Barbara Johnson, My Monster/My Self

• Johnson attempts to reconcile three different literary subjects: the question of motherhood, of the woman writer, and of the autobiography by using Frankenstein as an example where all are present.
• 1.      Johnson suggests that Frankenstein is a comparative story on parenthood. Johnson compares Frankenstein’s upbringing to that of the creature. Frankenstein had two doting, caring parents. The creature was abandoned almost immediately. Yet, both end up in the same pitiful and bitter way. This comparison brings to light the fact that the idea of the “monster” is inseparable from the idea of the human. The creature is a monster, but the reader can’t help but see him as a human (or at least a sentient being with human emotional qualities). 
• 3 male biographies: Walton’s, Frankenstein’s, and the creature’s. However, in each case the speaker “depend[s] on the presupposition of resemblance between the teller and addressee. […] The teller is in each case speaking into a mirror of his own transgression.” Can it be a true autobiography when it is pandered toward the listener’s tastes or values? Mary Shelley does the same thing in her introduction. She tells the reader about her reluctance to give the origins of the novel.
•  Frankenstein’s choices can be reflective of Mary Shelley’s views on motherhood. Was Frankenstein’s abandoning of the creature just a simple form of postpartum depression? Shelley’s mother died in childbirth. Shelley’s parenting views were no doubt affected by this fact. Was the repeatedly italicized phase “I will be with you on your wedding night,” just a representation of Shelley’s killing her own mother in a similar way to the monster killing his father’s wife?

Johnson suggests that Frankenstein could be about the process of writing Frankenstein. Mary Shelley’s husband was compelled to write a preface in her name explaining the shadiness of the characters and the dark tone of the novel. Frankenstein is Mary’s Frankenstein’s monster.

Beowulf Versus Courage

Courage: “the quality of mind that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear,” (dictionary.com). This is the definition of courage; however, in our society, children are brought up believing that in order to be courageous, one must also fear. Being brave is not acting without fear, it is acting in spite of fear. As literature has developed from the time of Beowulf to our age of literature so has the people’s definition of courage. Because our modern definition of courage seems to require fear, Beowulf could arguably lack courage. He appears to act without fear. Beowulf’s courage and our courage are very different, and because of this, the question of whether courage can so easily be defined arises.

If one defines courage as acting completely without fear, Beowulf is most certainly courageous. He defeats Grendel, not only doing what no man before him could but also doing so while knowingly weakening himself by not using any weapons or armor. There is no arguing that his actions are not honorable, but courageous? In order to surpass his inhuman enemy, Beowulf must have pushed his human-like quality away. In order to defeat a monster, one must become a monster. Beowulf does so by throwing away his human-like fear and reducing himself to his most basic state. He throws away his fear if it were ever present. If one defines courage as acting without fear, then Beowulf is one of the most courageous men in literature.

However, is this man courageous by the fear-present definition of the word? This, by the fearless definition, is a prime example of courage; however, is it courage by the fear-present definition? While one might admire Beowulf’s desire for a fair fight, others may call it stupid citing the fact that Grendel is a monster and Beowulf, a simple human. By our fear-present definition, Beowulf’s actions can easily be characterized not as courageous but as foolish and full of luck. Courage is something human, so by throwing away that human side containing fear, he is also throwing away his human courage. Beowulf, when compared to our society’s definition of courage can be labeled more easily as a foolish brute than as a courageous hero.

Courage, at its most basic definition can be defined as a person overcoming survival instinct. Fear is what keeps any organism cautious. Acting with fear or without fear, if one goes against common, basic instinct, then they may be defined as courageous. This is a definition of courage that meets both our modern interpretation of the word and an interpretation that characterizes Beowulf as brave. One may have that basic instinct, but if he or she “defeats” it, then he or she is a courageous person. Beowulf, as a human, has or had that instinct. The people around him most certainly do. This is best demonstrated in Beowulf’s final battle with the dragon. While the masses around him flee, Beowulf fights. Beowulf acts against this instinct. Whether he overcomes or pushes it away is not important. Beowulf defeats that instinct knowingly or unknowingly and becomes a courageous hero in the process.

By literary standards, being a foil to the fearful masses is enough to portray one as courageous as shown by Beowulf. The modern definition of courage seems to meet the literary definition. Take, for example, a man rushing from a crowd into a burning building without any firefighting supplies to save a person inside. He escapes with the person inside. One would see this man as a hero whereas so many could label him as a fool. But, he acts as a foil to the people around him who cannot overcome their basic instinct telling them that fire is something to be avoided. It would be hard to argue that this man is not courageous whether one believes him to be foolish or not. Beowulf is the man rushing into that burning building. It does not matter if he is afraid or not. What matters is that he is doing what others cannot.