Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” tells the story of an ancient mariner who kills an albatross and brings upon himself and his ship’s crew a curse. The ancient mariner travels the world, unburdening his soul, telling his story to whomever needs to hear it. Shelley alludes to the poem several times. Robert Walton in Frankenstein is similar to the Wedding Guest from “Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” with Victor Frankenstein playing the role of the mariner. As the mariner feels compelled to share his story to one who needs to hear it, so does Victor. The explicit theme in “Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” that love conquers all, is a clue as to how the tragedy that occurs in Frankenstein’s life could have been avoided.
Mary Shelley, just as Samuel Coleridge, create very similar settings. Both pieces of literature are characteristic of the Romantic period and describe vividly nature and the outdoors. Frankenstein and the mariner play very similar roles, as well as the albatross and the creature. The fate of the crew members in Thje Rime of The Ancient Mariner was in the hands of the albatross. This bird decided which crew members were to live and which ones were subject to death. Ironically, the entire crew in the poem were killed and the only man who survived was the mariner. “I am going to unexplored regions, to “the land of mist and snow;” but i shall kill no albatross, therefore do not be alarmed for my safety, or if i should come back to you as worn and woeful as the “Ancient Mariner?” (pg 16-17 Letter II). Here Walton is making a blatant reference to “The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner.” He is referring to the part of the story in which the Mariner shoots down the Albatross, which causes his downfall and that of his crew. This correlates to Frankenstein in a sense that the creature had the ultimate control over the human population. It was in his power to kill whomever he chooses to. Just like the mariner was given a second chance to redeem himself and rid his sins for killing the albatross, Frankenstein was given another chance to give the creature what he ultimately wanted- another one of his kind. Right after Victor ran away in terror after he saw his creation for the first time, he wanders the streets alone with his conscience.
“Like one who, on a lonely road, Doth walk in fear and dread, And, having once turned round, walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows a
frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread”(Shelley, 53). At this point “Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is referenced because similarly, in this work the person wanders the streets with a demon or fiend following him. In a romantic sense, the mariner and Victor both want knowledge. They both are trying to get their thoughts straight across. However, unlike the mariner, Victor’s new knowledge brings a curse along with it. Victor’s life is similar to “Nightmare-Life-In-Death” because he really has no one he loves left. On top of that, he is the reason for the deaths of all his loved ones. Frankenstein wants to die at this point, but he wants to finish what he started. Additionally, they are both living with the knowledge no one else possesses and the hatred towards their respective creatures. Frankenstein is constantly battling the creature and torturing himself throughout the novel.
“All men hate the wretched; how, then, must i be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator detest and spurn me…” (Shelley 88). In this quote Shelley is making a statement on the inherent beauty of all living things. She believes that all living creatures have a certain beauty, not matter what. Similarly, Coleridge made this statement by using the albatross. The Mariner’s punishment for shooting down the albatross was living Life-in-Death. In the above quote, the creature speaks of how humans hate the wretched, simply because they are wretched. Men look at the creature and automatically think he is the lowest life-form. Even his creator looks at him and cannot stand the sight of him.
“Water, water, everywhere, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, everywhere, Nor any drop to drink. The very deep did rot: O Christ! That ever this should be! Yes, slimy things did crawl with legs Upon the slimy sea” (Coleridge pt. II, st. 9). This quote shows The Mariner’s outlook on nature in the beginning of the poem. The Mariner refers to the creatures of the sea as “slimy things,” which obviously has a negative connotation. However, once Coleridge teaches his character the lesson of the inherent beauty in nature, the Mariner learns that all creatures are beautiful. In Shelley’s piece, which also has this theme, it seems that Frankenstein really never learns this lesson, while the creature does seem to grasp this concept.
“I beheld those I loved spend vain sorrow upon the graves of William and Justine, the first hapless victims to my unhallowed arts” (Shelley 79). This quote shows Shelley’s theme of how devastating the consequences can be for one single unthinking act. Obviously, Victor’s single unthinking act was his creation of the creature. When he made this creature, there is no way that he thought he would kill two of his closest loved ones, and later kill more. However, it happened and Shelley is showing us how devastating the effects can be. Similarly, in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, The Mariner also suffers for a single, unthinking act. His act was the killing of the albatross. He paid for it in more than one way. First, he was sent to a Life-in-Death, then after he repented, his ship sunk with his crew. To top it off, he was forced to wander the earth, telling his story in order to teach people about the beauty of creatures, for the rest of his life.
Frankenstein includes a number of the themes that are encompassed in the Rime. Both contain the theme of the act of storytelling because although the reader hardly notices, both works are written in such a way that the story is told by one character to another, with periodic interruptions to remind the reader of this fact; the mariner is telling his story to the Wedding Guest and Victor is telling his story to Walton. Frankenstein also contains the theme of the natural world, where both the creature and Victor spend much of their time in nature, the creature having to learn how to survive and Victor simply taking pleasure in its beauty.
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” Critique
The Irony of On Liberty
In John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty, Mill argues that the cultivation of vital individuality is essential to the advancement of society. Cultivation of vital individuality is the spark that ignites societal progress because the more an individual develops his capacities, the more valuable he is to society. Mill provides detailed instructions on how to cultivate vital individuality; however, he also acknowledges the difficulty of truly nurturing individuality in a society in which the majority’s opinion stifles that of the minority. He takes issue with the illegitimate power society has over the individual. He worries that this “social tyranny” hinders the self-cultivation of the individual. Although he fears that the despotism of custom will lead to the stagnation of society, his solution to this problem ironically requires that we adopt his concern for well being of others as custom.
The main theme throughout, On Liberty, is the idea that without a strong will to actively cultivate vital individuality, a society will cease to progress.1 The overall well being of a nation-state lies within the citizens’ willingness to promote individuality. Promotion of individuality increases a person’s worth making him a more valuable member of society; so, the more valuable a member of society he becomes, the more likely he is to make positive contributions to the nation-state. Dissenters are an example of those individuals who actively cultivate vital individuality. 1 Mill, John Stuart, and Stefan Collini. On Liberty and other writings Cambridge [England: Cambridge UP, 1989. Print.]. p. 63 (“It is not by…’)
Asking questions, proposing contrasts, providing half-truths, and testing currently accepted ideas are all methods by which dissenters contribute to the advancement of society.2 Mill suggests that closed-minded individuals who reject the unalike beliefs of others will never truly know their views to be the whole truth.3 Dissenters offer a way for the popular beliefs of society to be put to test. The examination of popularly held beliefs will confirm existing truths while unearthing fallacies and new truths.4 Society as a whole will significantly benefit from the individuality displayed by dissenters.
Mill believes diversity is key to personal and societal development. An individual’s ability to evaluate himself in contrast with others promotes progress in the life of that individual. Society benefits from diversity because individuals will see potential to combine their positive differences for the benefit of the community. Conformity to the norms of society hinders individuals’ opportunity for learning from one another. Mill maintains that every generation must self-cultivate in its own unique approach in order to guarantee its beliefs continue to be meaningful and relevant.5 To do so, every individual in every generation must be open to “human experiments of living.” According to Mill, diversity, as well as experiments of living, are integral parts of individual and social progression. Mill provides detailed instructions on how to cultivate the vital individuality that leads to societal growth. On a personal level, he believes it is important to actively strive to be an individual in all facets of life. He requests that every individual interpret human experience without being tainted by the narrow views of custom, religion, and popular norms. 2 ibid. p. 21 (“To refuse a hearing…’)
3 ibid. p. 23 (“Not certainly to the…’)
4 ibid. p. 47 (“Popular opinions, on subjects…’)
5 ibid. p 23 (“Complete liberty of contradicting…’)
On a societal level, Mill proposes that only actions that will harm others should be restricted. This “harm principle” prohibits the creation of laws that inhibit an individual’s right to act as he wishes, as long as no other individual is harmed by his actions.6 For individuals, Mill’s “harm principle” requests the creation of an open-minded community in which citizens must feel comfortable to act on their feelings without fear of social humiliation or legal penalty.7 He accepts that individual’s natural reactions will occur; but he maintains his point that, despite the reaction, no one should be treated with anger or resentment. He fears that society’s
intervention in the life of an individual is ill advised and unnecessary if he is not harming anyone else. Society can afford to bear the inconvenience of any action that indirectly affects individuals, but does not violate any fixed obligations. Mill acknowledges that, although his instructions are thorough, they do not come free of obstacles posed by society.
The principle obstacles presented to the cultivation of vital individuality, along with the progression of society, derive from social tyranny. Mill recognizes that tyranny of the few over the many is a theme of the past, now mostly overcome by revolts. He is far more concerned with the resulting tyranny of the majority over the minority. This form of tyranny is extremely detrimental to the cultivation of vital individuality. Tyranny of the majority over the minority denies individual freedom to any individual who stands with less than fifty percent of the electorate. The sentiments, ideals, and morals of the greater number of people governing the political process are imposed upon the minority.
6 ibid. p. 13 (“That the only purpose…’)
7 ibid. p. 14 (“The only freedom which…’)
The problem with such tyranny lies in the fact that the minority will be silenced.8 Without the dissenting opinions of the minority, the society, as a whole, will lose progress. The domination by the majority over society creates a fear of being different amongst individuals. The majority implements a “one size fits all” idea that their beliefs should be good enough for all individuals.
Another obstacle is the tyrannical influence of custom and tradition over individuals. Customs are the obligatory rules on behavior and principle that are held by the vast majority in a society. Mill’s issue with custom is the hindrance it poses to the cultivation of individuality by narrowing an individual’s view of human experience.8 Customs suppress an individual’s desire to differentiate himself from the confining limitations of society. Individuals who blindly accept custom as a way of living will develop preconceived notions about life.10 Fear of breaking custom or tradition and being ostracized by family and friends will prevent an individual from
trying new things that have yet to be tried. Although custom and tradition are not enforced by any political power, individual’s fear of being shamed, ignored, and rejected is enough to make custom similar to law in society. Custom and tradition create such a sense of unyielding normalcy that any individual who rebels will face serious social consequences; therefor, custom and tradition are a severe obstruction of social progress. I do find many convincing, pertinent points in Mill’s essay, but it appears he does not fully address the irony within his argument. His issue with set beliefs forced onto individuals by the majority of society is essentially what he is proposing to do, but with his own beliefs. 8 ibid. p. 20 (“If all mankind minus…’)
9 ibid. p. 58 (“The traditions and customs…’)
10 ibid. p. 58 (“Secondly, their interpretation of…’)
The cultivation of vital individuality Mill advocates for is an idea and way of living, similar to a custom or tradition, and it must be forced upon individuals from the time of child hood. Asking individuals to make choices, ask questions, and interpret human experience is similar to custom in the way that it asks individuals to live their lives to a certain standard and fulfill certain obligations. Even Mill’s “harm principle” requests the individual to practice great restraint. According to the “harm principle,” individuals must: refrain from harming others, refrain from making judgments, strive to respect others right, and be accepting. Those rules, although rather sneakily, completely contradict Mill’s entire argument against confinement in society and stifling of individuality. If he truly wanted every individual to maintain a free, unrestrained life style, he would not have written his essay, On Liberty. Had Mill explained that he disagrees with the customs and traditions currently practiced in society, but that he would like to propose new custom and tradition of his own ideology, his whole argument would gain validity.
The irony within Mill’s argument is clear. In order to cultivate vital individuality, an individual must first accept a certain way of living as custom. Despite this paradox, Mill’s issue with the majority ruling over the minority remains valid. In fact, most of Mill’s arguments are exceptionally relevant. He sees a lack of progress in society and pinpoints the root of this problem. There are unavoidable consequences to his solution, which is rebelling against the norms of society. However, Mill argues that the benefits of personal and social progression heavily outweigh the consequences of dissenting. The way of living Mill proposes is an internal choice to question the ideals of the majority that are forced upon the minority. The individual must make the conscious choice to accept Mill’s customs, as well as the consequences that come along with them, and actively cultivate his individuality.
Language As An Instrument Of Control
Throughout history, language has been a powerful tool used by political leaders to gain power, control masses, and perpetuate ideologies. This use can be seen in religious totalitarianism, communism, and even our own democratically elected government. Language plays a key role in the formation and operation of any organized ruling party or system of government. Author George Orwell understood this concept well and frequently incorporated themes of political oppression, corruption, and manipulation in his writing. One clear example of this can be found in his seventh novel, Animal Farm. This story serves as an allegory for the Russian Revolution of 1917 and Josef Stalin’s reign as leader of the former Soviet Union. In the novel, Stalin is symbolized by the character Napoleon, a pig who gains political power with the help of other pigs and exercises tyrannical control over Animal Farm. By examining Napoleon’s actions and those of his cohorts, it becomes evident that he employs language manipulation to maintain control over Animal Farm.
After Mr. Jones is overthrown and Animal Farm is established, the “seven commandments” are painted on a barn wall to create boundaries and separate the animals from humans. However, throughout the novel, these commandments are modified to hide Napoleon’s actions and increase his authority. One such modification occurs after Napoleon executes animals he perceives as traitors; the sixth commandment, “No animal shall kill any other animal,” is changed to “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.” Similarly, when Napoleon and the other pigs violate the fourth commandment by sleeping in beds, it is altered to “No animal shall sleep in beds with sheets.” Squealer reinforces this notion by explaining that a pile of straw in a stall qualifies as a bed and that the rule was against using sheets. Additionally, the fifth commandment, “No animal shall drink alcohol,” swiftly becomes “No animal shall drink alcohol in excess” once the pigs begin indulging themselves regularly. By manipulating language in this way, Napoleon strengthens his power and maintains control over the other animals while concealing his wrongdoing.
The character called Squealer, who is appropriately named, acts as Napoleon’s “minister of propaganda.” Squealer employs rhetoric and deceit to maintain political control for the pigs. He uses emotional and logical arguments to manipulate the perceptions of other animals. For instance, he asks, “Surely none of you wants to see Jones back?” and claims, “Milk and apples (this has been proven by science comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig.” Both methods rely on manipulating language to create two contrasting forms of appeal that suppress any doubts the animals may have. Squealer’s manipulation of words is most evident after “The Battle of the Windmill.” The animals, exhausted from fighting and devastated by the loss of their labor, are immediately approached by Squealer, who declares, “Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon, we have won every inch of Animal Farm back again!” This convinces the animals not only that they are victorious, but also that Napoleon’s leadership is responsible for the victory. Squealer’s use of language to manipulate the other animals is one of the key factors enabling the pigs to maintain control over Animal Farm.
Throughout the second half of the novel, Napoleon uses self-reverential language to surround the animals. He gives himself medals and convinces the poet pig, Murial, to compose a poem praising him. This poem is painted on a barn wall next to the seven commandments, symbolizing that Napoleon’s praise is equal to the commandments of Animal Farm. This language brainwashes the animals, who now give Napoleon credit for all success and good fortune. They have a devotion to Napoleon akin to a god-like figure. They believe that the water tastes excellent thanks to his leadership. This devotion demonstrates Napoleon’s complete control over Animal Farm. He can now discard the original commandments and replace them with the motto “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Napoleon’s use of language throughout the novel gives him the opportunity to justify all his actions and maintain complete control over Animal Farm. This is evident in the closing scene where the animals are unable to differentiate between him and a human: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, but already it was impossible to say which was which.” The distortion caused by political language serves as a significant theme in the book, imparting a timeless lesson to its readers. Orwell encapsulates this idea with a single quote: “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”