Trust

To me personally, trust is very important.  Trust is a necessity in relationships with a partner, with teachers, and with family and friends.  In order to actually have trust, one must be confident that another person has their best interest at heart, with no exceptions.  There are very few people in my life who I truly trust enough to let get very close to me, for if I trust some one with everything, he or she has the ability to hurt me.  I find it interesting that a single word can have so much influence over our daily lives.  From just the little research I have done so far, the word trust has so many unique definitions and is definitely the prime choice for this paper.

The Bayeux Tapestry

The Bayeux Tapestry is a 70 meter (or about 230 foot) long and 20 inch high embroidery depicting important events leading up to the Norman invasion of England and the Battle at Hastings in 1066 in a completely Norman perspective.  No one really knows where or when this tapestry was actually made, but it is said to have been made by nuns in England.  There is a romanticized story that the wife of William the Conqueror, Queen Matilda, made the tapestry in honor of her husband's victory at the Battle at Hastings.  In reality, however, most people believe that Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William's half-brother, actually commissioned the piece as a monument to William's achievements.  

There are 3 sections that make up the tapestry, and possibly a 4th that has been lost over time (see picture).  The 1st section shows the important events leading up to the Norman invasion.  The 2nd part illustrates general preparations and the Norman invasion fleet crossing the channel, and the 3rd part shows the events that happened at the Battle at Hastings, and the ultimate Norman victory over the English.  
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/bayeux-tapestry.htm

Additional picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Tapisserie_de_Bayeux_31109.jpg

From the Pages of Unferth's Diary...

I am humiliated and embarrassed.  My whole life I wanted to be the one to lead  my people to victory, to give them hope and bring nationalism.  I wanted future warriors to look up to me, be proud of me, and know my name.  After my encounters with Grendel and Beowulf, however, I fear that I may never have this satisfaction.

The day that I first heard of the infamous Grendel, I thought that luck had finally struck me and that I had a chance.  A chance to become a hero and bring honor to my people.  Upon actually meeting him, I was crushed.  I tried to belittle him and make him feel weak, but being the monster that he was, he turned it all back on me and made me feel like an idiot.  He told me that everything that I knew about being a hero was a sham, a mere power play for my own personal self-superiority.  That day was one of the lowest in my existence, as I have an image and a reputation to maintain.  The Danes look to me as being a hero, or so I thought, and instead of coming anywhere close to defeating the beast, I broke down and started crying.  Humiliating.  Later on, when I sought out the creature in his cave, I was not looking to kill him necessarily, but merely to talk some sense into him and show him the importance of heroism.  His opinion on the matter was completely foreign to me, and he thought that being a hero was meaningless.  Was he right?  Is there even a point to being a hero?  Clearly I don’t have what it takes, so is there even a reason to keep trying?  I was at my lowest of low when I asked him to kill me.  I had realized that he was right, and I no longer had a reason to live.  To my dismay, however, he chose not to kill me which made me question his character.  Though I hated him for it, maybe he  wasn’t a monster after all.

When Beowulf showed up, that basically sealed my fate.  I wasn’t good enough to kill the monster myself, and it was decided that I needed outside help to ensure the kingdom would not be destroyed.  Honor is very important to the Danes, and having the Geats come save us was utterly humiliating.  When Beowulf spoke of his adventures, I could see the look of admiration in people’s eyes. They knew that he was a true hero, and that I was a mere wannabe.  Is there even a point to my existence?

Why are languages typically referred to as "she"?

Even with extensive research, the answer to this question is "lost to history," and there is no definite answer.  There are historians who hypothesize where this comes from, however.  First of all, some believe that languages are referred to as "she" because they  stemmed from the "mother language," or "mother tongue," known as "proto-Indo-European."  As the grammatical gender changed in different regions through time, different languages were formed all together.  Even to this day, ships are called "she" for very similar reasons.  While the origin of this is also unknown, a common idea is that ships are known as "she" because while inside of the ship, you are kept protected from the outside and kept in a "womb" type construction while inside the ship.  I think this is similar to languages, as it can be argued that "proto-Indo-European" "birthed" all of the other languages that we know of to this day.

Sources:

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-are-boats-called-she.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_pronoun

Photo: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBzGtbydQSqq5XiXfQZCzd2ueKVdxY0Xt3T9jOgiyfGMCrA8n2q9l3XiALOltRswWJ6cla4-abg0-HivF-X30-w55-pd_bjea241YqxBmEOk84kaSnisA7zPzRupc_gpZGDIxbOpVnh04/s1600/proto-indo-european-language-neatorama.jpg

Modern Criticism of Frankenstein: Key Ideas

Three key ideas from "Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism" by George Levine:

• Frankenstein and his monster are "two aspects of the same being," and they heavily depend on each other.
• Similarly, Frankenstein and Clerval are very similar, Levine states that Clerval is "Frankenstein without the monster." 
• Doubles are a big theme in the book, as even the smaller characters each have a lot in common.

Previous to reading this short essay, I had not really thought about how similar each of the characters really are.  Frankenstein has so much in common with the monster he created as well as the people he surrounds himself with, such as Walton and Clerval.  Likewise, each of the supporting characters have much in common, like Elizabeth and Justine, for example. 

Mary Shelly's Attitude Towards Victor's Work

There is no question that Mary Shelly demonstrates a mixed attitude towards Victor Frankenstein's science experiment very early on in the book, which definitely sets the stage for the complexity of the character during the rest of the novel.  There are two very different attitudes regarding Victor's work that are in two consecutive paragraphs in the book.  Initially, Shelly emphasizes the hope of Victor's creation, discussing the possibility of "renew[ing] life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption," which would ultimately make Victor a hero.  Victor hoped to create a "new species" that would think of him as their "god," which in itself is a slightly misguided reason to do such an experiment, but wanted to eventually make the world a better place, or "pour a torrent of light into our dark world" as he described it.

As the book progresses, however, it becomes clear that this is not just a mere experiment for Victor, but rather an obsession.  Instead of describing Victor's actions with positive words as demonstrated in the first paragraph, Shelly decides to show a different side a Victor, a side that is growing crazy with anticipation of his finished product.  Victor is described as being pale and "emaciated with confinement," words which definitely have a negative connotation, that definitely show the darker side to such work.  The hope that Victor had a mere paragraph prior has now turned into a forced hope, and the realization of the horror that he is producing.  Shelly introduces the idea that Victor may not be creating his experiment for mere scientific curiosity, but rather that he is looking for the fame that will come with such a great discovery.  In fact, Victor even admits to himself that what he is doing is unethical when he said that "often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation," and that the only reason he pressed on was due to "an eagerness" that could only be filled by creating such an evil being.  

Significant Incident of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein"

In my opinion, one of the most significant parts of Frankenstein is when Frankenstein's "daemon" burns down the De Lacey's cottage in a fit of rage and revenge.  Prior to this event, the monster did not feel the need to be monstrous or violent in any way, but after being rejected from the only beings he had ever felt close to, chooses to burns down the family's cottage.  This event sparks the monster's hatred for mankind, which ultimately leads to the demise of many innocent people.

Throughout the whole novel, the monster is really searching for who he is and attempting to find acceptance in a society that does not approve of him.  The De Laceys are the family who have unknowingly protected the monster who greatly looks up to them, and taught him what it takes to be human.  Though he chooses to take out his disappointment that they do not share the same feelings towards him by burning down their house, in my opinion, he is not truly a monstrous being.  Yes, he does have a tendency to murder people who are afraid of him, but I really think this stems from the fact that he is constantly getting looks of horror from the people he encounters instead of acceptance that he is really searching for.

This incident is definitely the most memorable to me because it not only marks the start of the monster's hatred towards humanity, but it also provides insight to his character and shows that he is merely a lonely, misunderstood member of society who ultimately wants happiness.