Can you guess that style?

           Like what you build, build what you like. A statement to live by, for laziness in the grand craft of architecture is responsible for robbery and other crimes. A statement to live by, for, when the footsteps come and the robbers are there to take what is not theirs, laziness in the grand craft of architecture will be devastating. 

            There were three brothers, and each was presented with an opportunity to use architecture to create a home. Being wealthy men of business, they bought the materials they needed to fit their designs. The first brother, went to the local farmer, and paid him a handsome dollar for a handsome roll of hay. The second brother, being a man of business but also a man of nature, went to the forest and searched for many sticks. He found sticks, but most were as thin as thread, and all were as weak as the as the mind of the man who picked them as building material. However, the third brother, a man of superior intelligence and of intellect far greater than his peers, used an orthodox material: bricks. Had the other two brothers been prophetic, perhaps they too would have done their do diligence, and do away with laziness in the grand craft of architecture.

            They, being wealthy men of business, built their homes of grand design in a well-respected neighborhood, yet the footsteps were still coming after them. On the day succeeding the day in which their homes were built, the footsteps arrived. It was Mr. Wolf, and he, being so humiliated from previous business dealings with the three brothers, sought his revenge through unprecedented methods, and he, having noticed them crossing the countryside with their materials, walked to the doorstep of the first brother, whose was made of hay. He yelled, “Let me in! I demand that you repent your actions, and therefore give me compensation for what you have humiliated me for.”

            The first brother shouted back, “I shall never let you cross my threshold. Go away!”

            “Then I shall knock your house down with the force of my punch.”

            He punched the house, and, being so grandly designed, it crumbled. The brother lay there dead as a result.  Mr. Wolf proceeded to the second brother’s grand house of sticks, but he too refused to let him in, so he, with great force, destroyed his home as well. The second brother lay there dead from the collapse. Mr. Wolf had one more brother to exact his revenge upon; however, the third brother was a man of intellect, and he built his house out of brick, a material too sturdy to punch. Mr. Wolf was also a man of intellect, however, so he made the shrewd observation that the third brother had created a chimney. He climbed onto the roof of the house and dived down the chimney with the utmost confidence in his plan, but the third brother, as if he were prophetic, created a fire at the bottom of the chimney that burned Mr. Wolf. He ran around inside the house with his clothes on fire; he begged the third brother for forgiveness, and implored him to extinguish the flames. He did oblige, but this he said to him: “Leave my house, and never return. If you do, I might not be so kind.”

            Mr. Wolf left humiliated by him once more, but there was nothing he could do. The brother was a master at the grand craft of architecture.

It's a Brave New World Out There

How can he reject the comforts and the happiness in London? How can he, John the savage, possibly think it is better to live secluded in a lighthouse than in the civilization of the World State? I presume it is not too insane to comprehend, after all I'm not an Epsilon Semi-Moron. The savage grew up away from this perfect society. He grew up in a society that is, well, savage. A place where unhappiness and unorthodox behaviors are the norm. For him, coming to a civilization so radically different from his must have driven him to madness, causing him to destroy all of the Deltas' soma rations.
I understand why he went mad, but why did he want to a secluded lighthouse and run away from the social stability the World State offers. What does he expect to achieve being in a lighthouse? Perhaps religion and Shakespeare are to blame. He recites Shakespeare like we take soma; that is what makes him happy. Oh yes! I remember now! He said, "I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin" (Huxley 215). For him, poetry and God take priority over comfort and stability. To him, freedom is the ability to read Shakespeare and believe in God. It is strange to think of freedom in this way. After all, in the world state, we feel free the pains of social instability that poetry and God create. As I explained to the savage earlier, "[Shakespeare and religion] are symptoms of political inefficacy. In a properly organized society like ours, nobody has any opportunities for being noble or heroic. Conditions have got to be thoroughly unstable before the occasion can arise" (Huxley 213).
Although we are in very different positions, the savage and I are similar in some ways. We both have read the complete works of Shakespeare, and we can both quote it by heart (however the savage has let the words corrupt his mind). In addition and more importantly, we both have been presented with a major choice in our lives; however, we each picked a different path. I delved too far into my sciences. I challenged too much conventional wisdom, and I was too good at my work, perhaps like Mr. Watson is too advanced for this society. At any rate, my work questioned conventional wisdom, and such questioning would create instability. Thus, I was offered a choice, continue my work on an island away from civilization and surrender comfort, or surrender my studies as a scientist so I could have the opportunity one day to become a world controller. The savage had a similar choice: give up poetry and God for stability and happiness, or give up happiness for poetry. Obviously, our choices have lead us on to very different paths.
He is a failed experiment, like the one at Cyprus. I granted him and his, dare I say, mother permission to enter the World State, I was interested to see how a savage would cope being part of a new society. I hypothesized that, because he was familiar with our society already, he would be able to adjust. However, Ford knows that I was wrong! If he could not adjust, I conclude that trying to civilize other savages would prove just as bad, if not worse. Although, this experience has given me a little rush, a little reminder of what it was like to be a scientist. Oh get a hold of yourself, Mond! For Ford's sakes you know that you gave up experimentation for good reason! It causes instability.
How about the unorthodox Bernard? I haven't given much thought to him. He is quite an odd fellow. I guess it was the alcohol that got in his blood-surrogate.
But I digress. There is no reason to dwell on the past. After all, the books and culture of the past are banned from our perfect society.

Frankenstein: Rational and Romantic?

      Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, is an interplay of rationalism and Romanticism, but rationalism is clearly condemned by Romanticism. Victor spends years studying chemistry and anatomy, and as he tells Walton in the frame narrative, "[he becomes] capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter" (Shelley 31). However, his intense determination to find the secret of life leads to his downfall as the monster that he creates leads him to seek nothing but revenge on the monster. Shelley's story serves as a cautionary tale against rationalism, and the frame narrative with Walton, the arctic explorer, exemplifies the cautionary element because Victor tells his story as a cautionary tale himself. Victor, before he relays his story, warns Walton, "'You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that that the gratification of your wishes may not be the serpent to sting you, as mine has been... I imagine that you will deduce an apt moral from my tale...'" (Shelley 13). Victor warns Walton that knowledge might be the serpent to sing him. Shelley warns her readers with a cautionary tale just like Victor warns Walton with the same tale. Therefore, Victor's story of his downfall is an expression of Mary Shelley's condemnation of rationalism.
      The monster, however, is not rational. He only uses his emotions and, preferring irrational actions to rational ones. For instance, when the monster encounters Victor's brother, William, he becomes enraged and irrational, killing him without hesitation: "'Frankenstein! You belong then to my enemy- to him I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim'" (Shelley 102). Moments later, he kills the boy by strangling him. The monster commits the murder, and the murder of Victor's other loved ones, solely out of revenge and hatred. The monster commits irrational crimes in contrast to Victor's rational nature.
      The idea of these two characters resonates so clearly in popular culture. Almost everyone, even before reading the novel, knows the idea of Frankenstein. One reason for this might be because of the essential questions the novel raises: What is life? What makes one human? These basic yet essential questions are thought-provoking and make the reader wonder about human existence. Who is more human: the monster who seeks companionship and lets his emotions control his actions, or Victor who uses his reasoning and rationality drive his actions as he questions the very nature of life and death?

Work Cited

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.