Dr. Evil

Through-out the book, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, we can see a central theme of evil. Evil is described in several ways, all of which circulate around Mr. Hyde. On the first account, evil is portrayed through the appearance of Mr. Hyde. He is described as “pale and dwarfish; he gave an impression of deformity without any namable malformation, he had a displeasing smile…he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice….” Mr. Utterson’s first reaction to Mr. Hyde, which is not an uncommon reaction to the evil little man, was that of disgust, loathing and fear. There is never a good thing said about the appearance of Mr. Hyde, which leads the readers to believe that he must be evil, or at least not at all good. We can also see evil in the actions of Mr. Hyde. In the very beginning of the book we see that Mr. Hyde “trampled calmly over [a] child’s body and left her screaming on the ground.” The event is described by Mr. Enfield as “hellish to see.” Mr. Hyde obviously had no remorse or preoccupation with the fact that he had just mowed down a little girl on the street. Later in the book we also witness the brutal murder of Sir Danvers Carew, an elderly gentleman of the town. Mr. Hyde was described by a maid when she saw him “break out in a great flame of anger, stamping with his foot, brandishing the cane and carrying on like a madman.” Then Mr. Hyde “Broke out of all bounds and clubbed [Carew] to the earth…trampling his victim under foot and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered….” Trampling children and brutally murdering elderly men are very evil things to do. Evil is also described by Dr. Jekyll the first time he changed from himself to Mr. Hyde. Dr Jekyll describes, “I felt younger, lighter, happier in body…I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked, sold a slave to my original evil; and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine.” Dr. Jekyll is implying here that everyone has a wicked, evil side to them. However, not everyone lets this side come out into the open the way he did. Now that his lesser half, the evil Mr. Hyde, has finally been released Dr. Jekyll reacts with delight because he has never before been able to release his evil side. It’s ironic that most people fear their more malicious nature and thus keep it subdued at all costs while Dr. Jekyll embraced his evil side and lets it live freely for certain time periods.

Madam Morrible the Horrible

Madame Morrible, an obvious evil character in Wicked, uses the power she has as a headmistress and a loyal follower of the Wizard to further the Wizard’s unfair regime and to build upon Elphaba’s hatred of him.
One of our first encounters with Madam Morrible is at the school in Shiz, where we read of her poetry soiree. During this soiree Madam Morrible reads one of her very own poems; the last three lines read, “Whose Virtues do exemplify, And Social Good thus multiply. Animals should be seen and not heard.” In front of an entire room full of impressionable young students Madam Morrible states her opinion, and the opinion of the Wizard, that Animals should not have the same rights as people. This was a highly offensive and unfair statement that does not belong anywhere near a school. Schools and universities should be built upon strong foundations of morals and objectivity. That Madam Morrible brought discriminatory politics into the classroom and tried to further enforce the Wizard’s discriminative view of Animals was a disrespectful and an immoral use of her power as headmistress.
Madam Morrible also uses her power as headmistress to murder Dr. Dillamond. Although never proven that Madam Morrible was the one truly behind the murder, we do know that her tiktok machine, Grommetik, committed the act. It is highly unlikely that Grommetik, a practical slave to Madam Morrible, would have acted on his own accord. It is quite evident that he was carrying out the dirty deed for Madam Morrible herself. Madam Morrible was able to get away with the murder of the Animal because of her power as a headmistress and loyal follower of the Wizard.
Madam Morrible uses her power again to try to recruit scared, intimidated young girls to become adepts for the Wizard himself, and thus help the Wizard carry out his discriminative and diminishing dictatorship. Madam Morrible states, “By an authority vested in me that is too high to be named [the Wizard] I have been charged with a crucial task. A task essential to the internal security of Oz. I have been working to fulfill this task for some years, and the time is right, and the goods [Elphaba, Nessa and Glinda] are at my disposal.” She speaks of the three girls as if they are property, simple toys for the Wizard to shape and use at his disposal. The ironic thing is that she talks as if being an adept to the horrible Wizard was some kind of grand achievement and honor.
Each step that Madam Morrible takes further infuriates Elphaba and adds to her hatred toward the Wizard and the development of the climax of the book. In the end Madam Morrible’s actions drive Elphaba to murder her, creating a Witch that is capable of taking other’s lives.

Social Class Struggles

Throughout Wicked it is clear that social class and high society are very important to many people. The citizens of the Land of Oz have clear-cut social classes, and to most, these social classes are very important. For example, Melena, Elphaba’s mother, is described by her nanny as, “Only a pampered little rich girl who flitted about from music lessons to dance lessons with neighborhood children equally rich and stupid as [her].” Melena came from a well-off upper-class family and often complained of the situation she got herself into by marrying a lower-class minister, Frex. She once commented, “This view was the only thing she had seen since leaving the elegant mansion of her family, the only thing she would ever gaze upon again….” Melena also thinks to herself, “Look at me, showing my breasts to the child I couldn’t give milk to for fear of amputation. I who was the rose of Nest Hardings, I who was the beauty of my generation!” She is saddened by the drop in class that she has suffered. Even Frex, Melena’s minister husband, is not immune to thinking prejudice thoughts about certain social classes. Frex, when presented with Melena’s kindness toward Turtle Heart, the Quadling, contemplated, “Perhaps she [Melena] was adjusting to country life after all. Because, mercy, a Quadling ranked about as low on the social ladder as it was possible to get and still be human.” Quadlings were considered the bottom of the barrel when it came to social classes. Galinda (Glinda) too, payed copious attention to the social ladder. When Galinda first arrived at school she noticed, “Looking about her, she could tell that some of these dollies came from families much better off than hers. The pearls and diamonds on them!” Galinda is also found fretting about a roommate when she thinks, “Ama Clutch, the old fool, would have fixed her up nicely with someone just a notch or two above on the social ladder! Near enough that Galinda would suffer no shame, and above enough to make it worth while of socializing. But now all the better young misses were linked together.” Galinda’s main concern when arriving at a very prestigious school was that her roommate not embarrass her with an under-privileged background. It is continuously clear through out the remainder of Wicked that social class and prestige are very important to a lot of people.

Reality or Illusion?

Three characters in particular take advantage of the fact that society celebrates and values innocence in, “The Bad Seed.”
First there is the obvious evil character of Rhoda. Rhoda is the cruelest person in the play, but ironically she is given the sweetest and most innocent image. Perhaps the more awful you truly are the harder you must work to uphold an outstandingly clean appearance. Rhoda, an 8 year old girl, is described as, “the most satisfactory pupil [her] school has ever had. She’s never been absent. She’s never been tardy….And she’s the neatest little girl I’ve ever encountered,” by Miss Fern, the school master. She is also described as wearing perfect cloths which she never spoils and having a smile that, “ought to be patented.” Beneath all of her prim curtseys and proper manners that society blindly adores, however, she is usually scheming and plotting the demise of another who is actually more innocent than she.
Leroy is the second character that caught my eye. Leroy’s innocent image is accomplished by acts of stupidity. Usually, society views and accepts dumb people as being more innocent than the smart, conniving ones. Monica describes Leroy as a lowly janitor who has, “the mind of an 8 year old….” However, beneath his innocent guise Leroy is actually one of the smartest people in the play. Leroy is the one who figures out Rhoda’s guilt first. But because of his assumed retardation Leroy is left alone, presumed too unintelligible to possess more than a simple, innocent soul. I think Leroy was Rhoda’s fiercest competitor in the battle of wits.
Finally, the third character, Mrs. Penmark, took advantage of society’s celebration of innocence to hide her awful heritage. Mrs. Penmark, adopted daughter of Richard Bravo and biological daughter of a serial killer, always had a haunting nag in the back of her mind that she was descended from evil. To try to counter-act her bad blood I think Christine Penmark subconsciously did all that she possibly could to behave as perfectly and innocently as possible. She was the perfect daughter, wife and mother and she had a good conscious and good morals. Despite her pristine character Christine was too foolish to make sure her evil daughter died before she commit suicide. Unfortunately this play seems to portray the fact that the truly innocent people are often times less intelligent than the non-innocents.

Medea vs Trifles

Both Medea and Trifles deal with sexism and male-dominating societies. In Medea we can see evidence of male-dominance when Medea states, “Of all things with life and understanding, we women are the most unfortunate. First, we need a husband, someone we get for an excessive price. He then becomes the ruler of our bodies. And this misfortune adds still more troubles to the grief we have.” In this Medea is implying that women in Corinth are all dependent upon men for survival. She also alludes to the fact that women must pay a pricey dowry to be married and that once they are married they lose control over their own bodies. She also later adds, “For a divorce loses women all respect.” By this statement she is saying that although men may divorce with no consequences, for a woman a divorce is devastating.
In Trifles we see evidence of male domination in the way that the county attorney, the sheriff and Mr. Hale treat the women. The men addressed the women as lesser-beings with empty minds. Mr. Hale states that, “Women are used to worrying over trifles,” implying that women only occupy their minds with simple things. The Sheriff also mocks the women when stating, “They wonder if she was going to quilt it [a quilt] or knot it!” Then the men are described as laughing while the women look abashed.
Despite the fact that in both plays the women are considered less valuable then men, in Medea the main female character does not sit around and take the sexist abuse. The women of Trifles do. Medea is characterized as strong, intelligent and opinionated. She is feared and respected by kings and friends alike, and although she is living in a sexist society she refuses to give up and assume the passive role that is expected of her. The women of Trifles are never seen as strong or boldly argumentative when talking with the men. These women seem to have made peace with their roles as docile mothers and house-keepers.
Although both women face the obstacle of sexism they both end up smarter and more victorious than their fellow male counterparts. I really liked how the women succeeded over the men in their missions in both plays.

Feedback

Over all I really like this class. It offers me a change in my usual academic regiment. I don't have to memorize chemical equations or decipher Spanish literature. Instead I get to simply enjoy English poetry, literature, and drama. So far I have liked most all of the works we have discussed/read. My favorites are "The Lady of Shalott," "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," and "The Lottery." One thing I think we could have done with out was "Kubla Khan." I felt like we spent almost no time deciphering that poem and it's better left out of the curriculum, or if it's necessary, then we should spend more time reviewing it.

I also really like the English blogs. I feel that by answering the blog questions I get a better grasp of the works we are studying. I like reading about what other people think about the works too, because it often shows me a completely different opinion of the work. I think the blogs should definitely be incorporated into future syllabi.

I have no real complaints; I don't even mind the grading being slow. It must take an awfully long time to go through all of our papers. One thing that I wish for in the future, however, is a little bit more leniency when grading papers. Sometimes I feel like the grades I receive on some of my past papers do not reflect how much work and effort I put into them.

The Nature of Evil

In the past, and even in today’s world, evil is associated with the unknown. People don’t like change and therefore any fluctuations from whatever society deems ‘the norm’ are considered different and therefore evil.
We can see examples of this in Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery.” Evil is interpreted as a deviation from the norm in this story because the town is extremely adamant about keeping up their ancient traditions. One such tradition is the annual stoning of a member of the community. Obviously this is a horrible, cruel and undeserving murder. However, when faced with the prospect of changing their ways, the towns’ people refuse to even consider the idea. A town’s man named Mr. Adams remarks to his friend, Old Man Warner, that the northern village has begun to cease the mindless murders. To this statement Old Man Warner replies, “Nothing but trouble in that,” and calls the northern villagers a, “Pack of young fools.” From this line we can see that the majority of the town considers change to be foolish, and to some extent, even evil.
Evil is interpreted as a deviation from the norm in the short story, “A Good Man is Hard to Find,” too. In this story we are presented with a family that consists of three young children, a husband and wife, and a grandmother. The two older children are bratty and disrespectful, the husband does not honor the wishes of his mother, nor does he respect her opinion, and the wife is ghost-like in the fact that she hardly speaks at all. In an ideal society children should be well-behaved and elders are respected and defended. Because of this family’s ill-tempered mannerisms they suffer cruel deaths at the hands of a criminal, named the ‘Misfit.’ The Misfit does not fit into society’s mold either, since he is a law-breaking scoundrel. The only one through-out the entire story that fits society’s norms, and is therefore not portrayed as evil, is the grandmother. If the family had listened to the grandmother’s warnings in the first place, like a good family in society would have, they would have been able to avoid their untimely deaths. Unfortunately in this story evil prevails in the fact that the family doesn’t conform to a more socially acceptable manner.
I also saw evil in both of these stories when it was stated that children are not exempt from the murderous rages of evil people. In "The Lottery" Mrs. Hutchinson was the unlucky soul who was selected, at random, to be stoned. However, it could have just as easily been one of her three young children who selected the 'short stick.' I don't think it would have mattered to the town's people if a child had been selected. They still would have stoned them to death. In "A Good Man is Hard to Find," we also see children being subjected to harm. The Misfit has no problem shooting the two young children and the baby to death. He also murders the wife. Although it is unacceptable to murder anyone, murdering women and children are absolutely outrageous.