The Human Drive

What is it about the human condition that has us relentlessly yearning for meaning? It’s a theme, manifest throughout pages of literature that transform into social commentaries. The human soul is unremittingly searching for something to fill the void – for truth and knowledge. And lastly, it requires approval, a dangerous and longing approval.

Throughout all the different novels I read over the summer, it was a repeating theme, molded according to the story. In Frankenstein, Victor thirsts for knowledge and accomplishment hoping to allow inanimate object life. In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby spends his whole life trying to gain Daisy’s approval by involving himself into a lavish life that he was sure she would find impressive. In The Alchemist, young shepherd Santiago goes on a journey to find his treasure and true destiny. It’s almost peculiar that this idea shows up in different time periods over and over again. If this type of literature shows up time and time again, it must obviously represent something about the nature of the human condition. Maybe it’s something we don’t realize because it’s so inherent, or maybe it’s something we choose to ignore because it’s so conspicuous. 

Authors mold things – they morph them and distort them to make their point. They conceive what others do not – they’re revolutionaries in human thought. It must reflect something to come up numerous times, it’s something to contemplate about the human self. In much literature, the humans are pursuing their own ambitions of finding themselves, or finding their own meaning, of attaining what others may normally not. This human drive, from our surroundings to our own selves becomes such a deep part of us, so existent, that literature it written to reflect it. I thought it was definitely interesting to notice these handpicked themes that ran through many examples of literature.

But this has not only come to reflect ideas in literary fiction; commercial fiction grabs these ideas to publicize these qualities of human nature as well. These ideas come in the form of a journey, a mission, or a quest. They come through emotional changes, societal changes, and the change of nature. In the Harry Potter series, main character Harry is always searching to find the truth about his parents, and he is in the process creating his own destiny, and in essence, his meaning. In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Charlie confides in an eventual truth that he had been unconsciously searching for about his aunt. These books reflect our nature, in the way our nature reflects our being.

With no doubt, literature is subjective. But its subjectivity allows the human mind to think differently, innovatively, and contemplate the meaning of someone else’s work. While reading Frankenstein, I realized how I found similarities in other books, books I could have never imagined. When someone thinks of Frankenstein, they don’t think of The Alchemist, and when someone thinks of The Alchemist, they probably don’t think of Harry Potter.

I definitely found this distinct connection between novels worth noting…and I’ll definitely be noting the next time I’m wrapped up in a good book. 

Delving Deeper...

Frankenstein: the novel that characterized so much within the start of my year. It’s considered an artwork; Shelley does a brilliant job of crafting together a work that has appealed to ideas on so many different levels. When someone reads it, they relate the concept of doubles to Victor and the creature or they relate the dangers of trying to be an over-reacher to Victor’s endeavors. Although these are definitely significant and prominent underlying themes throughout the novel, I do believe that there is a principle connection that many fail to see because it is overshadowed by all the other, more obvious aspects of the novel. This message is wrapped around the existence of one main (although many would consider her minor) character. This character’s name is Margaret Saville.

The technique Mary Shelley employs in this novel is referred to as the frame narrative, an ancient literary genre and technique that utilizes connective narrative “frames”, joining shorter stories to create an overarching picture. This approach is usually combined with a sort of alignment that creates artistic wholeness in the text. The structure of this work mimics the thematic search that is present in the story for something deep, dark, and secret at the heart of the narrative. This structure also reflects the process of discovering the unconscious truth that is hidden behind multiple levels of concealing and obscuring narratives; essentially ridding of the conscious mind.

What do Margaret Saville and the technique by which Shelley writes this novel have in common? Everything, in fact – the role of Margaret is greatly defined by the structure of the novel. Margaret is the final listener – she is the one that is on the outside of the framed narrative. She is most conscious, most alert, and most disciplined through the duration of the novel. Yet she resides (similar to the other female characters in the novel) in a more passive form, causing some to perceive her as just what she appears to be: Walton’s disapproving sister. But it’s all a matter of perspective. Perhaps had Margaret been a more prominent character throughout the novel, the importance of her role would have diminished. Because of the constant void that was present, it may have been the reason that I noticed the impact her character had in the story and on the reader.

As aforementioned, Margaret holds a prestigious position within the framework of the story. Inside the actual story, it is almost as if she is the voice of Mary Shelley herself (which would explain the peculiar initial identicalness between Margaret and Mary). Although she never really says a word, I found her voice to be the guiding voice, and the one that aided me, as the reader, to distinguish between what was right and wrong, moral and immoral – essentially Margaret was the one marking the boundaries. I think this was unconsciously true for many other readers as well, whether they realized it or not. Because Margaret is the voice of Shelley, she embodies the voice of the whole story, and she warns us against everything Shelley warns us against – thus forming the key connection I mentioned earlier. Margaret warns us against the dangerous pursuit of knowledge and ambition similar to one of the most prominent themes Shelley attempts to bring to light. Because Margaret’s voice is always there throughout the novel, because she is always listening, no matter whose story it is, Shelley is capable of keeping her own voice throughout the whole story.

            

Although unnoticed by many, it’s definitely a connection I thought worthy to keep in mind while reading, thinking, and talking about this novel. I really saw it as a way to provide more insight throughout the read. 

Introduction to Poetry

Billy Collins

I ask them to take a poem

and hold it up to the light

like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem

and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem's room

and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski

across the surface of a poem

waving at the author's name on the shore.

But all they want to do

is tie the poem to a chair with rope

and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose

to find out what it really means.

I’m not much of a poetry person. Sometimes when I write about how I feel, it could pass for poetry, but that’s about as artistic as I get. Perhaps it’s for that reason I feel obligated to discuss poetry that actually does give me that sort of stirring sensation. I was first introduced to this poem in seventh grade, and it has remained my favorite poem to this day. I included it here above, because I really feel it’s the kind of poem that offers an atmosphere of depth and comprehension. On a personal level, I find this poem to be soothing and a sort of comfort.

When an individual finishes reading a poem, what is the first thing they are looking for? Are they looking to allow the words to speak as an art or are they looking to break the poem apart word by word to derive a highly analytic and systematic meaning for it? Isn't it odd that a simple Google search for this poem presents this poem as the introduction for an essay explaining the disadvantages of over-analyzing poetry?

Notice how Collins personifies a poem towards the end, evident in the line “tie the poem to a chair with rope”. If we choose to see a poem identical to the way Collins chooses to portray one, as a person, we would experience a few basic realizations. It wouldn't be right to compel the poem to listen to what we say about it, nor would it be right to tie it to a chair and torture a confession out of it. We would not beat any person with a hose until they do not resemble themselves either.

Then what do we do with a poem?

If someone asked me this question, I could never give a politically correct answer. But with a poem? We drink coffee and go out to the movies. Poems are not strict and rigid similar to the misconceived notion that has plagued many minds. They are free flowing and melt-in-your mouth treats. What is Billy Collins trying to tell us? Hold a poem up to the light, listen to the poem’s hive, water ski across the surface, and have a mouse probe its way out. Let the poem speak – and allow ourselves to listen. Do not take a poem and break it apart piece by piece, rather allow the poem to appeal to every single one of your senses, and then extract a meaning from it. If poetry is a person – allow it to speak. If poetry is an art – allow your senses to read.

When I read this poem, I noticed that everything Collins suggested one should do with a poem was something in which the poem was…discovered. The poem was deciphered…through a natural means. The poem is not changed to discover the underlying message. He claims that people beat it with a hose to find out what it really means. They torture the poem. This is exactly what Collins fears – why kill the beauty of a poem in the attempt to understand it?

I find his words enticing, and his speech inspiring – his poem about poems has become a thing of beauty for me. Reading his poem, I feel myself feeling what he would have desired me to feel and I feel the look of comprehension dawning upon myself as if he had just verbally told me what he meant.

So soft a poem, yet so loud a call – I do consider this work sheer genius.