Final Writing Project Portfolio

Technological Distractions

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, and felt like the entire room is staring at you? It’s as if you can hear the sound of each person setting down silverware and silently judging you. That’s how I feel every time I attempt to read in a public place. Often, it’s very easy to get distracted. Similar to this is when you read online. Technology is changing, and ways of reading are changing too. Now, e-books that once were in print are available to read on the Kindle or iPad. Furthermore, some types of books, called hypertext, involve an interactive, linked way of reading. On the computer, you click the page you want to see next. Both reading in public and hypertext represent distractions.

First, let’s discuss what happens when you read in a public setting. One of my favorite places in the entire world is the center of a busy airport. I sometimes go to an airport, just to watch the planes take off. I decided to read in an airport once. It was terrible. Everyone at the airport is constantly on the move, but I felt like each person would each take half a second to look at me before going on his or her way. I felt like I was being watched, so I was much more focused on that than the book I was reading. Unfortunately, I was also sitting in the airport Starbucks- different names were shouted aloud every minute, and people kept rustling and bumping into my chair. I was reading Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London. Unable to focus, I found myself rereading the same lines several times before realizing I was repeating. I wasn’t able to truly read until I was in a quiet area, with no distractions.

Upon reading The Museum, one is faced with options that link many different ways on each page they read. Always faced with the option to stay with the story or link off to a separate page (whether the link is within the story or not), this becomes a very social way of reading. I pictured reading The Museum the same as walking through a dark underground tunnel in a castle. You can stay on the main path for a bit, but once you deviate too far from the central hallway, you’ll get yourself so lost in the back hallways. It’s impossible to find your way back. This kept happening to me. I became so tangled up in the browser experience that I lost the whole purpose of reading to begin with. To make matters worse, ads kept popping up, and the little bookmark tab of “Facebook” was all too alluring. Sure, reading The Museum was cool, but the hypertext way of reading a book provides too many distractions for one to retain the message of the story. After reading The Museum, I realized I retained no plot line, no characters, and no substantial information from the book. As was my reading experience with Orwell, this involves the idea of reading without really reading. Critic Sven Birkets touches on this.

Sometimes, Birkets discusses, we will read and not absorb anything. “We are really only reading while our eyes are in motion…” (95). It was interesting he said this, because so often it happens that you are reading but absorbing no information. I feel like this is why Birkets feels so strongly about people maintaining the traditional sanctity of reading. To him, to read a book and not absorb the content is like robbery. Birkets sees the need for private reading as I do, but he blames this problem on technology. I had this experience when reading The Museum. This is what happens when we are too distracted.

All these distractions are simply something you don’t need to deal with when reading a traditional book. As Birkets says, “The words on the page, chiseled and refined by a single author, aspired to permanence.” (159). A traditional book provides no different links, no ads, no other option of where to go than one more page forward. While an online book itself is not distracting to read, the reader becomes much more prone to the distractions that come with being online. The traditional book provides no distractions either, but when the reader is placed in a public setting, all the distractions suddenly surface. Reading while distracted simply does not work, and reading in a public place perfectly personifies this issue. Just as you cannot absorb the context of the words on the page when you’re in a public place, you cannot consume the true meaning of text when your mind is consumed with the other distractions on the page, in the world of the Internet. The Internet has many uses: some good, and some, not as much.

Sometimes, reading online can assist the story. Critic Janet Murray says, “The computer is not the enemy of the book.” (8). This is a valid point. Take, for example, the following sentence:

The presence of strictly anaerobic microorganisms in termite

hindguts, especially the abundant cellulolytic flagellates in the

lower termites, and the typical homoacetogenic and methanogenic

processes and corresponding microbes involved in the

dissimilation of carbohydrates in both lower and higher termites

have led to the general concept that the termite hindgut

is an anoxic habitat analogous to the rumen of cattle (Brune, Emerson, and Breznak, 2681).

This is a sentence taken from a paper I had to read for a biology lab report. Obviously, there are several words in the sentence that I did not know. However, I happened to be reading this on my iPad. Luckily, I clicked on them and selected the definition option, and I was redirected to the definition of each word I did not know. This feature allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the material being read. However, after being linked away from the page, I spent the next 20 minutes looking around on Pinterest. Despite the fact that originally my intentions of redirecting away were still relatable to schoolwork, my time wasted on Pinterest was not. Again, the alluring distractions of the Internet became too much: those cute shoes on Pinterest just seemed much more interesting than reading about termite gut endosymbosis.

One cannot argue that the experience changes. With the other distractions that come with reading a book online, the original purpose is lost. It took me a ridiculous amount of time to read the paper on termite gut endosymbosis. If I had just printed it out, I would have finished a lot faster because I would have been forced to focus on just that paper.  A story in hypertext form, or online reading, simply cannot exist online, because the reader is forced to constantly ignore those nagging distractions that come with it. The fact the reading experience changes is indisputable. Facebook, for example, has developed a Washington Post Social Reader. You can see what your friends are reading, comment, link, post, reblog, pin, tweet, and share. That, in itself, is too many options. How can one focus on the original content of the story if they are too focused on where it’s going to go next? Do we even take time to see if we have our own thoughts on what the story says, or do we just skip to see what our friends think?

You are allowed to read online, see what your friends think, and the news story itself remains unchanged. This is key- the content itself remains unchanged. However, you already know what all your friends thought about it. Is our mind going to be completely focused on what the story says to begin with? And, more likely than not, why are you on Facebook to begin with? Facebook, in itself, is a distraction. As a generation, we are very interested in what our friends are doing. The idea of being connected with one another is very appealing. To do this, we monitor our friends’ thoughts, locations, and photos. The fact that Facebook updates in real time makes the deal even more appealing. It causes worry in us- what are we missing while we aren’t checking our page? To be so close on the Internet, just one click away, is very tempting. Thus, a sort of obsession developed within us as a generation. When we’re reading online, it can be very difficult to shut that obsession out and focus strictly on reading.

Most people cannot truly read in a public place. Truly reading, instead of just moving your eyes across a page, is an act that requires far too much cognitive attention to be done when our mind is preoccupied. Whether the distractions occur online or in public, the reading experience will not be the same because the experience has changed. Technology simply provides too many distractions, making it much harder to read online and ignore those distractions.

Works Cited

Birkets, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber, 1994. Print.

Brune, Andreas, David Emerson, and John A. Breznak. “The Termite Gut Microflora as an Oxygen Sink: Microelectrode Determination of Oxygen and pH Gradients in Guts of Lower and Higher Termites.”  Applied and Environmental Microbiology. July, 1995. Web. 9 May 2012.

Murray, Janet. “A Book Lover Longs for Cyberdrama.” Hamlet on the Holodeck.  1997. Print.

Self Reflection

I noticed a similarity between two of my writing projects- distractions. I spoke in the first essay about how reading in public can be very distracting. I then, in the third essay, touched upon the idea of distractions online. I wanted to really build on that. By taking some material from the third essay and combining it with the first, I was really able to make the two arguments run parallel to each other. It seemed like a bit of strech- I felt like I was writing a new essay more than revising an old one. But I used the same critics, the same ideas from the old ones. I added in new examples and personal experiences to each separate argument, and then made them come together.

I think my way of organizing the argument was effective. I really worked hard on the logic this time. I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t arguing two different things. I seemed to really do that in the first essay, which is why I had to delete so much. I did a lot of expanding with this essay. The first essay really needed revised, though. I felt like the two arguments weren’t making sense together. Once I added in the hypertext distractions with the reading in public distractions, and took out the aesthetic principals of the first essay (that argument didn’t really seem to fit), I think my essay came together a lot better. It feels a lot more focused now.  My biggest problem is probably grammar. I accidently switch into passive voice sometimes, probably a left over habit from lab write-ups. Also, I sometimes switch tenses. Hopefully, I managed to correct that problem in this essay as well.

I also really focused on the idea of the counter argument this time. I added in two examples of a counter argument, each time hoping to make the reader arrive at the conclusion I wanted them to. I feel like this part of my essay really used the idea of “logic.” I made use of Socratic method to help illustrate my counter argument and steer the reader in the direction I wanted them to go.

When I look back on my first essay and compare it now to the essay I have, and even the last essay, I see so much change. My writing feels much stronger, sharper, and more fine-tuned. I love the use of counter argument; I feel like it can add so much to not only your credibility as a writer, but the argument in general. I think this specific way of writing also will become useful when I’m more into the higher level classes of my major. Lab reports must be very concise and take out doubt by the reader, you must prove something. Though my argument in this essay cannot necessarily be proven, I wanted to eliminate as much room for disagreement and dispute as I could.

I feel I have also grown as a critical reader. I am using the quotes much more effectively in this essay than I did in the first one. My quotes seemed kind of random in the first essay. Now, I tried to introduce them with a purpose, and provide support as to why I chose them. Quotes are what provide the support for your argument. If I were to say that all bunnies were green, that is fine, but if I have a picture of a green bunny, then suddenly I become a lot more reputable.

This semester has also helped me see the difference editing, or rewriting, can make. I could have done much more with the essay the first time, removed the unnecessary and unconnected argument that I made the first time, if I had revised a few more times. However, I was thankful for the opportunity to be able to revise and really spend some time with this essay. After our conference, I visited the writing center, and they really helped to center me as well. This essay feels much stronger than it did the first time around, and this was a great way to show what we’ve learned all semester.

Issues with Reproducibility

I still remember when I saw the Mona Lisa for the first time. I had read about it in countless books, and studied the reproduction print in french class. It was New Year’s Eve Day, and I was in my senior year of high school. It was my second time abroad, but first time in France. I knew I had to visit the Louve; we got there early in the morning, and it was a very cold day. The entrance to the Louve itself is absolutely amazing, a preview to the treats we would see inside. I decided I wanted to build up to the Mona Lisa, so I first studied all the art from the Renaissance era. Being unable to wait no more, I entered the room with the Mona Lisa, and it became obvious immediately where it was. A huge gathering of people crowded the one side of the room. I made my way up to the front, but still was about ten feet away, because a rope cut me off. No one could get too close, even with the inch thick of bulletproof glass that protected it. It was like a scene from a movie, where the main character walks onto the college campus of his dreams for the first time, or something like that (cue corny music here). Some people say that the moments building up to seeing the Mona Lisa will only lead to disappointment, but I was in absolute awe. A rather small work of art, the Mona Lisa is the only piece of art I can remember from that entire room. It was if all the other pieces were put there specifically for comparison, like the museum curator knew that every person would subconsciously compare each painting in the room to the Mona Lisa. After finally seeing the reproduction for so long, finally seeing the real thing was breath taking. When one think’s about the influence that piece had upon history, it’s astounding. The countless reproductions I had previously studied did not take away from the experience of seeing it in real life. Though the real Mona Lisa looked exactly like the reproductions, that wasn’t what made seeing the real one so special.  Studying reproductions and then viewing the real one enhanced the experience.

Critic Walter Benjamin disagrees. In his essay titled “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Benjamin praises the idea of recreating with technology. He states, ”The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” (Benjamin, ch. 2). But Benjamin likes the opportunity this provides to others, even if the price of that is a softer impact upon the viewer. Similarly, having the original present makes the purpose of the reproduction real, and gives it significance. This heightened significance is part of what adds to the experience. Billions of people who have never been to Paris and don’t have the resources to get there understand the significance of the Mona Lisa, and it’s because we have replicas to teach with. If one had to actually go see the Mona Lisa to know what it looked like, it’s historical impact would have been lost ages ago, because most people don’t have the resources to go see something like that.

Like Benjamin, Birkets agrees that the experience is altered, but he doesn’t see the progression behind it. Benjamin, at least can see the importance behind the change. The authenticity is redefined with the production. Birkets has a hard time recognizing that. Perhaps technology changes and takes away the uniqueness of a piece; Birkets certainly argues that in his chapter “Coda” of The Gutenburg Elegies. He says, “The aura is there when we stand in front of the original of a painting, and is absent when we are before the copy…even if the copy is nearly identical.” (Birkets, 225).  But isn’t a copy what we want? Would we want to read a book that wasn’t a copy of what the author actually wrote? Birkets would see that as a cut on the author. Coming to mind is the experience of The Museum. Since no one got the same reading experience, there could be no copy made of that hypertext. Therefore the work was changed, the authors intentions lost and became unknown. The Museum was limited because the plot wasn’t linear. It could not be reproduced, and the authors intentions became unknown. Each time I read The Museum, the plot changed. I got a different story each time. I didn’t know what the author wanted me to take from it; furthermore, I wasn’t sure what the plot was even supposed to be because it changed each time I navigated anywhere past the first page. The Museum has two distinct qualities that differ from most other traditional books: usage of different mediums and nonlinearity.

Let’s compare it to a linear, reproducible book. Picture a high school english class: 20 students, same copy of the The Iliad. Each student has the same book, a reproduced book, perhaps on the tenth or so edition. Though each book is the same, each experience of each reader will be different. The discussion that follows is proof that no two students got the same experience. If the The Iliad had been a hypertext, where you could link each page somewhere else, what would have become of the story? Each student would have gotten a different story, not just a different experience from the same story. A copy of the work is what we need, to spread the resources and use them to teach with. He neglects the fact that these sorts of reproductions are essential to education. As a professor, he has certainly come across reproductions: consider books. If we only taught literature to those who had access to those first editions, where would we be as a society? Certainly, some books that today we consider to be very significant would have gotten lost. Birkets is essentially saying he likes technology for the purpose of teaching literature, where it is essential to him. But he chooses to neglect how it is essential in every other aspect of teaching and learning.

Birkets holds a valid point, and so does Benjuamin. Yes, a book reproduced many times over is simply a copy of a copy, but why is that a bad thing? Having a copy gives us something linear, something consistent, to work with. Without this consistency, we have no way of discussing or learning. A copy doesn’t make the original less valid, or less significant. It adds to the significance because purpose for copying is given to the original. Something that cannot be copied- like The Museum- can have no impact because there is no sense of consistency. Copying The Iliad or the Mona Lisa is validating their purpose. Since you cannot reproduce something linear, does it still have worth? The experience of The Museum was so warped, so distorted, that it was hard to take anything from it. But was that the use of a different medium that did that, or was it the format? The Invention of Hugo Cabret also used a different medium. A book of mostly pictures, Hugo managed to utilize different mediums while still telling a story. The book was still linear, and could be produced the same way. Clearly, the usage of the different mediums was not the problem. Simply put, something that is not linear cannot be reproduced. The reason The Museum was so difficult to understand wasn’t the medium used, it was the fact it couldn’t be reproduced because of linearity. The Museum is no less valuable than The Iliad or the Mona Lisa, or even The Invention of Hugo Cabret. But the mediums that can be produced, that have a concrete, linear plot, they’re the ones that are going to last. Five years from now, I won’t remember reading The Museum, but I will remember the first time I saw the Mona Lisa.

Transparency v. Opaque

The issue of transparency v. opaque is one that comes up frequently throughout the chapter “Hypertext: Of Mouse and Man” of Sven Birkets’ The Gutenburg Elegies. The difference in reading hypertext and reading a standard book comes down to this issue. With hypertext, your reading experience is totally different from the traditional book. It’s a very transparent experience, because each person reading is not only getting a different experience, but they’re determining their experience.

Upon reading The Museum, one is faced with options that link many different ways on each page they read. Always faced with the option to stay with the story or link off to a separate page, this becomes a very social way of reading. I pictured reading The Museum the same as walking through a dark underground tunnel in some sort of scary castle. You can stay on the main path for a bit, but once you deviate too far from the central hallway, you’ll get yourself so lost in the back hallways, it’s impossible to find your way back. This kept happening to me. I would use my back button a few times and try to get back to that initial page I wanted, but it becomes so complex to find your way back that you simply cannot. It became more confusing when you got to a dead end, or a different browser was opened. If it hadn’t been for the directory the authors (coders, maybe? What are they even called?) provided, it would have been impossible to find your way back to even the central places, like the north or south side of the museum.

This active, or transparent, way of reading is simply too complex for any actual information to be retained. Sure, I remember general parts from The Museum, but I have no idea of the outcome or the actual plot of the story, past the first few pages in the beginning. I tried reading several times, and each time got a different, confusing, plot. I became so tangled up in the browser experience that I lost the whole purpose of reading to begin with. Sure, reading The Museum was cool, but the hypertext way of reading a book provides too many distractions for one to retain the message of the story.

All these distractions are simply something you don’t need to deal with when reading a traditional book. This “transparent” book is not a clear way for the author to get their intentions across. As Birkets says, “The words on the page, chiseled and refined by a single author, aspired to permanence.” (159). Furthermore, I know Birkets’ feelings on this matter because he told me. In each sentence before, and each one after, which he decided upon, I am aware of his thoughts. The meaning of the story changed each time I read The Museum. The author’s intentions became lost, absorbed by the freedom of choice The Museum gave each reader. The author loses his power, or dominance, when giving his/her readers this kind of freedom. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “To Hell with this, let’s just buy a regular book instead.”? A traditional book is concrete, opaque. As far as where the story is going, you know before you ever open the first page; you always know you’ll be flipping to the next page. It’s linear and simple. The reader stops wasting energy wondering how to even get to that next page. The text inside may be complex, but that allows the reader to wholly focus on the complex text and message.

Reading through a hypertext is simply too transparent of a way to absorb the true message of a story. When the intentions of the author are lost, what is the point of reading anyway? The true purpose of reading is to absorb the message the author wrote. If the reader is partly writing the story because he/she decide what is next, then the message is lost. If we start rewriting our own stories into these transparent, ideas of a story, how will ever maintain anything concrete?

Murray’s view on computers

I found this article to be incredibly thought provoking; right away I spotted the need to combine the two different mediums. Murray begins the article by quoting Birkets and MuLuhan. This helps to illustrate two very opposing views. Murray says, “The computer is not the enemy of the book.” (8). Throughout the article, she illustrates that we do not need to choose between books or computers and other media forms. Murray establishes her love of books early in the article. She loves books, certainly as much as Birkets does. Murray states:

“To me-a teacher of humanities for the past twenty-five years in the world-class electronic, toy shop of MIT, a Victorian scholar, and an educational software designer-the computer looks more each day like the movie camera of the 1890s: a truly revolutionary invention humankind is just on the verge of putting to use as a spellbinding storyteller.” (2).

However, she realizes the importance of media too. This, however, brings us to the other end of the spectrum. McLuhan seems to, perhaps, completely neglect traditional literature. Birkets thinks of the computer or television as a war on books, and refuses to consider the revolutionary ideas that can come from other media forms. Though MuLuhan specifically cites television as his medium, computers are what applies in today’s world. His message applies to computers, the same as it applied to tv when he wrote the book. MuLuhan cannot be blamed, as they were before his time. Had computers been what they are today, McLuhan would have been writing The Medium is the Massage on computers instead of television. McLuhan however, is almost forgetting that traditional books can have their value as well. One could say that just as Birkets is being narrow minded by neglecting technology, McLuhan is doing the same thing on the opposite end, by neglecting traditional books. Ironically, McLuhan has written this book, but it has a completely different feel to it because it was written so differently from a traditional book. Both are on two ends of the extreme.

Murray perfectly connects the gap between the ideas that Birkets and McLuhan founded in their books. Furthermore, Murray recognizes the importance of computers that Birkets seems to neglect. Now, Murray is obviously more liberal to the idea of teaching through technology. Being an MIT professor, she will see the value in teaching with that method, compared to Birkets. Even Murray says it took time for her to warm up to the idea. Birkets, who never gave himself the chance to see value in that, obviously is going to be cynical towards technology. Seeing the two professors differ so drastically in their teaching styles perfectly highlights Murray’s idea that books and computers can bridge together to form a completely different style.

Part of the issue McLuhan and Birkets both share is their inability to recognize that these two forms can be combined. Murray recognizes the value each different learning tool has, and doesn’t place too much on any of them. By doing this, Murray accurately assesses and compares the book to the computer. He realizes the computer is a revolutionary new tool we have, and we can use that to heighten our learning experience. By doing this, we can unify the two together and form a completely new learning method that utilizes different mediums to form a more complete way of teaching.

The problem with the media

In the book The Medium Is the Massage, Marshall McLuhan uses different forms of media to illustrate his idea that the environment and society are strongly influenced by media. McLuhan states that, “…The living room has become a voting booth.” (22). This is a perfect description of how I feel about the media influences in politics. Glenn Beck is the perfect example of how a small piece of media can influence voter decision. The rumors that Obama wasn’t American, hadn’t lived here for 14 years, and was Muslim began as something small. They exploded all over the internet, with chain mail and protests occurring over something that wasn’t even true. It was as if the entire population forgot to think that during the application process to run for president, they probably would have thought to check and make sure he fulfilled one of the most basic requirements to run for president. Furthermore, the idea that society can still be this ignorant about certain things makes us seem like robots, swallowing whatever news we are told. Sometimes we forget that something like a corporation or a news channel isn’t a “thing,” it is living and breathing. They seem so impersonal, we forget that there is more behind it. There are owners with families, just like anything else.

Each news channel is run by someone- someone with a political affiliation. This seeps into the shows made, commercials ran, and the people employed. It’s just one more example of how the rich govern the poor, not only with their money but their thoughts. As Thomas Jefferson said, “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits…This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.” Men (and women) are not governing themselves if the media is indirectly influencing their thought. And the real problem is, if the media is everywhere, how can we ever stop it?

Perception of Hugo Cabret

The experience of reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret was very different from the traditional form of reading. While traditional books use simple words on a page, Hugo borrowed the idea that reading can use your eyes for more than absorbing and processing the meaning behind the text. A book written with text as well as images, Hugo used more than just even these two mediums. While a book with images and text is often thought of as a mere picture book, Hugo proved to be much more.

Using space, perception, and shadings, Hugo looked at the aspects of films, and transformed them into a story written with a combination of these ideas. Despite the fact Hugo is originally a young adult book, one can analyze the story for much more than the surface meaning of a picture book. The film aspects reflected on the page help set the feelings the reader should be having. The page where the man holds out what Hugo believes to be the remains of his father’s notebook is drawn with many degrees of shading, and a close up shot of the ashes (Selznick, 136). You can practically feel Hugo cringe, because you cringe as well at this shot. The use of the images and film characteristics make the audience feel as if they are standing there watching everything occur. This is largely due to the various “perception” shots. Through these, the reader is experiencing the plot firsthand, at the view of the characters.

Birkets would not view this as an acceptable form of reading. Though it still very much is reading, it is not traditional, because part of the imagination process is removed. Birkets would see this as too much of a movie, and would think this removed imagination requirement was foolish, as an extension of what he calls “mass-produced entertainment.” (Birkets, 29). It would seem almost like cheating- with half the work done for you, (the work of imagining the set) what is left to imagine? However, what Birkets is too narrow-minded to see is that through this addition of other mediums, the reader becomes so much more engrossed in the story. This isn’t cheating or making reading easier. Hugo revolutionized a way of reading. Before reading Hugo, I had never seen a book that combined these different media types, and had never thought of how it could impact my reading experience. The fact that the book is about early media is extended so much more by his use of these media types. His point is furthered a lot more because he uses media, just as they would have had when they saw the movies many years ago.

“Give yourself over to absolute pleasure…” The similarities between Frankenstein and The Rocky Horror Picture Show

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is a story that almost anyone will instantly recognize as one of the first true horror stories. Even those who have not read the story know the general tale, thanks to the countless Hollywood interpretations. “…It will thrill you, chill you, and fulfill you…” (Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon. Twentieth Century Fox, 1975. Film.) This sounds kind of similar to Frankenstein. Frankenstein, originally written in a competition between Mary Shelly and her friends, began as an idea in her mind for a most gruesome horror story. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a film about a gay scientist who attempts to create himself a partner. Upon close examination, it is clear that the writers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show wanted to make a film closely following the idea of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. In both scenarios of creation, something went wrong. Ultimately, desire and sequestration by society run parallel in both plots.

The segregation of both creations in society is apparent. The creature in Frankenstein is outcast because of his ugly appearance and his inability to communicate. Rocky, designed to be stunningly good looking as a homosexual partner for the doctor, is equally unable to communicate. He is outcast because of his initial sexual preference, homosexuality, and his stupidity. Though Rocky never interacts with the members of society, he is outcast by his society: Frank-N-Furter, the spectators, and the servants in the house. Rocky is essentially isolated by the outcasts of his society because of his decision to have sex with Janet, or to be heterosexual. The film illustrates his separation from the rest of society by utilizing Brad and Janet. They are normal members of society, who were unfortunate enough to stumble upon Frank-N-Furter’s home. The film writers use their actions and dialogues, always having them appear shocked and appalled at what they’re witnessing, to show that Frank-N-Furter and his friends are very different. Rocky, in addition to Frank-N-Furter and the spectators that watch the creation, are outcast from society because they are .”…transsexuals from Transylvania.” (Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon. Twentieth Century Fox, 1975. Film.) You can see the shift from Rocky’s alienation from society to acceptance after he has sex with Janet, or complies with the normal expectations of society.

Conformity, or societal pressure to adapt, was direct upon both creatures. During a scene at the beginning of his creation, Rocky slams his fists together and grunts. He is unaware of what he desires, knowing only that he was created as a mate for Frank-N-Furter. Rocky changes to an adult by learning what he wants, and making his own choices about his sexuality; he desires a heterosexual relationship with Janet. Rocky is also very unintelligent, “…named for the rocks in his head.” (Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon. Twentieth Century Fox, 1975. Film.) Though gorgeous, Rocky is often misunderstood or negated because of his stupidity. He is still unable to speak by the end of the movie, but that is simply because he is not very intelligent. The creature also maintains a very infantile composition as well at the beginning of his creation. He “…learns and applies words, ‘fire,’ ‘milk,’ ‘bread,’ and ‘wood.’ (Shelly, 115). One knows the creature Victor created is alienated from society as well, because of the actions of the rest of the characters in the story. They are always shocked, and quickly judge the creature by assuming he is violent and evil. The creature is extremely misunderstood, because he gravitates towards being a functioning, self sufficient member of society as we follow him through learning words, finding food, and caring for himself as he lives on his own. He also moves from infant to adult as he does this. The creature even asks for a mate upon seeing the family in the woods. While the creature progresses towards being a human that society may accept, Rocky also gravitates towards a female companion. Upon noticing Janet, Rocky desires a typical family as well. Neither creature stays with the original companion, or for the reason they were created. The creature and Rocky both desire some sort of traditional family setting.

The writers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show wanted to illustrate that all creatures, despite appearance or original reason, eventually gravitate towards human companionship. Both creatures wanted to create life by forming a family, and their creators did not comply. It is simply human nature for us to desire these innate fundamentals of life. The creatures, though both very infantile, soon desired the family dynamic of one man and one woman. The gay scientist, named Dr. Frank-N-Furter, personifies the idea that The Rocky Horror Picture Show explores struggles with sexuality. One cannot choose whether to be homosexual or heterosexual. Rocky was made to be homosexual but realized he desired a female companion. This drives his creator wild with jealousy, and leads to his alienation.

The creators in both situations slowly deteriorate from right-mindedness to insanity. Throughout the film, Frank-N-Furter’s sanity deteriorates because of the jealousy. This eventually leads to his death. Victor’s mental capacity falls apart as he is overwhelmed by guilt. The death of Justine, Henry, and his brother at the hands of his creation will lead to the same fate as Frank-N-Furter. Though both creators died for very different reasons, both perished as an indirect effect from their creation. These two characters also shared an uncontrollable desire. Frank-N-Furter has a wildly untamed sex drive. The quote in the title “Give yourself over to absolute pleasure…” is something Frank-N-Furter says while trying to coax others into engaging in sexual acts with him. (Rocky Horror Picture Show. Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon. Twentieth Century Fox, 1975. Film.) He desires sex nonstop, nearing the point of sex addiction. This drove his creation of Rocky to begin with. Though Victor did not create his creature as a mate for himself, he was still created for selfish reasons. Victor had the desire to create, identical to the drive that caused Frank-N-Furter to create. This is perhaps one reason why Victor’s mental capacity deteriorates as he watches his creature destroy other life, particularly the lives of those close to him. The reasons for creation were comparable. Neither creator got their creation exactly correct. Both were capable of creating life, and they succeeded. While Victor is tormented by the guilt of the creature’s murders, Rocky kills no one. The fragile state between life and death, how easy it is to destroy, appear constantly throughout Shelly’s Frankenstein and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The arguable similarity is the emotional torment over the desire that creating another human caused.

Initially, the plotlines of Shelly’s Frankenstein seem very different from the film The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Upon close examination, it is clear that the writers of The Rocky Horror Picture Show borrowed certain aspects from Frankenstein. The creatures are segregated from society and desire companionship in the form of a typical family dynamic. The drive to create by Victor and Frank-N-Furter cause their mental sanity to cripple. Societal pressure and sexuality struggles are emphasized, and the ultimate delicacy of life and the emotional and psychological pressures of creating it cause the demise of both the creators.