Poe's "The Raven"

“The Raven” by Edgar Allen Poe is an ominous tale of a man obsessed with his lost love Lenore and with death itself.  We could only assume that his lost love was a woman named Lenore because Poe wrote a poem by the same name a couple years earlier.  The narrator (who we assume is Poe) is a man that is in a grim and depressed state and on one evening, while he is lamenting the loss of Lenore and trying to forget his state by reading, he is disturbed by a rapping at his chamber door.  We soon come to learn that the tapping was a black bird that flies through his window and perches on the bust of Pallas (the goddess Athena).  Why does the raven perch of the bosom of the goddess Athena?  The bird himself is the messenger of Phoebus, another name for Apollo (Ovid 532).  What does the bird stand for in the whole context poem?  And what does the raven mean in terms of being a trickster and how does that fit into an archetypal scheme?         

       

                        The raven is the black bird that is not like its cousin the crow, even though they both belong to the family corvus.  Ravens only travel in two’s, not in packs like crows do.  Crows travel in murders and frequent local dumpsters and any other place people leave food.  Ravens on the other hand tend to keep to themselves and not deal with humans (McNamee 223).  The solitude of the raven and their lack of human contact only lends to their enigmatic nature and to the mythology surrounding them.     

                         The raven is a prophetic bird and as we see in Greek mythology does the bidding of Apollo, serving as his messenger and his spy.  We see this in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.  From the Greco-Roman pantheon - as the story goes with the white raven and Apollo, the god of music, prophecy and many other things sent the stately white raven to spy on his lover Coronis.  The white raven reported back to Apollo that Coronis had betrayed him to a “lad of Thessaly.”  When Apollo learned the news of Coronis he went into a fit of rage and took his bow and pierced the chest of Coronis with his arrow.  The god however, in his own regret of what he had done, turned his anger onto the raven and burned the raven’s white feathers to the black color that we are all familiar with today.  In this same story, Athena removes her protection from the bird for being a chatty and naughty bird (Ovid 596, 612). 

            The story of the fall of the raven yields some context to Poe’s poem.  The raven of course in Poe’s poem is the representation of Apollo, delivering the omen to the narrator.  This prophetic omen that is delivered by the bird is done only in one word, “nevermore.”   

             “Nevermore,” is the word the bird says to the narrator of the poem.  Nevermore will the narrator know life in this world, because he is about to be delivered figuratively or symbolically to the next.  The words from the raven send the narrator into a craze and he speaks in the first line of both stanza fifteen and sixteen ““Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—‘” (Poe 1045,1046).  The narrator sees the bird as an ill omen that has come to deliver him to the next life.  He knows that the omen is true whether the bird is supernatural or not.  Moreover, we see speaker’s life being taken to the next world as it is symbolized in the last two lines of the stanza of the poem which reads:

And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted – nevermore! (Poe, 1046)

            The last portion of the ending showing us, the reader, that the speaker is no longer in this world but in the shadow of the raven.  In between worlds. Taking part in change. Or on the proverbial “road trip.”

            In his work on “Structuralism,” renowned Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss sees “mediation” as a function of the trickster, a mediator, half way in between two polar terms, like life and death (Levi-Strauss 226).  Moreover, from the perspective of Levi-Strauss (224) we see the raven as a mediator in Poe’s poem.  Even though the black bird does deal in death he is not the exact representation of it, nor is a representation of life.  In the case of “The Raven,” the black bird is that window, the in-betweenness that we see Poe has between this world and the next.  Moreover, the function of the raven’s shadow serves as a container per say from the world of above to the world of Pluto.    

The raven carries this symbolism cross culturally as noted in the article “Explicating Poe’s Raven From a Psycho Linguistic Perspective” by Abu-Melhim Abdel, published in Studies in Literature and Language in 2013.  A portion of Adbel reads:

The actual Raven is a reference to death and almost a grim reaper.  Many cultures

believe that having a black bird in your house is an omen of death, and since this [Poe’s  The Raven] is a British tradition ad Poe did receive a part of his education in England…        The Raven seems to be a potential covering for death, because it knocks on his door and

he allows it in, symbolizing he is allowing it to enter his life.  When he is talking to it he is

trying to come to terms with death (Abdel 117).   

                        Further, Abdel is assuming that because Poe received his education in Britain that the author writes the black bird as a bad omen.  However, omen does not always have to take on a negative nature and death does not always have to mean a trip to the underworld as noted in the Native American tradition: 

Raven is the powerful figure who transforms the world. Stories tell how Raven created the land, released the people from a cockle shell, and brought them fire. Raven stole the light and brought it out to light up the world. Yet Raven is a trickster—often selfish, hungry, and mischievous. He changes the world only by cleverly deceiving others in his never-ending quest for food (“Raven the Trickster).

            Further, in the Native American tradition, we see the raven as a trickster figure.  The omen is not always an ill but transformative.  It is symbolic of change. 

            To understand this transformation, this death, we have to look deeper into the deities at work in “The Raven,” and find their places.  The poem itself is a continuation of the poem “Lenore” by Poe.  In the poem “Lenore,” we do not see Lenore gliding up to heaven, but “glid[ing] down the stygian river” (Poe 804).  The river styx is referenced in Lenore and is harkened to later in the phrase “plutonian shore” in “The Raven.”  Thusly, Lenore herself in Poe’s “The Raven,” is representative of the other world.   

            Moreover, the poem shows the deities Apollo, Athena and Pluto.  The raven is representative of Apollo and his prophecies and the mediator between life and death.  The statue of Athena is where the bird perches and is the symbol of wisdom and life, particularly Poe’s life.  And Pluto by way of reference is given life with the phrase “Plutonian shore” where Lenore has already gone.  Further it can be seen that death is completely symbolized in the whole of the poem.  Athena represents the wisdom and life of the author.  Lenore represents death and Pluto.  The raven is the messenger and trickster, the representation of going from this life to the next.  The raven is the juxtaposition.  

  

            Richard Godden (1002) in his article “Poe and the Poetics of Opacity: Or, another Way of Looking at that Blackbird” reminds us that there is a tendency to link the entire poem to this “Lenore” when he writes regarding the word “ominous…[and] it’s repetition in the stanza twelve literally marks the spot where the narrator initiates the process by which ties bird to missing mistress.”  Godden does link the bird to Lenore, but he assumes to much of so little which seems to be nonsense.  Godden does this in his article as well as linking Lenore to a slave that Poe had an infatuation with rather than working with what is already there.  It makes no sense, especially when reading Ovid, knowing that Poe had placed Greco-Roman gods into his work and also understanding that the raven is a trickster.  It seems literature is littered with many authors who completely miss the symbolism because of infatuation with the words themselves. 

            Stepping back from the whole, the raven does paint a picture of the psyche of the author.  The raven, Lenore, Athena, and Apollo are not necessarily exacts of what is real and what is not, as our ancestors used to believe.  Rather in their archetypal nature they pull together and show us that the writer is thinking about death and uses the symbols of death and dying to symbolize change.  It is not death that has constellated itself in Poe’s thinking which is the raven, the trickster, the symbol of going from one place to another; it is rather the complete representation of what we all fear the most – change.

 Works Cited

“Raven the Trickster.” American Museum of Natural History, AMNH, 11 Nov. 2018, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/totems-to-turquoise/native-american-cosmology/raven-the-trickster.

Abu-Melhim, Abdel. "Explicating Poe's Raven from a Psycho-Linguistic Perspective.” (Edgar Allan Poe)(Critical Essay)." Studies in Literature and Language 7.3 (2013): 113-118. Web.

Godden, Richard. "Poe and the Poetics of Opacity: Or, another Way of Looking at that Blackbird." ELH

67.4 (2000): 993-1009. Web.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude, Claire Jacobson, and Brooke G. Schoepf. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books, 1963.

McNamee, Gregory. "Raven Vs. Crow.” (Choice of Word in Edgar Allan Poe's Poem)(Fine Distinctions)(Critical Essay)." 91.4 (2015): 223. Web.

Ovid. Metomorpheses. Translated by Brookes More, Lazy Raven Publishing, 2017.

Poe, Edgar Allen. "Lenore." The Unabridged Edgar Allen Poe, edited by Tam Mossman, Running Press, 1983.

Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." The Unabridged Edgar Allen Poe, edited by Tam Mossman, Running Press, 1983.

Archetypes and Symbolism in Dune

Introduction

The book Dune by Frank Herbert has a menagerie of symbols and meaning that drift within its

pages.  They coalesce into a melting pot of what Herbert described in his article Dune Genesis as

a fugue; a musical structure in which all the parts work for together towards a common theme.

In his books about the desert planet Arrakis, Frank Herbert’s musical instruments work towards a

common goal, to reveal his thesis that heroes are disastrous for humanity. 

            Herbert, writing in Omni Magazine, observed that figures like Churchhill and Hitler (even though completely different) shared a common thread where they wrapped themselves in the myth of hero.  These charismatic leaders had followers that identified with the myth and were willing to give over their decision-making faculties to those people in power.  JFK and Patton were Herbert’s favorite examples of the myth to hero relationship where he wrote that “both fitted themselves into the flamboyant Camelot pattern.”  Camelot being an allusion to royalty and heroics of mythic proportions.  However, it did not matter which “cause” they clothed themselves in, they all would end up being disastrous in some shape or form; not only for themselves but for the people that they led. 

This idea that heroes are disastrous is played out in Herbert’s books Dune and Dune Messiah, where we see the character Paul Atreides (Muad’Dib) go through the hero’s journey to despot and then eventually mindless worm (as Bryant Gumbel points out in an interview with Herbert posted to Youtube by DuneInfo). 

More importantly, is that to understand Herbert’s thesis, which is a thesis of grandiosity, we must include Dune Messiah in Campbell’s classic hero’s journey where we see the hero’s journey is no more than the journey of the demagogue.  From the reading of book two with book one in the Dune series we get a culmination of the fugue.  We see the character Paul become a deity, but like the Christians after Christs deification, the Fremen go on a rampage across the universe, killing and converting unbelievers in their deity – Muad’Dib.  All of which is the result of Pauls own grandiosity.

The Hero’s Journey

Paul Atreideds story follows the traditional hero’s journey as described by Joseph Campbell in his interview he did with did Bill Moyers for PBS in 1988.  Further, Paul Atreides has a “call to adventure,” which is seen in the beginning of the book where his family is preparing to leave Caladan for Arrakis.  Arrakis to the Atreides is a place of danger, one they do not wish to go to, but they must because it was commanded by the emperor.  The call to adventure is followed by them landing on Arrakis and an assassination attempt on Paul Atreides.  Things take a turn for the worse for the Atreides family on Arrakis when Harkonnen ships land with the emperor’s Sadaukar troops disguised as Harkonnen shock troopers.  The Harkonnens completely obliterate the Atreides all because of the betrayal of one Dr. Yueh (who acts as a Judas and was one of Paul’s mentors).  However, Yueh, even though he is a betrayer, he has a side plane to save Paul and Lady Jessica. 

Paul then “crosses the threshold” in the hero’s journey as Lady Jessica and himself are flown out to be left in the desert by the Harkonnen’s - left as worm food.  Paul and his mother escape the Harkonnens only to be taken in by the Fremen.  They have a sort of short lived “road of trials” with the Fremen and receive a “helper” by the name of Stilgar.  As in Campbell’s outline, the story does follow this somewhat but not perfectly, Paul becomes a Fremen through different rituals, for instance his battle with Jamis and his giving his own water (tears) to Jamis at his funeral.  Pauls mother also in a sense becomes the goddess figure after she becomes a reverend mother.  Paul goes through the trial of the water of life like all reverend mothers do which can either kill a man or make him like the Bene Gesserit and he ends dying metaphorically.  He lays still for almost three weeks and then comes back to life saying he only thought he was gone a few moments.  Thus, he becomes the Kwisatz Haderach in the process and reaches apotheosis; nothing can stop him, not even the emperor.  Paul Maud’Dib and his Fremen partners then ride on sand worms for the final confrontation with the emperor and his goons the Harkonnens, where Paul and his Fremen easily overcome their enemies.  All of which does sound like the hero’s journey. 

Moreover, this is all we see in the first book of the series.  From this standpoint we see Campbell’s hero’s journey but we don’t see Herbert’s thesis in totality, the thesis is hidden in the fact that Herbert has bewitched all of us, the readers with the enigmatic Paul Muad’Dib.  We see a great leader and a hero at the end, a hero we like, which is only the set up for Herbert to tear him apart, to expose him for what he has really become.  The dragon.    

The Dragon

The main instrument used in this theological-Jungian fugue is the archetype of grandiosity, which is played on the concept of the hero and accompanied by ecological symbolism that is interwoven in and throughout the first two Dune books of the series.   Moreover, Jung defines the archetypes as that which are the primordial forms that are formed in the collective unconscious (Campbell 60).  As defined by Jung these forms in the collective unconscious are like simulacra, they have no beginning nor end, but are memetic and only function to spread through and through.  They are like a virus. 

One of the archetypes written about by Jungian Robert Moore (48) in his book Facing the Dragon, is the archetype of the same name, “the dragon” (a representation of grandiosity [Freud’s “Hubris]). The dragon of grandiosity is that primordial energy that causes the messianic complex and is an “evil” psychic energy that destroys a person if it is not dealt with.  In the case of Dune, we see this grandiosity take shape in a number of characters: Duke Leto in his foolishness; Baron Harkonnen in his over estimations of his ability; and Shaddam the IV thinking he cannot be replaced.  However, the story is not about those three.  The main arc of grandiosity in Dune is seen with Paul Atreides, where it goes from puer to full fruition when becomes the messiah!

  The messiah complex is “Lucifer complex that threatens to seduce and possess the human ego consciousness” (Moore 8).  Moore points out that it is this “greedy little god in the psyche, and everyone has it (Moore 70).”  This archetype is symbolized by the dragon, a powerful image in mythology, yet can also be seen as Lucifer.  This point is made extremely well in a TED talk given by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the Lucifer complex and where this form of evil has arisen; such as with people like Jim Jones, and the abusers of the prisoners at Abu Graib.  This archetype more often than not materializes when people or groups of people, holding power and control, do not realize the limitations of their own beliefs and abilities; eventually turning to all types of abuse.  Zimbardo called it the Lucifer Complex; Robert Moore called this evil, grandiosity.  Herbert called it Muad’Dib, Horkennen, Sardaukar, and on and on.

Herbert’s character, Paul Atreides, is a Jesus like figure.  Not a Jesus Jones nor Jim Jones, but a Jesus Christ.  The Christ.  The holy of holies.  The messiah of the Bible.  The messiah to the world.  Paul Atreides was modeled after Jesus in a way.  But he is not just messiah of the world, of a world, he is messiah of the known universe.  He is in Bene Gesserit lore the Kwisatz Haderach: “a male Bene Gessrit whose organic mental powers would bridge space and time” (Herbert 847).  In Fremen lore Paul is seen as the Lisan Al-Gaib: “The voice of the outer world,” a prophetic figure and “giver of water” (Herbert 847).  Paul is overall one bad dude, and not bad in the moral sense; he can make it rain - literally.

Paul was modeled after all those heroes that rise to power and have the best intentions in mind, but death only follows.  Paul is not like the Christ in that he did not die as Christ did on the cross.  But he became the emperor of the universe – he became Cesar, he just didn’t defy him like Christ did with Ponteus Pilate.  The hero myth says we will get a person, a someone that will save use from all our wars and all the terrors in the world.  Christ did proverbial sacrifice his life for all of mans sin, yet because Christ did not take up arms, his followers suffered.  They suffered under persecution then eventually became the persecutors as we see in the spread of Christianity through the Holy Roman Empire (which is not filled with stories of love and compassion but wide spread abuse).  It is something that Paul Atreides already knew was his “terrible purpose,” like Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, on the fields of Kurukshetra (Easwaran 265) where Arjuna says “you have dispelled my doubts and delusions, and I understand through your grace[,]  my faith is firm now, and I will do your will.”  In the example, Arjuna is talking to Krishna, and finally coming to terms with his own “terrible purpose” and do Krishna’s will, which is to kill his own family.  That “terrible purpose” for Paul was succumbing to grandiosity, that inner god – the dragon that razes everything within eyeshot.   

This archetype, the Christ, the messiah and all the other archetypes that go by this name, are what Robert Moore calls grandiosity (or the dragon); Moore writes that “every woman, and every man, needs to discover the goddess within, but it is also important for them not to mistake themselves for it, or project it onto another human being” (Moore 145).  This process of grandiosity eventually consumes and destroys, it is a highly destructive energy that we see eventually leading to the destruction of Paul Muad’Dib Atreides.

Frank Herbert purposefully did this with Paul Atreides; he followed the arc of the hero; yet Herbert already knew Muad’Dib would be disastrous for his story and Herbert turned the grandiosity up on his character full blast – all the way to ten.  Muad’Dib took revenge on his families enemies, the Harkonnens; and he took the throne Shaddam the IV.  The revenge, the need to inflict pain on those that have done bad to him, is what turns Paul’s archetype darker.  Moreover, putting Paul in the shadow; the willingness towards violence, towards that unchecked power of the Fremen who eventually go on a rampage.  The people leaned towards violence and lost their hero and gained a despot (a deity, as we see in Dune Messiah). 

Christ’s story played out much the same way in history.  The Christians went on their own, well documented rampage across Europe: first through the Holy Roman Empire and then through all the states that adopted Christianity from that Empire.  We see multiple Crusades and Inquisitions within Christianity.     

            Paul Atreides story teaches us a lesson about these primordial archetypes; these forms that lay hidden below in the collective unconscious – in the underworld.  He shows us this dragon and how it starts out innocently enough, then we see his progression towards the full constellation of that archetype.

Lover, Magician, Warrior

At the beginning of Dune, Paul is the puer, an innocent young boy on Caladan still playing warrior and magician with his teachers: Dr. Yueh, Thuther Hawat, and Gurney Hallack.  In this case, each of his mentors represents other archetypes leading up to the messiah (the dragon). 

Dr. Yueh fits perfectly within the lover archetype because his actions are all based on getting back his wife Wanna, back from her Harkonnen captors.  But then we find out that Wanna was slain by the Harkonnens and was only used to manipulate Dr. Yueh who was acting as any husband would for his wife.  Hawat’s character fits into the magician archetype with his mental skills and semi-prescient capacities, yet we see this is only a front, because the three wisemen always have to be “men” as in the Christian tale.  The real magician is Lady Jessica who has trained him and led him down this path of the Kwisatz Haderach, where she has secretly wanted her son to be the messiah.  Seeing her in such a light makes is clear that out of the three archetypes here the magician is the most manipulative.  On the other hand, the warrior, represented by Gurney Hallack plays a role in helping to train Paul in combat.  At the very beginning of the book the two do battle.  All three archetypes represented by the three characters serve to foreshadow the course of events for Paul himself who becomes the lover, the warrior and magician. 

            Moreover, Paul becomes a lover with Chani and they have children; Chani eventually dies during child birth in Dune Messiah which foreshadows Paul’s own death and the ending of his cycle of the dragon and the starting of a new.  In Dune we see Paul inherit the warrior archetype full when he becomes a Fremen and eventually he drinks the water of life where he transcends his novice magician status to messiah.  All three archetypes serve as a catalyst for Paul Atreides.  The messiah is the hero, it is what Jungians Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette wrote as “boy psychology” and if allowed “blocks men from fulling maturing” (Gillette and Moore 37).    

            Moreover in Dune messiah we see Paul Muad’Dib and his sister Alia have both been deified and are worshipped who go unchecked in their actions.  However, Paul knows that what is happening is not right, yet it echoes the lines from the very first chapter of book one where he knows that there is “terrible purpose” to be done in his life.  In the second book we see the terrible purpose played out as the Atreides existence has gone from the Ducal house to the imperium and to being totalitarian.

            Something else emerges from the chrysalis; a clear view of the humans that have entranced us with the messiah complex, the dragon of grandiosity has come to fruition.  Paul has become somewhat of an archetypal dragon in that violence for the control of imperial power has become the main energy that has flowed through Herbert’s characters; the lover, the magician, and the warrior.  

Symbols and Ecology

The archetypes are always coupled with symbolism, the idea of water permeates the novel Dune right from the beginning.  The planet Caladan is filled with water and is home to the Atreides, yet they are leaving for Arrakis.  The water carries a heavy weight.  Water is valued most on Arrakis and even crying among the Fremen is in the sense a taboo.  Water is a representation of wealth, life and death.  If you have wealth like the Atreides or any other family of the Lansraad, you can water your gardens and even drink as much as you please; the abundance of water they have access to is a symbol of their wealth, whereas the Fremens lack of access to water which shows their poverty; they are the supposed meek as in the Bible.  The Fremen always reclaim water from their dead, even the water of their adversaries has value.    

Water also symbolizes the transcendence of Paul.  And is a symbol of the dragon, the kraken, the beast within.  When he drinks the water of life, it gives him supernatural powers and he can see through space and time.  Thus, already knowing the fate of Arrakis  which his “terrible purpose.” The universe in flames, not at peace.  Herbert writes of the water of life “an ‘illuminating’ poison…specifically that liquid exhalation of a sandword…produced at the moment of its death from drowing” (Herbert 862).  A living creature traded its life for Paul’s prescience, a symbol of death.  A sacrifice to the dragon (Shai’Hulud) so that Paul can become the dragon. 

            The desert serves as another symbol in Dune.  If we look at the Christian tradition all the prophets and even Christ were people that wandered the wilds, and in the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, the desert was the wilderness.  Moses spent his time on the back of the desert before he came to free his people. The desert is a symbol of that wisdom, of the wise.  Even in native American cosmology of the southwest, the desert is considered a place of wisdom, a place of sages.  This desert plays out in dune as that, a teacher that teaches the Fremen how to live – how to be.  A teacher that if you do not learn by, will kill you.  A teacher that is also host to many dragons.  

 The desert is also a symbol of the transcendence of the old into the new.   Like we see with Liet Kynes and how Herbert takes this character to his death in the desert, a death where he is thirsty for water and sees a vision of his father – he succumbs to that which he loves, the planet Arrakis.  It is also a place of power as Herbert writes “It is sea power and air power on Caladan…here it is desert power, the Fremen are the key” (Herbert, 330).  The desert serves as powerful and mysterious place, with its own dragons that take on the physical form of Shai’Hulud.

Conclusion

Looking at the archetypes and symbols we see that Frank Herbert imagined a world that has deep Jungian roots and is a story with many aspects that are either missed or embedded.  The archetypes are those primordial forms in the collective unconscious that are represented by the character Paul Atreides.  His archetype is the one with the most power in the novel, since it is he, the hero that is Herbert’s thesis. 

Dune plays out the hero’s journey, a myth that is also coupled with the messiah complex which lead to its characters doom.  Ultimately, Herbert’s notion that heroes are dangerous for society was written into his books, which we can see in Dune and Dune Messiah, in the treatment that Paul Atreides was never hero; there never really are hero’s. 

Works Cited

Campbell, Joseph, editor. The Portable Jung. Penguin Books, 1976.

Easwaran, Eknath. The Bhagavad Gita. Nilgiri Press, 1985. 

Frank Herbert – NBC Interview. Posted by DuneInfo on 25 Jul. 2015. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26GPaMoeiu4

Gillette, Douglas and Moore, Robert.  King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the archetypes of the mature masculine. HarperCollins, 1990.

Moore, Robert L. Facing The Dragon, Confronting Personal and Spiritual Grandiosity. Chiron Publications, 2003.

Herbert, Frank. Dune. Chilton, 1965.

Herbert, Frank. Dune Messiah. Putnam, 1969.

Herbert, Frank. “Dune Genesis.” Omni Magazine. July 1980.

Moyers, Bill. Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. PBS, 1988.

Zimbardo, Philip. "The Psychology of Evil." TED TALKS, https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil#t-831981. Accessed 14 March, 2018.

                                                                                                  

Jungian Analysis of Frankenstein

Frankenstein’s monster is an enigmatic figure; a fictional character that has grown into a myth as the stanza from this poem implies:

The myth is unchained: It staggers north,

insane. A ghost of lightning glows

in its eyes; its sow hands close in wrath

like child’s hands seizing flowers.

(Gardner 505)

The line from the poem compares Frankenstein’s monster to a child, with the grasp on life of that is childlike and immature.  It seizes flowers with its hands, which only later we find that everything he touches more often than not, he ends up strangling.  This stanza points to the archetypal nature of Frankenstein’s monster, yet to understand the nature of the archetype is to understand the nature between the creator and created, and to the created and society.  Moreover, pointing to a higher archetypal configuration between Victor Frankenstein, his creation, and the cast of characters that litter Mary Shelley’s classic novel. 

.  The archetype as Jung posits are the primordial forms that are formed in the collective unconscious (Campbell 60).  The configurations however that Frankenstein, the monster and society, represent together are grandiosity.  As Moore (48) wrote in “Facing the Dragon,” it is that primordial energy that causes a messianic complex (that is always present) and is an “evil” psychic energy that destroys a person if it is not dealt with.  This is the “Lucifer complex that threatens to seduce and possess the human ego consciousness” (Moore 8).  Moore points out that it is this “greedy little god in the psyche, and everyone has it (Moore 70).”  This archetype is symbolized by the dragon, a powerful image in mythology, yet can also be seen as Lucifer.  This point is made extremely well in a TED talk given by Psychologist Philip Zimbardo where he discusses the Lucifer complex and where this form of evil has arisen; such as with people like Jim Jones, and the abusers of the prisoners at Abu Graib.  This archetype more often than not materializes when people or groups of people, holding power and control, do not realize the limitations of their own beliefs and abilities; eventually turning to all types of abuse.  Zimbardo called it the Lucifer Complex; Robert Moore called this evil, grandiosity. 

Both Moore and Zimbardo come from different schools of psychology, Zimbardo of Freud and Moore of Jung, yet both point to the same thing; this concept of something grandiose and Luciferian which we can see are constellated in the novel Frankenstein.   

            The book itself seems to have a five act structure.  First, the letters from Captain Walton to his sister which detail his trip to cold north; followed by Victor Frankenstein’s narrative; then the narrative of the creature which is nested in Victor’s own narrative, then back to Victor’s narrative and finally to the Captains letters again.  The only necessaity of mentioning the structure is that

            We start with a man wanting to go as far as he can to the north.  Who wants to be greater than he is, who we can see as immature and ignorant to his limits until he meets Victor Frankenstein.  Frankenstein’s story alone is enough to make a more prudent of a man out of Captain Walton and helps him to change course in his life, and turn back to warmer climes.

            The story given to Walton however, received by Walton as didactic, is itself not written to us readers as didactic, yet it still holds those cautionary elements to avoid grandiosity and its evils.
 

            Victor’s tale itself consists first of him growing up, loving his family very much and the adoption of Elizabeth (who he later marries), the birth of William (his brother) and the death of his mother when he was seventeen years of age.  Victory then goes to the University of Ingolstadt in Germany where he creates the monster in his Apartment.  In this moment of creation, this is where Victor has fallen prey to his own grandiosity, becoming Lucifer and being totally blinded by the fact that he is not really gods equal.  His creation goes astray, eventually killing victor’s brother William.  This action gets the blame placed on Justine Moritz who cannot be saved.  In this very narrative, Victor’s own grandiosity about his gifts gets two people he is close to killed. 

            Forward to the monsters narrative, he laments his first encounters with humans.  These include being run out of a village that he was fascinated by.   People running away from him because of his appearance, and his relation to the De Lacy family.  More importantly in the narrative is the Delacy family.  The monster, became obsessed with watching them and helping them collect fire wood, but in the end, he is beaten by Felix De Lacy.  As Bernatchez writes in his article “Frankenstein and ‘The Structure of Torture’” “young De Lacey’s rejection of the ugliness of his body “only served to isolate the monster from society further” (208).  As Moore (37) points out “evil wants to get you alone and isolate you.”  The key word being isolation for the monster, whereas at one point he was moving towards a more virtuous state, he can no longer because not of his own doing, but of societies.  The monster displays his own grandiosity to Victor when he states “slave…remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful of you” (Bernatchez 209).

            In Victor’s final narrative, he decides to make a mate for the monster, but in a fit of rage decides to destroy it.  Victor, in essence decided against what would be evil.  We may see it as a loss for the creature, yet it rouses the nature of the creature and he presumes his killing of Henry Clerval (Victor’s best friend) then Victors newly married wife Elizabeth (his step sister) on their wedding night. 

            The monster followed through on his promise of power and pain that he so explicitly had given Victor.  Victor in his own grandiosity underestimates the monster and gets many people killed.  Moore (34) commented that “Underestimating what you are dealing with is one of the marks of grandiosity and immaturity.”  The monster, represents that pure unfettered power, that is looked over by Victor. 

            In the end, the monsters circle is completed, and Victor Frankenstein dies in the cold north.  The monster is found by Captain Walton grieving his dead creator, where he claims that he will leave and build a funeral pyre that will be his own and end his own life. 

            The madness created by the creature in Victor Frankenstein’s life is the essence of the effects of grandiosity and what it does.  That grandiosity is the dragon, the evil that is representative of all evils that would beset people’s lives.  Only though death and the grief is the grandiosity eventually released and the lone Captain is left to take heed of the lesson that is left before him.  Like a new bearing in his own life and one he can relay to others.  Grandiosity is becoming like that god or goddesses; it is trying to be equal with that which we are not.  And as Victor Frankenstein shows, his greatest following is succumbing to it, and underestimating it. 
  

            Mary Shelley may have not know at the time, but she had made a connection to spirituality in her writing.  If I were to look at this like Robert L Moore.  I would probably say that Victor was possessed by Prometheus which was the Dragon of his grandiosity and the monster was actually another one of victors archetypes battling for ground in his psyche.  The monster, made up of collected grief, only had to cry for his creator in the end and walk to his own death, which in effect is the symbol of Victor finally being released from his pain (toxic shame) of losing those close to him. 

Works Cited

Bernatchez, Josh. "Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in

Frankenstein and ‘The Structure of Torture.’" Science Fiction Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, 2009, pp. 205-216.

Campbell, Joseph, editor. The Portable Jung. Penguin Books, 1976.

Gardner, John. “Frankenstein." The Kenyon Review, vol. 31, no. 4, 1969, pp. 505-506.

Moore, Robert L. Facing The Dragon, Confronting Personal and Spiritual Grandiosity. Chiron Publications, 2003.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Fiction, Horror Supply: Wikisource, 1818.

Zimbardo, Philip. "The Psychology of Evil." TED TALKS, https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil#t-831981. Accessed 14 March, 2018.