Miller 1

Dara Miller
Dr. Murphy
ENG 445
13 March 2014

Final Exam Prompt #1: Edgeworths Belinda argues in favour of a new form of
patriarchy, one based on reason and cooperation between the sexes. Discuss.
Maria Edgeworths Belinda opens with a literal depiction of the marriage plot as
the illustrious Mrs. Stanhope schemes to get rid of her one remaining unmarried niece
with all convenient expedition (Edgeworth 7). The novel is as a whole explicitly about
marriage, and through Belindas courtships and Lady Delacours crises Edgeworth
didactically promotes a marriage between similarly enlightened minds, championing a
model for familial relationships that seeks not to subvert patriarchy but to revise it in
favor of an egalitarian relationship based primarily on reason and self-improvement.
Edgeworth prepares her readers to accept her preferred model for an ideal
marriage by immediately introducing a series of relationships and relationship advice that
are obviously troublesome. Mrs. Stanhopes approach to auctioning off her nieces to the
highest bidders is odious at best, and Belinda, under her influence, is initially merely a
puppet in the hands of others (Edgeworth 10). This influence is judged even before
Belindas actual entrance into the novels plot, as the narrator informs readers of the
debilitating influence of conforming to the traditional version of patriarchy, in which the
end goal must always be for a woman in Belindas position to submit herself to marriage:
Miller 2

[Belindas] taste for literature declined in proportion to her intercourse with the
fashionable world, and she did not in this society, perceive the least use in the knowledge
she had acquired (Edgeworth 10). In the type of relationship deemed acceptable and
even desirable within the patriarchal culture of Englands upper classes, knowledge,
reason, and education in a woman was more than unnecessary; it was unfashionable.
Lady Delacour, although introduced as a beacon of fashion and the toast of high
society, presents an immediate challenge to this initial model. Her version of marriage,
however, is perhaps even less desirable than Mrs. Stanhopes purely mercenary version.
Lady Delacour claims power and intelligence for herself, and carves her place in society
by her wit, but yet her marriage is little more than a power struggle that makes both
parties miserable. She confides to Belinda that she married Lord Delacour knowing him
to be a fool, and believing that, for this reason, [she] should find no trouble in governing
him and seeks throughout her marriage to successfully break him in (Edgeworth 37).
Her attempts to domineer her husband, however, lead to enmity rather than submission,
and as Belinda enters their household she finds a marriage poisoned by a continued
struggle for dominance that has left Lady Delacour bitter and lonely, and turned Lord
Delacour into an obstinate drunk. Lady Delacour has also been scarred (both emotionally
and physically) by her past friendship with Mrs. Freke, another character Edgeworth
establishes as an example of the dangers of completely disregarding patriarchal structure.
Although nominally married, Mrs. Freke defies patriarchal norms both by her aggressive
behavior and by insisting on wearing mens clothing. Mrs. Frekes protest against
traditional gender roles, however, is anarchic rather than reasoned. In her conversation
with Mr. Percival, she claims that the present system of society is radically wrong, but
Miller 3

cannot support her argument, instead asserting whatever is, is wrong (Edgeworth 230)
and descending into crude jokes to make up for the fact that she cannot validly supply a
reply to the questions he poses about her value system.
Mrs. Frekes marriage is negligible and Lady Delacours fraught with drama and
jealousy. Out of all the marriages presented in the novel, only that of Mr. And Lady Anne
Percival can serve as a counter to the other dysfunctional models, and thus as a pattern
for the ever-more-reasonable Belindas matrimonial future. Lady Anne does not attempt
to overshadow or control her husband; rather, she is the chosen companion of her
husbands understanding, as well as of his heart (Edgeworth 216). Their marriage is an
egalitarian one, a union of interests, occupation, taste, and affection, and within this
family even the children take an active part of the society (Edgeworth 215) in this
model of enlightened patriarchy. Belinda readily adopts their marriage as the ideal, and
the wayward Lady Delacour finds comfort and even love when she accepts her maternal
and domestic role in line with these views.
Edgeworths argument for this new, enlightened patriarchy, however, is only as
convincing as her characters; and her characters, throughout the novel, are much more
interesting in a state of flux than when they have happily accepted their respective
domestic fates. Despite her titular role, the virtuous Belinda is never as interesting as the
passionate Lady Delacour. Edgeworth implicitly promises that her character will be
developed by circumstances, (7) and yet, as Beth Kowaleski-Wallace observes, the
impression that Belindas character fails to achieve its fullest dimensions attests, finally,
to the demands of the domestic ideology that has been imposed upon the novel and the
attractiveness of Lady Delacours character over Belindas intimates our own
Miller 4

dissatisfaction with the claustrophobic closure (260) of the novel. The novels closure,
though, perhaps is not quite the neatly packaged ending that it seems. The novel ends
with a moral, yes; but it a staged moral, assembled artificially by the reformed Lady
Delacour. As she herself reminded us after her cure, A tame Lady Delacour would be a
sorry animal, not worth looking out. Were she even to become domesticated, she would
fare worse (Edgeworth 314). Her reform is not conformity, and her orchestration of the
events at the end of the novel, rather than arguing for the model new patriarchy that even
Edgeworth seems to by trying to promote, instead throws that same model into question.

Final Exam Prompt #2: Trace the relationship between Victor, the monster and
monstrosity in Shelleys Frankenstein.

In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, an overly ambitious young scientist trespasses
the natural order by setting out to create, as he initially thinks, a new species that
would bless [him] as its creator and source (Shelley 24). However, the spark that
animates his creation also sparks revulsion in Frankenstein, and he turns from the
creature he had passionately labored over, naming him a wretchsuch as not even
Dante could have conceived and a miserable monster (Shelley 26). This shift from
obsessive excitement to disgust and abhorrence, however, springs not only from the
creature itself, but also from Frankensteins realization of his own monstrously neglected
roles. Throughout the novel, the monster serves as a doppelganger for Frankenstein,
reflecting in malicious violence Frankensteins own insecurities and failures, and their
relationship brings out the monstrous in them both.
Miller 5

Frankensteins primary failure is to uphold his various social and familial roles.
As a scientist, Frankenstein abjures modern scientific practices as well as any
collaboration with other scientists, instead working in isolation and clinging to the
principles of debunked alchemic theory even after M. Krempe declares his original
influences Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, and Albert Magnus as nonsense (Shelley
18). According to Alan Rauch, by the time Frankenstein comes to Ingolstadt, it is already
too late to alter the conception of science that has already shaped Frankensteins
thinking...from [the alchemists] he has come to understand science as a goal or product-
oriented activity (234) and has no social context for his science, (235) which leads
him to neglect even the thought of sharing his discoveries with others. This neglect is a
monstrous failure; instead of recognizing that any one of the techniques that could result
in the creation of a fully formed version of a human being would surely have been a
scientific triumph, (Rauch 236) Frankenstein abandons his scientific project for a
personal vendetta against his creation that effectively wastes what should be a significant
contribution to the scientific community.
Reflecting on his experience only hardens his initial neglect into a scientific
stinginess; rather that consult with those colleagues who might have helped him reconcile
his discoveries with an ethical application of that knowledge, Frankenstein takes on the
entire onus of his work and refuses to allow his methods into the scientific community.
When he sees the eagerness and the wonder and hope (Shelley 23) expressed by
Watson at the thought of sharing his secrets, Frankenstein dismisses Watsons capacity
for responsible decision-making and refuses to share his secrets for fear of leading
Watson to destruction and infallible misery (Shelley 23). By failing, as Rauch claims,
Miller 6

to de-monstrate (237) his scientific knowledge by communicating to others,
Frankenstein commits a monstrous crime against the scientific community.
Frankensteins monster likewise violates his own role as a scientist, although he is
obsessed not with the science of the physical world but rather with the science of words
or letters (Shelley 58). After Frankensteins abandonment, the creature finds his own
version of humanity through the scientific observation of his natural surroundings and of
the cottagers. Through this process, he teaches himself to read and learns the strange
system of human society by observing and replicating Safies instruction (Shelley 64).
Unlike Frankenstein, the monster values the process of his scientific discoveries, and
longs to use his knowledge to communicate with his protectors (Shelley 65), but the
same observations that lead to this desire also lead to despair as he begins to question his
own nature. He is painfully aware of his own differences; that he has no money, no
friends, no kind of property and was, besidesnot even of the same nature as man.
Scientifically, then, he concludes that he must be a monster, a blot upon the earth, from
which all men fled and whom all men disowned (Shelley 65).
Despite his desire to strive for his own humanity, the monster also fails in his
adopted scientific role. He abandons the idea of using the science of letters to further
his humanity when he is rejected repeatedly by everyone with whom he comes in
physical contact, and in his frustration he turns to violence. Like Frankenstein twists
science by refusing to share it, so the monster perverts his scientific cultivation of
language by using it to torment Frankenstein. His words, which at first offer only
explanation, after multiple rejections soon turn to threats and cryptic riddles as he warns
Frankenstein that I will be with you on your wedding night. His words, when they lead
Miller 7

to violence, make him monstrous. In their mutual attempts to destroy each other, both
Frankenstein and his creation give in to monstrosity.

Final Exam Prompt # 8: Compare and contrast the narrative techniques of any two
of the novels examined on this paper, on which you have not answered a question.

Both Bram Stokers Dracula and Wilkie Collins The Moonstone explore the
problems and anxieties associated with British colonialism through narrative techniques
that interestingly mirror the process of colonialism itself. Both novels purport to exist as a
compilation of sundry letters and accounts of various perspectives; they are, or at least
they would seem to be, a pulling together of sometimes disparate voices into a common
narrative. In each novel, however, the apparently individual threads are woven together
by one controlling narrative perspective. The Moonstone is guided even from the
beginning by the hand of Franklin Blake, who searches out the old family paper that
serves as the prologue to the novel and directs Mr. Betteredge to start the story (Collins
60). Dracula is not so straightforward; although Jonathan Harker does begin the tale, his
direction of the text is not explicit until his final signed note, which offers an implicit seal
of approval on the compilation despite the fact that, as he admits, there is hardly one
authentic document in their records, and thus they could hardly ask anyone...to accept
these as proofs of so wild a story (Stoker 419). Through their respective narrative
strategies, mystery and intrigue drive the plots of both novels, but their ultimate
treatments of the theme of British colonialism diverge. While Dracula, with its band of
Miller 8

triumphant Englishmen ultimately vanquishing the invading foreigner, serves to reinforce
colonial fears and stereotypes, The Moonstone largely refrains from engaging in this pro-
colonial dialogue. By allowing Mr. Murthwaites letter to close the narrative, the
controlling narrative perspective allows room not only for a questioning of the British
colonial practices, but also for a tentative respect for foreign cultures, making The
Moonstone in some ways a subversive novel.
As a narrative, Dracula framed by Jonathan Harkers fear of the foreign other. In
his opening journal entry, Harker describes going to the British Museum to research
Transylvania prior to beginning his voyage. Significantly, even in this seemingly logical
preparatory step, Harker is drawing on British authority to gain knowledge about a
foreign land, and it from the British Museum that he concludes that he will be traveling to
one of the wildest and least known portions of Europe (Stoker 32). Harker readily
accepts this colonial view of the Counts homeland, and describes the people he
encounters with a mixture of paternalistic amusement and suspicion: although some of
the Transylvanians are more barbarian than the rest, he has been told that they are
very harmless and rather wanting in natural self-assertion (Stoker 33). His ability to
patronize those he equates to the peasants at home (Stoker 33), however, does not
apply to Dracula, a man who, despite his foreignness, is, as a Count, his social superior.
Harker perceives even from their initial meeting that Dracula cannot be controlled; rather
than meeting him as an equal, Dracula forces Harker to wait for a seemingly endless
amount of time, and this lack of control immediately throws Harker into doubts and
fears (Stoker 45) about the foreigners intentions.
Miller 9

These doubts and fears connect to Harkers identity as a representation of imperial
Britain, and, as Stephen Arata suggests, such fears are linked to a perceived decline
racial, moral, spiritual which makes the nation vulnerable to attack from more vigorous,
primitive peoples (623). R.J. Cloughtery, Jr. even goes as far to suggest that Draculas
vampirism is entirely concocted out of Harkers fear of the foreign, and claims that since
the novel has a primary editor and narrator who lacks the ability to understand other
cultures, who is terrified of all things different over which he cannot assert control, and
who approaches the subject of [the] narrative with preconceived stereotype and fear
(147) it offers no legitimate proof that Dracula was a vampire. While this interpretation
ignores the presence of the vampiric women, it does bring the xenophobia of Harker and
his friends to the forefront of the novel: no matter the true identity of Dracula, as a
representative of the foreign other, the imperialistic forces are determined to not only
drive him out, but even to follow him to his own country and destroy him.
In The Moonstone, the foreign other is significantly less of a threat. The unnamed
cousin of John Herncastle discusses the foreign origins of the Moonstone with a degree of
knowledge and respect not found in any of the characters in Dracula, and immediately
condemns Herncastle for his dubious acquisition of the jewel. The rest of the family
similarly spurns him for his reckless plundering, and he becomes the family outcast. The
three Indians, even when their presence presents a material and physical threat, still do
not become the villains of the story; instead, Collins focuses on the private conflicts and
crimes within the family. As a microcosm of the British Empire, the characters in The
Moonstone send a different, more subversive message about imperialism than the
staunchly pro-colonial characters in Dracula. Although the Verinder family and their
Miller 10

friends are complicit in accepting the spoils of British imperialism (i.e., the Moonstone
itself), they are ill at ease with that possession, and it presents a corrupting influence in
their family circle not because of its foreignness, but because they feel the shame of being
unable to resist its temptations.
The epilogue of The Moonstone displays the largest difference in the two works
and their respective relationships with imperialism. Where Dracula is closed with the
authoritative voice of the British man who has controlled the structure of the entire
narrative, The Moonstone ends with the statement of Mr. Murthwaite, a racially and
socially ambiguous character. By his own account, he knows foreign language as well as
[he] knows [his] own and is lean and brown enough to make it no easy matter to detect
[his] European origin (Collins 540). As a man who can gain access to both British and
colonial cultures, Murthwaite serves as the final narrator in regards to the fate of the
Moonstone, and looks on the Brahmins purification ceremony with respect and even
admiration. His letter closes the novel with a pair of questions: What will be the next
adventures of the Moonstone? Who can tell? and interestingly, those questions seem to
provide an answer. If the Moonstone symbolizes the tension between the cultures of the
colonizers and the colonized, then perhaps it is only those who can navigate both worlds
who can ever really tell its story.





Miller 11


Works Cited
Arata, Stephen D. The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the Anxiety of Reverse
Colonialization. Victorian Studies. 33.4 (1990): 621-645. JSTOR. Web. 12
March 2014.
Collins, Wilkie. The Moonstone. Ed. Steve Farmer. New York: Broadview Press, 1985.
Print.
Cloughtery, R.J. Voiceless Outsiders: Count Dracula as Bram Stoker. New Hibernia
Review / Iris Eireannach Nua. 4.1 (2000): 138-151. JSTOR. Web. 12 March 2014.
Edgeworth, Maria. Belinda. Ed. Kathryn J. Kirkpatrick. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Kowaleski-Wallace, Beth. Home Economics: Domestic Ideology in Maria Edgeworths
Belinda. Eigteenth Century. 29.3 (1988): 242-262. JSTOR. Web. 12 March
2014.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus. Ed. Maurice Hindle. New
York: Penguin Books, 2003. Print.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Ed. Glennis Byron. New York: Broadview Press, 2000. Print.
Cloughtery, R.J. Voiceless Outsiders: Count Dracula as Bram Stoker. New Hibernia
Review / Iris Eireannach Nua. 4.1 (2000): 138-151. JSTOR. Web. 12 March 2014.