Social Norms in Society  

     When reading Hard Times by Charles Dickens you will notice all of the social norms and importance of class during that time period. Today no one really cares, or even asks you, about your class in society or how much wealth you have. 

     An example of social norms for the time is the relationship between Mr. Bounderby and Louisa. She is supposed to be in her twenties and at that time the marriageable age was sixteen and up, so she could be considered somewhat of a spinster. But since she was in a higher class it was a little more acceptable to get married later than the norm. She thought hard about whether to marry Mr. Bounderby or not, as she had no other suitors and he had all the qualifications that her parents would want. They would have wanted an eligible bachelor to have wealth, high class, and a stable career. That is why it was typical for the man to be in his fifties and marry a young wife, which would be thought of as a trophy wife today. 

    

     Another social norm demonstrated in the book was the concept of divorce being totally out of the question. Today you can get a divorce with no questions asked while both the man and the woman can go on living with their lives and even marry again if they choose to. Back in the day if a divorce ever happened then the women could potentially be left with nothing. Back then the men totally supported their wives. In the case of divorce he could take the source of income and the children if he wanted. If their family wouldn't take them back they would have no where else to go. A man could go on to find another wife if he wanted but women would never get remarried. They would literally be left with nothing in life. So they all tended to stay married, even if they were unhappy in the relationship. 

     

     Class was a very serious part of who you were back then. If you were high class you would never be seen with someone who was from the lower class. In a way the lower class could be seen as scum to the higher class. Also a lower class man could never in any case be considered to marry a girl from a higher class. This is because the parents would have some say in the person who their daughter would marry and they would go for the man with more money. Families of lower class would attempt to get their daughters to marry into wealth so they could rise in class. 

     As you can see it was another time where their view on society is very different from ours is today. Though in the end they were doing what themselves and society viewed as normal. Personally I would much prefer living in the 21st century.

-MAL

Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: A Byronic Hero

Though Sweeney Todd is a fictional character, he is the prime example of the Byronic hero, and for many, many reasons.

Todd, from the beginning of the movie, is a noticeably traumatized by his wrongful imprisonment, loss of his wife to suicide (or so he thinks), and inaccessible daughter; all three tragedies that emotionally torture him have one common thread- Judge Turpin- who falsely accuses him to get to his wife, whom he rapes, and then takes his daughter as his own and eventually wants to wed her. This is too much for Todd to handle and he is bound of self-satisfying revenge, taking justice into his own hands and plotting to kill the judge. But he has one extremely violent outburst and murders someone who blackmails him, a man that would have ruined his revenge scheme. With an epiphany, he realizes he'll probably never see his daughter again, therefore having nothing to lose, and that since all men deserve to die, his own core belief, he would be doing the world a favor. And with plenty of manipulation, he is successful in killing the men who come into his shop for a shave and sends them down to the ovens to become meat pies for the restaurant below, showing his reckless, cunning, and ruthless side. By the end, he is depressed to find out that his wife had been alive all along, living as a crazy (due to attempted suicide by arsenic poisoning), homeless woman on the streets of London. Not only that, but it was by his own self-destructive hands that ended her life, due to a wrong-place-wrong-time situation.

One trait that Todd doesn't share with a Byronic hero is self-awareness. He doesn't realize that by choosing his version of justice over legality he is embodying Judge Turpin, the very man he hates. Turpin did whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted and took his power for granted in evil, immoral ways. Todd is taking his power, as a barber to unsuspecting, trusting victims, for granted as well and is seemingly ignorant of this connection between he and the one man he wishes to kill the most. There is a slight possibility that if Todd has recognized this connection to Turpin, he would've stopped his murder spree. Though, from what I can only imagine, Todd would most likely dive into a deeper depression and take his own life.

So, as you can see by his story, (and by the bold words,) Sweeney Todd had a majority of the characteristics of the Byronic hero.

Frankenstein

           We have just finished writing Frankenstein, 1818, which is the pre-edited version. Overall my feelings on the book was so-so. Because it was mainly composed on what Walton heard from Frankenstein, as a result, the readers do not feel transported to the scene but are merely weighed down by Frankenstein's feelings, or of the monster's feelings, depending on who is talking. These feelings can continue for many paragraphs. Along with this, the speakers go on long tangents about terrors and trials and long explanations. Frankenstein takes a long detour in his story about his misery by talking about his perfect childhood, before getting to the part of the monster. Elizabeth also, when telling Frankenstein about the death of William, goes on a long tangent about where Justine came from and how wonderful she is. This seems unnatural as Frankenstein should have already know all this since he always found her to be wonderful company. The ending was also in a way, disappointing, even though we are reassured that the monster is not evil and regrets all that he has done, Frankenstein is dead, and the monster vows to destroy it's self. Which could have been an early solution before he became as miserable and "wretched" as he now feels. It seemed necessary for the monster to drag Frankenstein to the north, unless he wanted to kill the doctor in this fashion, which his lament makes me believe isn't true. Although I do relate to the monster more so than the doctor, and i sympathize with him, and I feel that he is portrayed in a life like manner, his reactions were believable. I can't say this for the other characters. There manner of speech was far too elevated, even when talking to their closest friends, even in anguish, when one generally isn't concerned with how flowery their speech is. Even the maid, though educated, speaks like the rest of the "human" cast, regardless of the fact that she is on death row, so to speak. Frankenstein's also seemed to be overly dramatic, falling deathly ill multiple times, when ever the worst was upon him. I understand being so horrified and miserable that you are sick, but going from perfectly well to at the brink of death is a little uncalled for. Over all I found this to be forced in terms of drama and high class, but I did not hate the book.
         I thoroughly enjoyed the concept of creating life and enjoyed the monster very much as a character, enjoying the scenes he partook in to be my favorite parts. Although most of my distaste for Frankenstein comes from his abandonment of the monster, the moment it begins to breath, it is rather realistic. Before, he was too hell-bent on succeeding that he didn't look ahead to the implications, (another flaw), but because of this it is reasonable that once he is finished and can officially stand back to see what he's accomplished, he can realize what a horrid thing he has done. Immediately calling it a monster, despite having been looking at it the entire experiment. The monster's appearance is even the doctors fault since the doctor is the one who put him together like that. For Frankenstein to react with horror and run is reasonable, but the fact that he ignores the missing monster, not caring whether it is intelligent or not, or whether it is inherently evil. I think, even if Frankenstein didn't tell anyone about the monster, it would have been reasonable to have searched for it.
         Because this is the pre-edited version, i think it is natural that the style is a little wordy and the characters a little flat. I have no doubt that the other versions will perhaps read much better. I do though, recommend the book, even tough this isn't the point of the blog, but I think I might have discouraged some to read it, which I don't want to do.

The members of this blog are Mikayla Kennaugh, Alice Tranum, and Larissa Gilman hence our name, MAL. Whenever we post and comment we will sign it with our group name. With our blog we hope to have a better understanding and further analyze the different readings that we do in class throughout the week. As of now we are not going to focus on a particular subject or topic but have a more general blog. We hope to gain the interest of all who is reading to help start wonderful discussions. The intended audience will be English majors and all avid readers out there. WE hope you enjoy!
-MAL