My Interpretation of Freedom

I chose the word freedom because it is ubiquitous in our American society. I probably hear the word every day. I hear freedom in many contexts. To me it always meant liberation and unconstrained. The word freedom is generally used in the sense of ones rights and choices. “I have the freedom to express my views because I live in the US.” I think it is interesting how the concept of freedom changes around the world. The US citizens see other countries political stances and thinks that they are putting heavy constraints on freedom, but that is that countries view of freedom. Freedom is also in many religious, political and general contexts. Freedom is constantly mentioned in various songs and even in protests. People fight for freedom from tyranny, financial freedom, freedom from their burdens, etc.. Freedom has so many uses but it is generally used in a positive, yearning manner. People seek freedom and they want liberation and a sense of independence and a better life. I believe that everyone should be able to have a "form" of freedom because it is a necessity in life. 

The Castles

Castles....

Castles have been around for ages. The oldest have been around since the Stone Age in Britain. Castles have many parts for function and appearance. 

Cool Quote: 

Why are castles ruinous?

"Whatever is built by man for man's occupation must, like natural creations, fulfil the intention of its existence or soon perish."-- Charles Dickens

http://www.britcastles.com/casgloss.htm

• Arrow Slit: A vertical 'window', very narrow on the outside, spreading to a larger size one could stand in on the inside, out of which one shot, guess what, arrows. Later ones had a horizontal slot in the middle to give a wider angle of fire for crossbows.
• Bailey: The courtyard of a castle, the word normally being used in conjunction with a Motte, which was the inner keep of a Norman castle. Larger castles had more than one bailey -- e.g., outer bailey, middle bailey, inner bailey. (Also called a Ward.)
• Barbican: Additional defenses in front of a gatehouse whose purpose was to restrict access to the main gate. Often contained drawbridges and parapets from which defenders could shoot down into the roadway.

• Bartizan: A projecting circular turret placed on top of a wall, usually at a corner (mainly Scots).
• Battered Plinth: Lovely jargon. This refers to the base of a wall being provided with a widening slope, both to strengthen the bottom of the wall against undermining and to provide a ricochet surface for objects such as rocks being dropped down from machicolations that would bounce off horizontally and zap the attackers.
• Battlements: The working defenses atop a castle wall, consisting of a Wall Walk fronted by a Parapet (crenelated), often corbelled out to allow for machicolations, or in earlier castles protected by a Hoarding.
• Buttery: The "Butler's" room off the Great Hall. Wine cellar, serving room, silverware, etc. See also Pantry (I'm not sure how the allocation of functions between the buttery and the pantry were differentiated -- in Norman French/English buttery means 'bottle room' and pantry means 'bread room').
• Chemin de ronde: Rare in England, very characteristic of French castles, this is the 'crown' at the top of a round tower, a machicolated gallery below or replacing the parapet. French castle towers also had conical roofs, but this was never common in England where they usually had flat tops.
• Concentric Castle: Developed in the Crusades, this was the provision of a castle with rings of defense, walls within walls, with flanking towers.
• Curtain Wall: The defending wall of a castle.
• Donjon: The French word for the Keep tower. Not a dungeon in the sense we know. Most castles had a miserable little place that was used as a prison, but they were for the most part punishment pits for one or two recalcitrants. After castles had lost their original purpose in the 17th Century, quite a few gatehouses were converted into prisons (why gatehouses, I'm not too sure).
• Drawbridge: Everyone knows what a drawbridge is. There were basically three types: (1) a simple sliding platform over the ditch that could be pulled back, (2) a raising bridge pulled up by chains attached to the outer corners, and (3) a bridge with posts reaching out over the top, with the chains hanging vertically from the posts (this had 'leverage' advantages).
• Enfilade: Describing the arrangement of Arrow Loops or Gun Ports whereby one could achieve a cross-fire and hit the enemy from the side.
• Forebuilding: A sort of 'Barbican' for a Keep, it protected the entrance, which was usually on the second story, and contained a grand stair and additional chambers (often a chapel).
• Garderobe: A privy or loo. Usually hollowed out of the wall in a tower. Some garderobes had a chute that went down into a sewer pit; others just dumped into the moat.

• Gatehouse: The most important part of a castle as far as its defense was concerned, the entry being the weakest point. Older ones were little more than a strong arch with heavy iron-bound wooden gates and drawbars and a guard chamber on top or to the side. Later on, flanking towers were added to the gateway, and Portcullises and Drawbridges. Whereas the Keep was a passive defense, the gatehouse was right up in front, and became the most elaborate building in the later castles.
• Great Hall: The main chamber of the castle. Here is where the all the business and social activity of the castle was conducted. A great hall usually had a Solar, Buttery, Pantry, and kitchen attached to it.
• Gun Port (Loop): The replacement for the Arrow Slit in the later Middle Ages as the use of gunpowder became more widespread. These tended to be horizontal rather than vertical.
• Keep: The central refuge of last resort. In Norman castles, usually a very large square or round tower. The lord's accommodations were usually inside the keep.

• Hoarding: A wooden gallery built out from the Battlements that provided additional protection and fighting space at the wall top; replaced in later castles by a Machicolated stone Parapet.
• Machicolation: The projection of the parapet over corbels so that slots could be provided that faced straight down to the bottom of the wall and one could fire at, or pour boiling water or oil on, attackers who had reached that point.
• Moat: The ditch surrounding a castle, filled with water when the castle was on a stream or river, but most often just a dry ditch. When wet, they did not contain alligators, but there was other revolting stuff in them.
• Motte: An artificial round mound on which in the original Norman castles a wooden (later, stone)Keep tower was constructed. Outside of this was an embanked Bailey containing the Great Hall, stables, chapel, kitchen, etc. These were easily and cheaply constructed (they conscripted the local peasants to do the digging) by the Normans to subdue the native populace after the Conquest.

• Mural Chamber: A small room hollowed out within a wall.
• Murder Hole: A hole in the ceiling of a gate passage through which you could pour boiling oil or whatever (see Machicolation).
• Pantry: Associated with the Buttery in the Great Hall complex. I'm not sure what its function was as differentiated from the former. Pantry actually means 'bread room' (pan French equals bread). The lower end of a great hall, opposite the lord's dais at the upper end, almost always had three doors: buttery, pantry, and passage to kitchen.
• Parapet: The crenelated wall protecting the soldiers on the Wall Walk.
• Portcullis: A metal or iron-bound wooden grating that slides down in slots in front of a gateway.
• Shell Keep: The old motte-and-bailey castles were generally wooden stockades. As power was consolidated, the richer Norman lords built round stone walls on top of their mottes which were thus rendered fireproof. (At the same time, the Bailey curtain wall was also built up in stone.)
• Solar: The lord's private room behind the Great Hall. The ladies' room.
• Tower: Defensive towers were placed at strategic places along the curtain wall (corners, changes of direction, mid-wall) to provide flanking protection; at first mostly square, they were built round as time went on with a resulting better field of fire. The D-shaped tower was even superior, with a defensive round side facing the field, and a square side (which allowed for more convenient rectangular rooms) facing theWard.
• Turret: A small tower; more specifically the buttressed corner of a keep that provided extra protection to a most vulnerable part of the building. (A corner, if 'blind' to the field, could be undermined and bring down parts of two walls.)

• Wall Walk: The fighting platform atop the Curtain Wall
• Ward: Another term for a castle courtyard (see Bailey).

Full Sized Images of Castles: 

Internal Monologue for Wealtheow

The thoughts of an object-like being.... 

       My new life is so different. I was declared their servant, so I might as well try to be a good one and be queen-like to the best that I can. It was decided for me without my say or opinions. I decided to go along with my brother’s plan, even though I truly am not happy. I am now Hrothgar’s wife. I decided to approach everyone in a calm manner and be as respectful as possible. I am trying to be humble and to respect my new lord. I am adapting, well sort of. I secretly miss my family, but I know I have to continue for the good of my people. I will treat Hrothgar’s people as my own. However, I am lonely. I am nostalgic for my past and I miss my old life. I am sad, sort of depressed but I dare not show my true self. My real feelings would only create trouble, which I cannot currently handle. I try to find time where I can ponder and truly think about my situation, but I am never alone. I am always the subject, of affection and of possession. I simply clutch my true feelings close to my heart and continue on in my silent misery.

       I have moments where I think I am happy; I am happy, but sad. Can I ever be truly happy? I am not even appreciated. You would think they act to one another as if I am there precious treasure, but I do not feel as though that is the truth I am acknowledged only when need be and I am not respected the way I would like. Well I guess life is not perfect and I will continue to smile and hid myself.

       Why does Grendel hate me? If he is trying to prove a point to my new lord why is he taking his blame out on me? I am scared and I cannot hide my emotions. Please, protect me, someone, please. I am alone with this monster and defenseless. Anyone, someone, will you help me? Finally, I was freed, but no thanks to them. They pretended to be so happy I was okay, but really they did not care about me, but their “treasure” was secure. I am nothing more but an object of possession and not a being with feelings. Without me the kingdom would fall apart.

Languages other than French Influenced Middle Age English

Many other languages have had a powerful influence on English besides French. Romance languages and Latin all heavily influenced the English language. Other languages such as Greek and Germanic languages also had an impact on English. However, all of the words I have researched originated from Arabic.

 

Christopher Small: Frankenstein or Really Percy Shelley?

A few key ideas from Small's Criticism:

1) Victor Frankenstein's name is derived form original works by Percy Shelley
2) The flakiness of Victor is similar to Shelley in that he left Mary like how Victor abandons Frankenstein
3) Mary wrote Frankenstein while Percy was absent and most likely subconsciously expressed her emotional feelings about her husband in her novel, although she loved Percy she portrayed him in a negative manner like Victor who seemed monsteresque in personality


The above information allows the reader to further explore insight regarding Victor Frankenstein's complex character. Victor is a smart man who is loved by his family and friends and has a promising future. On the other, he is obsessed with his science, abandons his creation and is self-interested and allows other people to take responsibility for his actions and the actions of his creature (who he is technically responsible for). Victor is missing a moral compass in the sense of his abandoning issues similar to Percy who too is bright, but leaves Mary and his somewhat careless in nature.

(More information about Percy would further allow comparison to Victor)

Mary Shelley's Complex Attitude

The tone of these two paragraphs is one of determination. Shelley, who experiences a great deal of abandonment in her life expresses her personal experiences through Victor. Shelley experienced the loss of her mother, her creator basically at birth. Therefore, the eagerness of Victor to have his creation is slightly spiteful for Shelly because she never really knew her own mother. It is clear that Shelley holds resentment for her struggles to conceive. Victor's thought, "No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve their's," shows Shelley's frustration with the difficulty she experienced to have a child. She endured the deaths of her children, which compares to the obstacles that Victor experienced when creating his monster. Again, one can feel Shelley's emotional struggles when Victor discusses the process of, "renewing life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption." Shelley was unable to have a child for a period of time and therefore could relate to her character, Victor, because he invested time and energy into creating his creature, which ultimately proved to cause him harm.

The attitude of Shelley, therefore, seems spiteful. Shelley made Victor suspenseful and eager to finish his creation, but his creation is the literal death of him. Possibly, Shelley was connecting her pain from her experiences of wanting children and then the untimely death of her husband with the end result of the monster that ended up destroying Victor. Both Shelley and Victor invested everything they had into their "creations," but neither had his expectations met.  As the tone shifts in the scene with Victor, it related to how Shelley’s' life shifted from finally having a child and a family to losing her family. The two (Shelley and Victor) were making progress in their lives and were becoming happy then both take a downfall. Shelley writes with a reflective tone that almost mocks her own experiences. I believe that Shelley wants Victor to succeed and complete his creature, but subconsciously needs him to fail even if that means succeeding in making his creature, but failing when it comes to the end result. She will not allow the creature to have an emotional connection with Victor because Shelley herself could not have a connection with her mom. I believe that Shelley is playing off of her mother daughter relationship, or lack thereof, with the father son (creature) relationship.  Shelley could have had Victor create a creature that identified with him, but instead she developed a creature that was nothing like his creator and his creator had no interest in him. Shelley places some of her pain on Victor and the creature so that the two each experience hardships like the author endured herself. 

Door Number One or Door Number Two?

Breana Roberts

Blog Entry #2 Passage from Frankenstein

Door Number One or Door Number Two?

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, is a dark novel that ends in a sad, twisted way. I believe that the fatal ending was a result of Victor Frankenstein’s decision making. Victor ultimately made the decision to ignore his creature, but I do not believe that decision is the sole factor that ruined his life. Victor made many decisions during his tumultuous life. I believe, however, that the first fatal decision he chose was to take the easy pathway. Victor had two options at the beginning of his college career: he could start over and learn (natural philosophy) science in an entirely new approach, or he could continue to search for a new type of life. Clearly, Victor chose the latter of the two and the creature was created. If Victor chose the other option of restarting, his creature would have “never” been formed and his life would have been entirely different. Basically the idea behind my curiosity is that Victor chose door number two, what would have happened if he opened number one? Would his life have vastly improved? Did he choose the easy way out because otherwise his prior hard work would have gone to waste? Who was right Krempe or Waldman? This scene is important because Victor’s life could never again be the same. However, the question remains if Victor would have went with Krempe there is a slight possibility that he would have still created the creature anyway, therefore the uncertainty is as follows, was the creature a part of Victor Frankenstein’s fate? (See passage below)

Passage from Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein:

He asked me several questions concerning my progress in the different branches of science appertaining to natural philosophy. I replied carelessly, and partly in contempt, mentioned the names of my alchemists as the principal authors I had studied. The professor stared. "Have you," he said, "really spent your time in studying such nonsense?" I replied in the affirmative. "Every minute," continued M. Krempe with warmth, "every instant that you have wasted on those books is utterly and entirely lost. You have burdened your memory with exploded systems and useless names. Good God! In what desert land have you lived, where no one was kind enough to inform you that these fancies which you have so greedily imbibed are a thousand years old and as musty as they are ancient? I little expected, in this enlightened and scientific age, to find a disciple of Albertus Magnus and Paracelsus. My dear sir, you must begin your studies entirely anew." So saying, he stepped aside and wrote down a list of several books treating of natural philosophy which he desired me to procure, and dismissed me after mentioning that in the beginning of the following week he intended to commence a course of lectures upon natural philosophy in its general relations, and that M. Waldman, a fellow professor, would lecture upon chemistry the alternate days that he omitted. I returned home not disappointed, for I have said that I had long considered those authors useless whom the professor reprobated; but I returned not at all the more inclined to recur to these studies in any shape. M. Krempe was a little squat man with a gruff voice and a repulsive countenance; the teacher, therefore, did not prepossess me in favour of his pursuits. In rather a too philosophical and connected a strain, perhaps, I have given an account of the conclusions I had come to concerning them in my early years. As a child I had not been content with the results promised by the modern professors of natural science. With a confusion of ideas only to be accounted for by my extreme youth and my want of a guide on such matters, I had retrod the steps of knowledge along the paths of time and exchanged the discoveries of recent inquirers for the dreams of forgotten alchemists. Besides, I had a contempt for the uses of modern natural philosophy. It was very different when the masters of the science sought immortality and power; such views, although futile, were grand; but now the scene was changed. The ambition of the inquirer seemed to limit itself to the annihilation of those visions on which my interest in science was chiefly founded. I was required to exchange chimeras of boundless grandeur for realities of little worth. Such were my reflections during the first two or three days of my residence at Ingolstadt, which were chiefly spent in becoming acquainted with the localities and the principal residents in my new abode. But as the ensuing week commenced, I thought of the information which M. Krempe had given me concerning the lectures. And although I could not consent to go and hear that little conceited fellow deliver sentences out of a pulpit, I recollected what he had said of M. Waldman, whom I had never seen, as he had hitherto been out of town. Partly from curiosity and partly from idleness, I went into the lecturing room, which M. Waldman entered shortly after. This professor was very unlike his colleague. He appeared about fifty years of age, but with an aspect expressive of the greatest benevolence; a few grey hairs covered his temples, but those at the back of his head were nearly black. His person was short but remarkably erect and his voice the sweetest I had ever heard. He began his lecture by a recapitulation of the history of chemistry and the various improvements made by different men of learning, pronouncing with fervour the names of the most distinguished discoverers. He then took a cursory view of the present state of the science and explained many of its elementary terms. After having made a few preparatory experiments, he concluded with a panegyric upon modern chemistry, the terms of which I shall never forget: "The ancient teachers of this science," said

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein 

Six Amazing Books – Breana Roberts

Notes of a Native Son by James Baldwin was a great book because it was the first real book that I read that consisted of individual essays. I loved how each essay explored different, intimate aspects of Baldwin’s life.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelly made me really think. I had to be really focused when reading in order to understand all of the elaborate details. I enjoyed decoding the story and really exploring the inner thoughts of both Victor and his monster.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is one of my all time favorites. I particularly enjoyed how the book seemed to come alive when I read it. The Gatsby read as if I were watching a play leaping from the pages.

The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger was not love at first read. I did not like the book at all until I finished the entire book. Catcher was one of the books that I was entirely confused while reading, and it was not until the last ten or so pages that it all made sense. It is a book that I remember the details, but more importantly the story and Salinger’s messages continue to linger in the back of my mind.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain immediately sparked my interest because of its controversial topic. However, I did not particularly find the language easy to read, but appreciated that the words were true to the characters. I loved the book's meaning and how there are many interpretations to its different elements and themes.

Alicia: My Story by Alicia Appleman-Jurman was probably the hardest book I have ever read. The book itself was captivating; I could hardly let it go. However, the theme of death and struggle had me in tears during my entire read. It is a book that I completely identify with. I actually read the book while on a plane to Prague, the day before I visited concentration camps. I believe that Alicia is “the underdog” book when it comes to Holocaust books, but it is one of my all time favorites.