we consider Crumb’s work in Genesis we can begin see a different, and contradicting, set of beliefs about women begin to arise. Consider the word “illustrator”; while today it has the connotation of being a voiceless artist—slave to the written word with which it is juxtaposed—originally, it comes from the Latin word illustrātus, which means to illuminate or make clear (Merriam-webster dictionary). Using this more accurate definition of a true illustrator, we can see that Crumb—whether intentionally or not—infuses his own beliefs and ideas into his illustrated version of Genesis. Once we establish that Crumb is consciously differing from the original Genesis, we can make inferences about his own personal beliefs and morals by his choices.

To give concreteness to the argument that Crumb is differing from the source text, let us look at the beginning of chapter 30. First, in Alter’s Genesis, we have the story of Rachel and Jacob. Rachel is distraught that she has bore no sons, so she cries out to Jacob for help. Jacob rebukes her for calling out to him instead of god. Then Rachel makes Jacob sleep with her two slavegirls to bear her 4 children. In this version of the story, Rachel is painted as selfish and impulsive—see footnote on page 158. The fact that jealousy and competition are her motivation—not to mention the fact that she forces her husband and slaves to sleep together—paints Rachel as the villain in this story.

Contrasting this with Crumb’s version allows us to see an instance where he is making a major interpretation of —or departure from—the source text. Here, at the bottom of the page that begins chapter 30 in the center, the face of Rachel, as she cries out to Jacob for help, is clearly displaying desperation and sadness. The next image shows her looking down with grief as Jacob yells at her. This is very different from the way Rachel is viewed in Alter’s Genesis. In Alter, Rachel was impulsive and willful, making her the “bad guy”, but in Crumb, Rachel is sad and desperate, deserving of our pity and compassion rather than disapproval.

To further this point, notice the words of Rachel within the first panel on the next page of Crumb: “Here’s my handmaid Bilhah! Come in bed with her, that she shall bear upon my knees, and though her my house, too, will be built up” [emphasis added]. This is one of the instances where Crumb does not use the words of Alter. In Alters version, Rachel does not say so that “my house” can be built up, but rather “so that I, too, shall be built up”. This reaffirms the clear difference between the ways Alter and Crumb want us to perceive Rachel. Crumb’s Rachel desires to build up her family, which is a much nobler goal than that of Alter’s Rachel, who desired to only build up herself. Also, In Crumb, Rachel refers to her servant as a “handmaid” whereas in Alter she refers to her as a “slavegirl”. By removing the association between Rachel and slavery, Crumb again diminishes the vilification of Rachel.

So, now that we have established that Crumb is making a conscience effort to go against the source text by developing the character of Rachel as abject rather than iniquitous, the question of his motivation for doing so is unavoidable. To me this instance of interpretation is representative of the clash between the morals of the bible and the morals of Crumb. In the view of Alter’s Genesis, Rachel is sinful because she jealous, willful, selfish, and does not turn to God for help. However, this morality is not shared by Crumb. While Rachel does commit acts that go against Crumb’s ideas of right and wrong—as evidenced by some of the nefarious faces he draws for Rachel later in the chapter—she is not damned due to her willfulness, desires, and self-reliance (as she is in Alter’s Genesis).

This moment demonstrates that Crumb is not merely adding illustrations to the text, but rather reinterpreting the original work in correspondence to his own morals and judgments. By contrasting the ways in which both texts portray Rachel, we can see that, according to Crumb, women should have the right to be independent, decisive, and not subjugated to the wills of others. This is a clear instance where Crumb can be viewed in a feministic light.

Also, in the same story, we should notice Crumb’s depiction of Rachel’s handmaiden Bilhah. In the original version by Alter, Bilhah is a voiceless character that is treated like an object without any mention of her opinions, feelings, or rights. In Crumb’s illustrated version, Bilhah is given a face—literally. In the top frame Crumb draws Bilhah with a lifeless, forlorn visage; this allows the reader to identify and feel sympathy for her. Since Alter gives no information about the slavegirl, this is completely Crumb’s own opinion, and he clearly sympathizes with Bilhah. Again here is another clear-cut counterexample showing Crumb is not a complete womanizer.

Even though the documentary Crumb presents instances where elements of Crumb’s work are clearly antifeminist, his choices within Genesis show another side to his beliefs. We have shown that he consciously differs from the source text by imposing his own morals onto the story of Rachel. These differences in the characterizations of Rachel and Bilhah show the morals of Crumb to be in favor of women’s rights and individuality. Finally, this other side to Crumb’s beliefs about women refutes the claim by the film that Crumb is a womanizer with sadistic sexual fantasies.

This essay is a combination of the following two blogs:

http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/crumbs-view-on-women-anthony-garuccio.html#comment-form

http://wipitt.blogspot.com/2011/10/can-illustrator-be-objective-anthony.html#comment-form

Works Cited

Crumb, R. The Book Of Genesis. W W Norton & Co Inc, 2009. Print.

Alter, Robert. Genesis. W. W. Norton & Company, 1997. Print.

Crumb. Dir Terry Zwigoff. 1994. Film

Revision 2: Kelsey Ainsworth

Kelsey Ainsworth

Words and Images

November  17, 2011

Lynn Ward’s Illustration

            Lynd Ward’s illustration on page 151 really caught my eye, which allows for some powerful interpretations to be introduced in the detail brought out in the image. This image displays tree limbs overpowering the monster as he struggles to support himself up before they come crashing down on him. “O! what a miserable night I passed! The cold stars shone in mockery, and the bare trees waved their branches about me: now and then the sweet voice of a bird burst forth amidst the universal stillness” (Shelley, 152). By forming a central theme of the novel, Mary Shelley emphasizes how knowledge of the existence of a creator has a crippling effect on the creature as he struggles to reconcile his own perception of himself with his maddening desire for divine approval and acceptance. The monster enters the world under terrible sets of circumstances. He has the strength of a giant, yet a child’s mind; he has a gentle nature, yet his appearance defects hide his goodness and make everyone fear and mistreat him. On top of that, he is rejected by his own creator because of his hideous looks (Shmoop Editorial Team).  On discovering that his own creator is horrified by his existence, the monster increasingly becomes hopeless about his position in the world. He faces the tragedy of his existence that he was made human on the inside, but without the capacity for sociability with others. Beauty is considered a virtue of the good, while deformity and ugliness are inevitably associated with evil. Due to this stigma, the monster’s visible defects prevent him from gaining acceptance into a social sphere – even though he is full of compassion and goodness on the inside. Reflecting on the novels theme, we can take this image and can show how the Monster battles to establish his own identity in struggling with the beliefs and values of the larger culture.

  In society, those in power cause pressures to be brought upon those who don’t conform to social norms. “Shelley explores the idea of society in Frankenstein through demonstrating the way in which society members treat a living product of scientific knowledge and how this relates to their class and place in society and their beliefs” (bookrags.com). Detailing society's reaction to the creature that Victor creates as antagonistic, Shelley suggests that ’scientific knowledge of the time was not approved by society as it threatened various elements of the community. God is the only father in society's religious beliefs and these beliefs were threatened by science as Victor attempts to play the role of God” (bookrags.com). Shelly also goes on to explore the idea of society through demonstrating the way in which society members treat a living product of scientific knowledge and how this relates to their class and place in society and their beliefs. Through this, society's belief that scientific exploration cannot replace the role that nature plays in creating a natural world. In order to comprehend the degree of pressures being put on the monster, it is necessary to look at the small details carried out in the image. I see this image as if the monster where blending in with the limbs of the trees which could be interpreted as him forming into what society sees him as, unnoticed.  As stated by the monster, “but I am a blasted tree; the bolt has entered my soul; and I felt then that I should survive to exhibit, what I shall soon cease to be - a miserable spectacle of wrecked humanity" (p.111). The monsters feelings erupt once he realizes all his efforts to conform to society’s norms were all overlooked. He was not fixed to be evil, but he becomes evil only after society treats him like he is because his outward appearance is terrifying. The monster is obviously different than society’s normal looking human but inside he is just as beautiful as any other human being.  Looking more closely at the image, Ward’s shading of the trees start out at lighter shades and begin to fade into darkness on the collapsing end of the branch that continues to be exposed onto the monster. The darkness symbolizes an extreme weight of society’s pressure crumbling down on the monster. With the monster not only being right in the middle of the image and being the darkest object, we can take this to be him fighting to pick himself back up from all that has be thrown upon him to conform to the social norms. This provides a powerful basis through conformity “which changes how you behave to be more like others. This plays to belonging and esteem needs as we seek the approval and friendship of others. Conformity can run very deep, as we will even change our beliefs and values to be like those of our peers and admired superiors” (changingminds). ).  This image as a whole is a gothic, dark setting which can be described as the monsters appearance.  Being a part of the norm in the eyes of the villagers means being naturally born, having beauty, speak fluently. Abnormalities fall under the categories such as hideous or atypical features, being created through many artificially parts, not speaking the language fluently. The monster wants to fit in with the villager but feels he set up failure. He speaks,

“I had admired the perfect forms of my cottagers—their grace, beauty, and delicate complexions: but how was I terrified when I viewed myself in a transparent pool!   At first I started back, unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror; and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification. Alas! I did not yet entirely know the fatal effects of the miserable deformity” (Shelley, 124).

The illustrations that Ward provides display the shocking realization that the monster is disfigured and diversified in the parts that he was made up of. On the page opposite of 124, the image illustrates the monster looking into water viewing his deformity for the time and he comes to realization of his abnormality. This is important for comprehending the monster’s agitation, he knew his body, the limbs that he had and the body parts that were given him. The monster is terrified and shocked at the sight of his reflection. He was made from flesh similar to that of humans and is treated much differently because of his looks.  The monster knows he was created by a human being, Frankenstein, but has been sculpted as this unbeautiful creature as well as being abandoned and left to survive on his own. The monster proclaims, “Hateful day when I received life!' I exclaimed in agony. `Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance” (pg. 144).

 As I show the monster being depicted as one with the tree limbs, we can see how the branches themselves are deformed and unstable from so much pressure falling down on them. Society disposing of the monster due to being an outsider and misunderstanding his heartfelt intentions has led him to become a helpless being. He even states, “These amiable people to whom I go have never seen me, and known little of me. I am full of fears; for if I fail there, I am an outcast in the world for ever’” (Shelley, 149).  With pressures that are bestowed upon individuals can cause the feeling of helplessness and abandonment. “Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible... Trying to control or change what we can't only results in torment" (Lebell). The monster being an outsider himself shows how he could be misunderstood for his intentions by the villagers. Victor was his last connection to humanity and to point out the monster is one of many people in this text that suffers from loneliness, solitude, and an all-around desire for companionship. The image on 151 obviously displays this idea because he flees to the abandoned forest where he will not be judge for who he is and what he has been created into. The social norms of the villagers denied his efforts in trying to conform to their liking and due to their misunderstanding he rebelled against them. The monster took matters into his own hands and fought the norms to become his own person. 

The idea of beliefs and values cause society to develop norms that allow put pressure on people to conform. The villagers welcome those who they feel are worthy enough of their beliefs and values, so the chances of the monster being accepted into their social norms was slim to none

Work Cited

http://www.bookrags.com

Lebell, Sharon. 'The Art of Living: The Classic Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness' -- A New Interpretation

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. The Lynd Ward Illustrated Edition. Mineola, New York: Dover

www.changingminds.org. webbased

Shmoop Editorial Team. "Frankenstein Theme of Exploration" Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

Revision 2: Adam, Humpty Dumpty, and Quinn

“In the good mystery there is nothing wasted, no sentence, no word that is not significant. And even if it is not significant, it has the potential to be so,” according to Paul Auster. The City of Glass by Paul Auster is a story filled with layers and minor details. Simple symbols reflect dynamic and complex ideas, such as the egg and the fallen men. Auster is able to take the image of an egg in varying physical conditions, and blend it with the actions of multiple characters to portray what is a fallen man’s true identity.

Daniel Quinn, Stillman Senior, and Stillman Junior are all “fallen men”. From the beginning, it is said that Quinn had lost his wife and child; he wanders around the city wanting to get lost. It is as if he has no purpose and is unsure about what to do with his life; Quinn is in need of a change or sign to help him realize his own identity. One blow after another, Quinn continues to crack throughout the story, until he is a cracked egg. Along with Quinn, Stillman senior believes in a language that does not exist and had been locked up in jail. For years, Stillman Senior began to crack, which caused him to lose his identity, until he literally fell. Just as Humpty Dumpty fell off a wall, Stillman Senior jumped off a bridge. Stillman Junior is also fallen. His father locked him up and kept him away from the world. He was never allowed to discover his identity, rather only allowed to keep “falling”.

In the Christian religion, an egg is the “symbol of birth and rebirth, an apparently lifeless object out of which comes life” (Christian Symbols). Because of this and the resurrection of Christ, Easter is symbolically represented by an egg. St. Mary Magdalena traveled to Rome to speak about Christ’s resurrection to Emperor Tiberius; however, the emperor declared that “a man could no more rise from the dead than that egg she held could turn scarlet” (Christian Symbols). This is representative of the fallen men in City of Glass. The characters, Quinn, Stillman Senior, Stillman Junior, and Humpty Dumpty, all crack and begin to break until they are shattered.

Another representation of the egg is “Creation, the elements, and the world itself, with the shell representing the firmament, the vault of the sky where the fiery stars lie, the thin membrane symbolizing air; the white symbolizing the waters; and the yolk representing earth” (Christian Symbols). After a person cracks per say, he or she begins to build themselves back up. In reference to an egg, this is the raw egg transforming into an omelet. When the yolk and white of an egg is mixed together and cooked, it is a new, unified item; it is still an egg, however now it has transformed into something else. A reference is made to the moon and an egg explaining that people will not give up their desire to find their true identity. The egg resembling the moon mimics the identity people are on the search for. During different phases of the moon, it may be less full or somewhat cracked.

Stillman Senior makes references to the “paradisiacal” language using the symbolism of an egg. During the conversation about God’s language, Stillman remarks, “Most people don’t pay attention to such things. They think of words as stones, as great immovable objects with no life, as monads that never change” (74). Quinn answers Stillman Senior by saying, “Stones can change. They can be worn away by wind or water” (74). Similarly, an egg is able to “worn away” in a sense that it will crack and eventually shatter. After the shell of an egg is worn away, the egg can change. Later in the conversation, Stillman cracks a hard-boiled egg and says, “As you can see, sir, I leave no stone unturned” (100). Again, Stillman is stressing that each and every human being will be broken down, but eventually they will always be able to identify them once again and become something new.

Furthermore, Stillman Senior connects Humpty Dumpty, the egg with human features, with the fallen language and men. Adam from the book of Genesis explains why God’s language is also shattered. After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam was banished from the garden and sent to Earth. At this time, his task of naming all objects creating God’s language was stopped. An image of a broken egg is like the comparison of keeping physical attributes, while still losing one. The most important part of the egg is inside, while the shell is solely an exterior protector. An egg can still survive without the shell if it is cooked into an omelet. In essence, this is the “sole” of a person. Although while making an omelet, some of the egg may be lost; this is similar to Quinn. Quinn states, “…then I imagined my head cracking open, splattering like the egg that had fallen to the floor of my room… I saw myself in pieces” (43).

The question about man’s control over language or if language constricts man is portrayed through Humpty Dumpty. Stillman quotes Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass when speaking about Humpty Dumpty. Stillman quotes, when “I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said… it means just what I choose it to mean” (81). Humpty Dumpty is proving the language does not constrain him; rather he uses the literal words to tell exactly what it is. Stillman declares to Quinn, “It is our duty as human beings: to put the egg back together again. For each of us, sir, is Humpty Dumpty. And to help him is to help ourselves” (98). This is a clear example that man is able to change and control language. In comparison to Stillman, Quinn believes things can change and does not have the same mindset that the paradisiacal language has been broken. It is possible Stillman is too “broken” to realize things can change and control can be gained again. This is emphasized as Stillman says, “We exist, but we have not yet achieved the form that is our destiny. We are pure potential… For man is a fallen creature…” (98).

Humpty Dumpty is called a “philosopher of language” according to Stillman. A philosopher is a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc. (Dictionary.com). Just like Humpty, Adam once began to create God’s language until he was banished. He started the ideas of language; however, after his fall he had to regain his stability. Adam was able to regain stability and has created the language that is spoken today. Stillman believes it is not the “true” language that should be spoken, but I believe this exemplifies the fallen men and their search for identity. Gaining stability is represented as finding one’s identity, which both Stillmans and Quinn are on the hunt for. Quinn hears out of the darkness, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” (116); this is the point he finally realizes the symbolic representation of the egg and the fallen man. It is not until after they are completely broken, like a cracked egg, that they get a new perspective on their lives.

During the conversation about Humpty Dumpty, Stillman speaks about handling cracks in an egg. “When faced with the problem of how to stand an egg on its end, he merely tapped slightly on the bottom, cracking the shell just enough to create a certain flatness that would support the egg when he removed his hand.” It is possible Stillman is ensuring Quinn that a man can and will be broken down, but will still be standing. Stillman also explains to Quinn, “You see, the world is in fragments sir. And it’s up to me to put it back together again… if I can lay the foundation, other hands can do the work of restoration itself”(75). Through this sentence, Stillman is emphasizing that the egg represents man and the cracks break down egg (man) until there is nothing but his true self. After man has realized there is not where farther to fall, he can then piece himself back together to become “whole” again in a new, changed way.

“He [Quinn] tried to think about eggs and wrote out such phrases as “a good egg,” “egg on his face,” “to lay an egg,” “to be as like as two eggs” (154). A good egg is a new person; egg on his face means to look foolish; to lay an egg translates to being unsuccessful; and to be as like two eggs is another way to say like two peas in a pod. All of these thoughts rush through Quinn’s mind as he, just like an egg, goes through these phases. Before being broke, Quinn and his wife may have been as like as two eggs, and after he began his fall he had egg on his face. With more cracks, Quinn finally lays an egg when he is totally lost and unsure about whom he really is. It is not until he finally realizes the egg-like journey he must continue in order to find his true self that he is a good egg. Thankfully, Quinn is able to realize Stillman’s comments of eggs, omelets, and Humpty Dumpty and their connection with fallen men, that he is finally able to find some sort of self.

Works Cited

Arasimowicz, Simone. "City of Glass." Simone's Digital Portfolio. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. .

Birkin, Paul. "Postmodernism and City of Glass." Bookstove. Bookstove, 4 July 2007. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .

"Christian Symbols." Being Catholic. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. .

Pearson, Jakob. Rep. 2008. "My Name Is Paul Auster. That Is Not My Real Name": The Search for Identity in Paul Auster's The City of Glass. 2008. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. .

Revised Essay on Peter Stillman Jr.

During his talk with the elder Peter Stillman, Quinn is told about how Humpty Dumpty represents human aspirations. Stillman explains to him, saying, “We exist, but we have not yet achieved the form that is our destiny. We are pure potential, an example of the not yet arrived.” Reflecting on this remark, the younger Peter Stillman expresses an awareness of his own potential through his desire to change his identity.

When he is first introduced in the novel, the younger Peter Stillman appears to be quite troubled. His speech is irregular, jumping sporadically from topic to topic. He constantly asks and answers his own questions while making what others might consider inappropriate remarks. It appears that his dialogue is incoherent, but when further inspected one finds that he actually makes interesting insights on his identity and potential. When Quinn meets him to discuss his case, Peter constantly repeated, “I am Peter Stillman. That is not my real name” (Auster, pg 16). This may sound crazy, to claim you are not who you are. After all, your name is how you are identified by the world around you. And if you are not who people believe you to be, it begs the question: Who are you?

It is no secret that serious consideration is given thought when a parent names their child. For one thing, your name stays with you for the rest of your life. Because names are given such gravity in what they mean and represent, they become important in and of themself. An article from Psychology Today states, “While a name may be a palimpsest for parental aspirations (hence the concerns of savvy parents that they not appear to be striving too hard), a name also reflects high hopes for the child himself. Choosing an uncommon name is perceived as an opportunity to give your child a leg up in life, signaling to the world that he or she is different” (PsychologyToday). Given that names are expected to reflect the kind of person a child will be in the future, parents tend to name their children after themselves with the hope that they will follow in their footsteps and tradition. In that way, Peter is correct in acknowledging and denying his name. His name is indeed Peter Stillman, but it is also the name of his father. By sharing a name, Peter Stillman Jr. seems to lack an individual identity. It is as if he is forced from childhood to share an identity with his father. The name given to him by his abusive father is what others identify him with, but he himself wants nothing to do with it. For the idea of being Peter Stillman Jr. would force him to relive the mistreatment of his father.

While it is possible for people to shut out bad memories and deny them, it is harder to deny who they are. According to the same article from Psychology Today, “Ultimately, self-esteem and the esteem of the world dictate the degree to which we hold our name dear” (PsychologyToday). In other words, how much we like our name and identity is directly related to how we feel about ourselves, which in turn is affected by how society and those around us views us. Having been neglected by his father and shut out from society since he was little, Peter’s self-image has been severely challenged. He understands that even though this is the name given to him, he does not want to be associated with the memories that go with the name. To him and his wife and anyone who comes into contact with him, the name Peter Stillman will always bring to mind the mentally abused and troubled man. By refusing to acknowledge it, Peter makes the argument that one can change who they are into what they want to be.

By denying his identity as his father’s son and his name, Peter rejects his father and what he stood for. What his father was is not what Peter wants for himself. He sees himself having a different destiny than that his father expected for him. In this way, he demonstrates his understanding that his potential is greater than that which was initially bestowed on him by his father. He also realizes that who he is at the moment is not any indication of what he can be in his future. Because of this, the younger Peter Stillman accurately resembles the living embodiment of Humpty Dumpty. “When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you CAN make words mean so different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master – that’s all” (Auster, pg 80). Humpty Dumpty regards with disdain the importance and hidden meanings people impart on everything. When a meaning is given to something, it becomes accepted by society as having certain permanent qualities and lacking in others. Humpty Dumpty argues against this because doing this limits potential.

Facing an identity crisis and having given up on his father’s name, Peter is like Humpty Dumpty in his refusal to let others dictate potential. By disregarding the importance of his given name, Peter Stillman Jr. refuses to allow associations with his name take over who he is. Rather like the struggle mentioned by Humpty Dumpty of the influence of words versus the one who uses them, Peter asserts his struggle between who his father wanted him to be, how other people view him as damaged, and finally what he wants to be. Like the egg, Peter is already in existence, but has the potential to become much more. Unfortunately, the process is not simple because there is so much ambiguity involved in striving to be more than the present state. Peter is fully aware of this problem. He tells Quinn, “For now, I am Peter Stillman. That is not my real name. I cannot say who I will be tomorrow. Each day is new, and each day I am born again. I see hope everywhere, even in the dark, and when I die I will perhaps become God” (Auster, pg 22). Peter understands the difficulties of reaching his full potential, but he is not without hope. In fact, based on his remark, he is quite optimistic to the possibility that maybe even one day his full potential may reach that of being a deity.

Despite the horrible treatment he experienced from his father, Peter expresses no disdain for his life. Rather, he tells Quinn, “He will come. That is to say, the father will come. And he will try to kill me. Thank you. But I do not want that. No, no. Not anymore. Peter lives now. Yes. All is not right in his head, but he still lives. And that is something, is it not? You bet your bottom dollar” (Auster, pg 18). Based on his words, Peter had at one point wanted to die, but something happened to make him change his perspective. While he never explicitly states the reason he wanted to end his life, the torture his father bestowed on him is a very high motive. It would seem that despite all the pain he suffered mentally and physically Peter obviously found something worthwhile to keep living for. It does not appear that the reason is due to his relationship to others because his doctors and his wife serve only to tell him what to think. As Peter mentions to Quinn, “I know nothing of this. Nor do I understand. My wife is the one who tells me these things. She says it is important for me to know, even if I do not understand” (Auster, pg 19). Rather, Peter states that he has a propensity and passion for writing poetry only he can understand. He calls it “God’s language”. Connecting this language Peter believes only he knows to the power of language mentioned by Humpty Dumpty, perhaps God’s language is indeed the one and same. According to Peter Stillman Sr., “Humpty Dumpty sketches the future of human hopes and gives the clue to our salvation: to become masters of the words we speak, to make language answer our needs. Humpty Dumpty was a prophet, a man who spoke truths the world was not ready for” (Auster, pg 80). Based on this statement, Peter Stillman Jr.’s potential can be seen in an entirely new light. Instead of viewing him as a crazed man with mental deficiencies, he is actually a genius ahead of his times in that he manipulates his words to his intentions rather than find meaning in words themselves.

In addition to becoming a poet, Peter further expresses his belief that one day his writing will become famous. Also, he wishes to become a fireman and doctor and in his old age a high-wire walker. Peter acts in an almost childlike manner in his ambition to become so many professions in his lifetime. This enthusiasm is yet another demonstration of his potential. It does not matter what happened to him as a child. By discarding his old identity his options for his future seem limitless.

From reading the conversation between Quinn and Peter, it is notable the similarity between the two men. One man, Quinn, faces identity crisis and takes on the role of being someone else. The other, Peter, appears to seek the help of the former, but in reality he seems to understand his identity, or rather his potential identity, better.

Auster, Paul. City of Glass. Luc Sante, 2006

Flora, Carlin. “Hello, My Name is Unique.” Psychology Today. March 2004 Sussex Directories, Inc. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200403/hello-my-name-is-unique?page=3