Emma
Sklar
12.15.09
ENGS
144
Final
Essay Inter-subjective Relationships in Emma
and Frankenstein
(Reciprocal Acknowledgment in Romantic
Literature)
We will be victimized by the Frankenstein
Factor, by being intimidated by the method rather than focusing on the effect.
No technology to date has been able to dehumanize and demoralize with the power
of drugs, poverty, neglect, despair, narcissism, and blind hedonism (Gaylin, p. 23).
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and
Jane Austen’s Emma explore human relationships at nearly opposite ends
of the literary spectrum. The first is dark in tone and imagery and laden with
dire circumstance, while the latter is effervescent and seems disinterested in
man’s potential for evil. However, both texts present the issue of the
individual need for reciprocal acknowledgement, or a truly inter-subjective
relationship. The Creature first needs victor to recognize his subjective
consciousness, and later asks for another creature to be made, upon realizing
that a reciprocal relationship with a human was impossible. Emma’s situation at
the beginning of the novel is one of “suffering from intellectual solitude”. In
both situations, there is a desperate need for recognition and an inevitable
desire for romantic union. In the context of British Romanticism, both of these
novels make explicit the inherent conflicts in the discussion of the self and
individual human consciousness.
Frankenstein’s Creature is in the unique
position of remembering the birth of
his
own consciousness. Unlike most humans, The Creature was not granted reciprocal
interaction with other conscious beings during the formation of this
consciousness, and as a result, The Creature experiences a profound feeling of
incompletion.
It
is with considerable difficulty that I remember the original era of my being;
all the events of that period appear confused and indistinct. A strange
multiplicity of sensations seized me, and I saw, felt, heard, and smelt at the
same time; and it was, indeed, a long time before I learned to distinguish
between the operations of my various senses. By degrees, I remember, a stronger
light pressed upon my nerves, so that I was obliged to shut my eyes. Darkness
then came over me and troubled me, but hardly had I felt this when, by opening
my eyes, as I now suppose, the light poured in upon me again. […]It was dark
when I awoke; I felt cold also, and half frightened, as it were, instinctively,
finding myself so desolate…I was poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and
could distinguish, nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I saw down
and wept (Shelley, p.88).
Here, The Creature’s existence has no
order, and his emotions are subject to the chaos that most humans have the
luxury of forgetting. This feeling of dejection at the end of the passage
suggests that part of Frankenstein’s failure was in creating a being that would
be thrust into the world alone when inter-subjective interactions are crucial
to the formation of normal human consciousness. The Creature’s rage and destruction
are born of his alienation (“What chiefly struck me was the gentle manners
of these people, and I longed to join them, but dared not (Shelley, p. 95).”). The resulting guilt over his assault
on innocent victims only fuels the cycle. This guilt suggests that the
consciousness that The Creature possesses is basically human, but perverted by
its being unrecognized by other humans. Guilt implies empathy, and within
empathy live the traces of commonality. The intricacies of The Creature’s
consciousness are un-doubtably human, but without recognition he is fragmented,
and thus ultimately doomed.
Frankenstein originally
rejects his creature based on his objectionable physical appearance, much as he
rejects a possible mentor earlier in the story based on superficial qualities.
M. Krempe
was a little squat man with a gruff voice and repulsive countenance; the
teacher, therefore, did not prepossess me in favour of his pursuits (Shelley,
p. 36).
Scientifically,
The Creature is a marvel, and other than his horrifying appearance there is not
much that wrong with him (granted his being made from once-dead body parts,
much worse images of how he could have turned out come to mind). Victor’s
intense reaction to The Creature’s gruesome appearance is laced with the notion
that The Creature is somehow responsible for this reality and is thus not
deserving of any attempts on Victor’s part to confront his creation. This calls
into question the mental status of Victor in the wake of his isolation. His
lack of human interaction may have stunted his judgment and hindered his
ability for compassion.
I
beheld the wretch- the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the
curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixated on
me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin
wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was
stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs
(Shelley, p. 46).
Victor flees the Creature and does not
return, although The Creature has not yet committed any egregious acts. In his
essay “The Sublime”, Edmund Burke quotes a passage from Paradise Lost to show
how obscurity and darkness are naturally conducive to terror.
The other shape,
If
shape it might be called that shape had none
Distinguishable,
in member, joint, or limb;
Or
substance might be called that shadow seemed;
For
each seemed either; black he stood as night;
Fierce
as ten furies; terrible as hell;
And
shook a deadly dart. What seemed his head
The
likeness of a kingly crown had on.
Paradise
Lose, II, 666-73(Burke,
p. 331)
The
parallels between the language of Victor’s description of The Creature and this
description of the “king of terrors” are indicative of Victor’s connection to
fear through visual representations of evil. Burke says that in order to “make
anything very terrible, obscurity seems in general to be necessary (Burke p.
330).” Victor obscures The Creature’s true form by fleeing from him, and thus
his terror is inevitable, and since The Creature’s consciousness is developed
in part through his relationship to Victor, that terror is inherent to The
Creature’s understanding of himself. Obscurity is the opposite of reciprocal
acknowledgement between two conscious beings. Victor has made it impossible for
The Creature to ever have an un-obscured relationship with humanity. The
Creature is aware of this absence and attempts to reconcile his position in the
world by asking Victor to create another being, who is assume top be female for
romantic purposes.
I
am alone and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and
horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be the same
species and have the same defects. This being you must create (Shelley, p.
125).
Victor
ultimately refuses. The Creature cannot forgive him. Both characters are thus poised
to follow a path of misery and destruction.
Emma’s circumstances are somewhat less
gloomy, but her actions in Emma are driven by similar desires to those
that motivate the Creature in Frankenstein. Emma’s privileged position
in her community guarantees her a certain level of recognition, but not the
kind of recognition that allows Emma to assert her individuality. For that Emma
must seek out relationships in which she can exercise her consciousness. Emma
is lacking in “equal” companionship.
Her various advantages are listed early in the novel in order to explain
why Emma finds such companionship difficult to find.
The
real evils, indeed, of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too
much her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself:
these were the disadvantages which threatened alloy to her many enjoyments. The
danger, however, was at present so unperceived, that they did not by any means
rank as misfortunes with her. (Austen, p.1
Soon after, it is explained why such a condition
is problematic for Emma.
It
was true that her friend was going only half a mile from them; but Emma was
aware that great must be the difference between a Mrs. Weston, only half a mile
from them, and a Miss Taylor in the house; and with all her advantages, natural
and domestic, she was now in great danger of suffering from intellectual
solitude. (Austen, p. 2)
It
is this lack (or “suffering”) that keeps Emma busy meddling in the lives of
people over whom Emma can assert her influence. In her exchanges with Harriet,
Emma only sees the ways in which Harriet needs improvement, rather than the
strengths that Harriet already has. The idea that Harriet might have opinions
of her own is unimportant to Emma’s quest. This behavior makes clear that Emma
is not only in need of a reciprocal relationship, but she is also in need of
the ability to recognize in other people a consciousness equal to her own.
Despite
its narrow frame of reference, Emma’s world is one more relatable than
that of Frankenstein. The characters operate under reasonable motivations, and
contain just enough contradictions to make sense as real people. The
relationships in Emma seem to either work or not work based on the
presence of inter-subjective understanding between those involved. Emma’s
relationship with Harriet early on does not operate in a reciprocal fashion,
and the results are indicative of Austen’s tendencies in forming her
characters. These tendencies are explained in Hina Nazar’s essay “The
Imagination Goes Visiting: Jane Austen, Judgment, and The Social.”
Austen
identifies individuals as socially embedded persons whose subjectivity is
developed, in significant ways, in an inter-subjective context. To make this
claim is not to reduce subjectivity to its social determinants, or to identify
to individual as a social being only; it is however, to interrogate our
attraction to a self-legislating subjectivity that has nothing to learn from
others. (Nazar, p. 157)
Emma certainly operates within
these conventions, and it is only through her bad
behavior
that she can come close to the point of interrogation which Nazar describes.
Control is an important theme in Emma, and much of her interactions with
Harriet depend on her want for being in control. What is revealed to her
through the ultimate backfires of her schemes in regard to Harriet is that the
world does not always operate in accordance to her suppositions. Emma’s
uncomfortable cart ride with Elton (when it has recently become obvious that he was not interested in
Harriet but in her instead) plays the role of a moment of recognition for Emma.
However, Emma does not change her behavior after this. That recognition had not
yet synthesized into self-interrogation. In her essay “Emma and Miss Bates:
Early Experiences of Separation and the Theme of Dependency in Jane Austen’s
Novels”, Margaret Moore elaborates on Emma’s issues with social failure and
lack of control.
Jane Austen’s heroines not infrequently react to
painful social situations by physical withdrawal…If physical withdrawal is
impossible, mental withdrawal is an approved defense, provided it does not
conflict with social responsibilities. Where neither physical nor mental
withdrawal is permissible, role reversal is commonly adopted. The heroine
consoles herself with the thought that in the deepest sense it is others who
are dependent and she who is in control (Moore-p. 575).
Emma’s use of manipulation and disguised motives are
certainly not the product of reciprocal respect between she and her friends,
and the failure of her projects is an indicator of the problem with
self-centered operations. Emma ultimately ends up with one of the only people
who can accurately see her for both her faults and charms. However, there is
evidence that Emma’s ability to partake in a relationship will always be
tainted by her proclivity towards self-indulgence.
While
he spoke, Emma’s mind was most busy, and, with all the wonderful velocity of
thought, had been able- and yet without losing a word- to catch and comprehend
the exact truth of the whole; to see that Harriet’s hopes had been entirely
groundless, a mistake, a delusion, as complete a delusion as any of her own- that
Harriet was nothing; that she was everything herself; that what she had been
saying relative to Harriet had been all taken as the language of her own
feelings; and that her agitation, her doubts, her reluctance, her
discouragement, had been all received as discouragement herself. (Austen, p.
372)
This
passage comes directly after Mr. Knightly has professed his love for Emma, and
yet none of her thoughts focus on him, despite being in reference to him. Emma
reciprocates what she decides is love for Mr. Knightly, but this passage
suggests that this love is constructed. Even if she does want Knightly for
herself, part of her motivation seems to lie in Harriet not having him. It is
unclear whether or not Emma reciprocates this clarity in her understanding of Mr.
Knightly’s true character, but her move towards a relationship where that
recognition is a step towards an interrogative relationship with herself. Emma
is probably too young to have stopped alienating people with her ego-centrism,
but the slight reparations made by the end of the novel enforce the importance
of reciprocal relationships.
Frankenstein did not build a monster. He
built what could have been human and turned him into something monstrous by
rejecting him. Emma is unsure of what her life is lacking, but she senses a
lack and sets forth to correct it. Both Emma and Frankenstein’s Creature are
born of unique conditions that dictate some form of isolation. Even though Emma
is often conceited and somewhat conniving, and The Creature is responsible for
several deaths, both characters are innocent in their initial intentions; they
wanted to break their isolation and enter into some kind of meaningful
relationship with another human being. The characters in these novels show that
no matter how strong an “I” might be, there is always weakness in standing
alone.
