Category: Class Summary Essay

Irene Andrade’s Class Summary for 9/21/21

The class started off with its regular segment of announcements, which consisted of upcoming disability awareness month events in October, an extra credit lecture by Rachel Wonderlin on Dementia care, and one last note about intersectionality from the previous class theory piece, Chris Bell’s “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal.” Large-group discussions revolved around which characters are read as disabled in Toni Morrison’s “Sula,” and small-group discussions explored the effects of being read as disabled among other topics through our assigned poetry pieces.

Professor Foss prompted the class discussion with a question, whether there are “Particular things about Eva that should not just be read in the lens of disability, but disability, race, and poverty,” echoing his last note about intersectionality from the Chris Bell piece. The class was initially quiet, processing the themes of disability in addition to race and poverty enveloped in the experiences of Sula’s characters. After getting no direct responses to the question, Professor Foss quoted an older book from today’s theory piece author, Rosemarie Garland Thompson, “physical disability neither diminishes nor corrupts Eva’s character, rather confirms Eva’s power. [Eva is a] rewritten Black eve striding the realms ordinary and unordinary, her legs signal presence and empowerment.” From there, Megan pointed the class to today’s theory piece by Rosemarie Garland Thompson, “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory”, she quoted “Female, disabled, and dark bodies are supposed to be dependent, incomplete, vulnerable, and incompetent bodies.” (3). Megan’s and Professor Foss’s evidence persuaded many in the class to acknowledge their points, and as a result several agreed that Eva truly went against the grain of the stereotypes set onto Black disabled women. Professor Foss added that other people have read Eva as a deity or goddess figure despite her disability and asked the class whether they agreed. The class, however, did not directly answer this question even with the proposed evidence of Eva having the “power” in the book to name others, be worshipped by others, and having the decision to kill others such as her own son, Plum, without consequence. Multiple students expressed that they believed Eva was powerful in the sense that her physical disability did not stop her from doing things (e.g., jumping out a window to save her daughter, or taking care of her loved ones for so long), but no one voiced whether she could be directly considered a deity the way Professor Foss described. With no direct responses to the question, Professor Foss made one last remark, postulating that Eva could also be seen as both a deity figure and a disturbingly powerful figure.

While the group could decide whether Eva’s disability weakened or empowered her, they soon realized that this was not the same case for Shadrack’s character. The class seemed to unanimously agree that Eva’s character was much more easily integrated into the community of the Bottom because her prominent disability for much of her life was a physical one. Her missing leg allowed for her to be read as physically disabled even though we concluded that it still did not hinder her from being a strong character. This opened a short discussion on invisible versus visible disabilities, and how they are regarded comparatively. Rachel suggested that with Eva, it was easy to read how it was not her physical disability that made her disagreeable to the readers and other characters, but rather her personality and attitude. In contrast, Shadrack’s disability cannot be so easily demarcated from his personality to the reader. Rachel commented that only Eva’s attitude can be drawn up to comparison to Shadrack’s “madness”, not her disability. Professor Foss describes Shadrack as a “pied piper”, offering strong, but delusive enticement to the community members of the Bottom. Students discussed how the scene where Shadrack calls everyone to the construction site does not help his trustworthiness to readers, and could potentially perpetuate the “warning of messing with people like him”. The discussion of Shadrack’s behavior that added to his inability to be trusted by both readers and the community lead us into the topic of the way he was regarded by Sula in particular. Professor Foss noted that Sula was the only character that seemed to acknowledge Shadrack as a person compared to other community members. However, the class noted how Sula’s death in coincidence of her final discussion with Shadrack, also did not help his character distinction between his personality and disability by potentially sealing her fate.

At this point, Professor Foss posed the question of whether Sula’s birthmark (and fingertip) could be read as a disability, and quotes back to Thomson’s piece on freakery and how some may be read as disabled due to “physical markers or indications”. Much of the class voiced that they could understand how this perspective could be validated given the history of birthmarks being viewed as negative things such as a “witches mark” or cosmetic imperfections when visible. Professor Foss brought back the idea of intersectionality and inquired whether Sula’s personality can be distinguished from her potentially disabling birthmark. He followed this with another point from an older piece by Thomson which suggested that Sula’s birthmark and fingertip are “hyperlegible text from which her community reads her hopes and point of reference for social boundaries, pariah and mark of social order,” and that this seems to be just a few of the many “evils” that are attributed to her character. In this way, Sula’s experiences seem similar to both Eva and Shadrack. Sula’s personality may be easier to distinguish from her personality due to her read physical disability, yet her lack of integration to the community may have been due to her other social identities, like Shadrack. The students concluded that her birthmark has heavy implications of ostracization and closely relates to how neoliberalism persuades consumers to get rid of this imperfection according to current monetary beauty standards.

Finally, we were called into small groups to discuss 4 previously assigned readings: “Until” by Ayisha Knight, “Hypoesthesia” by Laurie Clements Lambeth, “Deaf Blind: Three Squared Cinquian” by Jonh Lee Clark, and “The Woman Hanging from the Thirteenth Floor Window” by Joy Harjo. One of the most prominent themes of “Until” for all groups was the overcoming of social norms into self-love. The author was read as disabled because she is Deaf, but many groups noted her feelings of “not disabled enough,” and noticed how powerful and confident her signing was now that she was able to express herself past the social norms of disability. With “Hypoesthesia”, one of the most prominent features my group and I noticed was how well the author was able to depict the experience of disassociation through the format of the poem. Many other groups also noticed the disassociation of the narrator and, naturally, attributed it to the assault. They also referred to how some may read the narrator as deviant from the “sexual norm” and pathologize their behavior. That deviancy can be read as a disability and is treated pathologically in today’s American society. All groups noted how people make spectacles out of disabled people that can do “mundane” things, such as cook for oneself, for John Lee Clark’s “Deaf Blind” poem. All groups also noted the juxtaposition of being a spectacle to being a “nobody” because the narrator was just doing what everyone else can do, but under the light of a Deaf-blind person. Professor Foss later in large group noted a scholar who called this phenomenon “inspo-porn”. For “The Woman Hanging From the Thirteenth Floor Window”, some groups seemed confused as to what exactly was happening within the poem, but most seemed to understand that there was a incongruence to the way the narrator identified themselves and what was happening in their life.

Ultimately, the class came to conclusions about how characters’ disabilities from Toni Morrison’s “Sula” are read, and other major themes through previously assigned poems which were discussed through small group in this class period. Our discussions showed how students were able to read different characters’ and narrators’ disabilities and their social implications according to our view of social norms. However, the group was also able to explore these implications along the lines of intersectionality, considering not only each characters’ disability, but also class, gender, race, etc. Following how these people may be read as disabled, along with how this may affect or be affected by their other social identities, lead many to wonder how exactly this affected each person’s personal identities, and how we could distinguish the social from the personal.

Mary Ainsley Fox Summary for September 21

On September 21, 2021 class began with a large group discussion for Sula. We then dove into the topic of Eva’s character and talked about the representation of her disability. Eva’s disability could have been seen either as a weakness or a mystery of power, however the group decided that in the beginning Eva was proud of her disability, but later it was not correctly taken care of as she was experiencing signs of Dementia. Those around Eva were in awe of her as she became older and she interacted with the younger generation. Although she was able to interact with them, we were then asked if this interaction was due to the younger generation being afraid of her.  We also discussed Eva’s disability and her leg, as it was not seen so much in a negative way, but in a prideful way or as a “battlescar.” Another disability she suffers from connecting with others in a social aspect. Lastly in the book, they really focused on Eva’s mental state and/or disability rather than her physical state. 

Discussion then shifted to Plum’s death and how even though Eva has a disability, she is a caregiver to Plum and his post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from war. Although Eva is a main character, her flaws, fights, and decisions turn her role into one of antagonism. Our class learned very well from this piece that love is a sacrifice and people do crazy, irrational things in love. Going along with this, we also talked about how Hannah once asked Eva if she loved them. Although Eva had much love for Plum, she shoots him and explains that it was an action of love. This is an example of how love is a sacrifice and how Eva’s actions are done out of love, but end up hurting everyone around her. She then sets Plum on fire as a sense of a “baptism,” however setting someone on fire is not mercy killing. Even though Plum acknowledges he is suffering from PTSD and substance abuse, Eva makes a rash decision to kill him. After setting Plum on fire, Hannah accidentally sets herself on fire and this causes a panic in Eva. We discussed whether or not this was purely out of fear, love, or a sense of guilt. We found it interesting that Hannah was grown and Eva threw herself out of the window to save her, and the class thought of it as guilt eating her alive. The group then discussed Eva’s very strange relationships and how her brain is wired differently than everyone else’s and her need to feel control. 

We then integrated the discussion of Shadrack’s character and how he is not integrated in society and he was Sula’s character all alone. The class talked about how he was very similar to Boo Radley in the sense of the verbiage describing the two. For example, the two are both referred to as shadows and they are not seen as a full person. 

Lastly, we had time for small group discussion and we broke out into four small groups and discussed the piece by John Lee Clark, “Hypoesthesia,” “Until,” and “The Woman Hanging from the Thirteenth Floor Window.” We then got back into a large group discussion and talked about each of our initial poems.
“I Pledge”- Mary Ainsley Fox

Word Count: 553

Megan Hofmann’s Class Summary for Thursday, September 16th

Class, of course, began on Thursday with a quiz. Once the morbid quiz was complete, Dr. Foss reviewed the schedule our class would be following and named the readings we would be analyzing. The authors included Jasbir Puar, Chris Bell, and Toni Morrison. The class focused mainly on the two theory readings, and discussion involving these authors and their correlating articles proceeded in the same order as formerly stated. Through group discussion involving the two articles, our class concluded that white individuals remain the focus of disability studies due to a long history of marginalization towards minority groups in the field.

Class proceeded by Dr. Foss giving students adequate time to review Jasbir Puar’s article, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” from The Right to Maim. My groupmates and I discussed whether both disabled and debilitated aligned individuals fall under the same category of “disability.” Although we did not come up with a definitive answer, the group concluded that individuals with disabilities in debilitating circumstances battle unique hardships due to lack of resources. In addition, the group discussed how individuals in power remain in authority by targeting minority groups and disabling them through the act of maiming. We specifically focused on Puar’s claim, “This is what I call ‘the right to maim’: a right expressive of sovereign power that is linked to, but not the same as ‘the right to kill.’ Maiming is a source of value extraction from populations that would otherwise be disposable” (18). The group concluded that Puar point stands true, when someone becomes disabled by being maimed, they are less likely to be a threat to the group in power.

Dr. Foss then brought the class together to discuss the article as a large group. He started by stating that over 50% of police shootings are towards black bodies, supporting this claim by giving specific examples of local tragedies where black individuals have been targeted by local police. Foss then went on to discuss one of Puar’s points that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict also revolves around the intentional debilitation of a population and how individuals with disabilities in the Middle East face challenges such as transportation due to issues associated with the area’s infrastructure. The class moved on to discuss the topic from a historical stance, stating that throughout history, minority bodies were expected to attain physical disabilities, such as the bodies of enslaved people. This conversation concentrated on the topic of white fragility and how similarly to the topic of race, white fragility can relate to disability studies as well because the topic of disability can cause anxiety amongst white populations, especially when related to minority groups.

Dr. Foss then gave the class small group time to review Chris Bell’s article, “Introducing White Disability Studies: A Modest Proposal.” My group discussed Bell’s obvious sarcasm towards the topic of disability, and how disability studies solely focus on white disability. The group specifically considered Bell’s ten-step list that sarcastically informs the reader of easy strategies in how to keep disability studies fixated on white disability instead of becoming more inclusive. The group quickly noticed that Bell’s article, like the central points in Puar’s article, focuses on the topic of white fragility. This conversation turned to large group discussion that revolved around Bell’s ten-step list. Classmates highlighted Bell’s use of reverse psychology, claiming that by stating, “Make no effort to be more inclusive in your scholarship. Do not start today, do not start tomorrow. Wait for someone else to do inclusive work” (281), Bell is calling society to action.

Lastly, the few remaining minutes of class were used to briefly discuss Toni Morrison’s, Sula. Dr. Foss emphasized different characters and their correlating disabilities such as Eva who has one leg, the triplets who are hinted to have an intellectual disability, and Plum who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The class discussed Toni Morrison’s intentions of wanting the reader to be exposed to differing perspectives, but whose intentions instead were at times inappropriate and insensitive towards cultures that she was not educated enough to speak for. The discussion was then concluded with a duck joke and class was dismissed.

“I pledge” – Megan Hofmann

Hannah Harris’ Class Summary for September 14th

Dr. Foss began class on Tuesday, September 14th by announcing that our class had the option to be dismissed fifteen minutes early due to meetings of the search committee for a new Chief Diversity Officer. This was said to be an effort to keep us on-track with another section of the class, although we quickly cleared up the confusion that there is no other section. Irene also made some announcements about activities relating to Latino Identities Month before we launched into a large group discussion of John Steinbeck’s novella, Of Mice and Men. We analyzed the representation of Lennie’s disability, the relationship and power dynamic between Lennie and George, and how these culminated to explain the final scene of the novella, including our intended and actual reactions. We also briefly explored the disability of the novella’s other characters. Through this discussion, we concluded Lennie is portrayed in a way that both gives him agency and revokes it, but we struggled to categorize George’s relationship with and actions towards Lennie as either entirely merciful or selfishly motivated. Rather, moments of both were clearly articulated.

Dr. Foss started off the discussion by asking about the class’ prior experience with the novella. Many members had previously read the work, although the lenses through which they viewed it varied. Jamie’s high school class considered all viewpoints while reading the novella, while Miranda’s class focused almost entirely on issues of class rather than those of disability or race. I had also read the novella in high school and remember focusing extensively on class, some on race, and very minimally on disability. 

We turned our discussion to the topic of Lennie’s disability and Steinbeck’s portrayal of it, where we found instances of both stigmatization and infantilization because of Lennie’s mental disability. However, we also saw that, in many ways, Lennie is not infantilized as much as may be expected given he is ultimately held responsible for all of his actions. Moreover, Lennie also garners a great deal of respect from characters like Slim, Crooks, and even Curley, although it was mixed with intense hatred. One example of this comes after Lennie easily breaks Curley’s hand (60). In a male dominated world like this novella, strength is immensely valued, and this is one of Lennie’s biggest assets. We even postulated that his strength and willingness to work hard is one of the reasons George continues to travel around with the big lumbering bear (2).  

This led us into an examination of Lennie’s relationship with George. Here, we raised the question of whether George truly respects Lennie. While George cares for Lennie, allows him to join him on his travels, and defends him in front of Curley and others who question his competency, he is also downright rude to Lennie on many occasions. Often, the things he says about him, including how much better his life would be if he did not have to worry about Lennie, are surely extremely psychologically damaging. This was likened to a sibling relationship where “No one can be mean to my brother but me!” However, there is certainly an unequal power dynamic at play between the two characters where George is seen as the master and Lennie as the “terrier who doesn’t want to bring a ball to its master” (8). Regardless, Lennie and George’s relationship is, indeed, reciprocal. Lennie needs George to keep him out of trouble, and George needs Lennie to enable himself to dream like a child and inspire others like Candy. 

From here, we posed the question: “Did Goerge give up on Lennie?” We are clearly supposed to see the end of the novella as a mercy killing given the setup to this event where Carlson kills Candy’s old, miserable dog. Here, Candy laments he “‘shouldn’t ought to have let no stranger shoot my dog,’” (58). This is intended to make us feel the same way about George killing Lennie. With input from many class members, we felt strongly that George should not have performed this “mercy killing” without Lennie’s understanding and consent because this only solidified the issue of the power imbalance between the two. However, it was questioned whether there was enough time to explain the situation to Lennie in a way he could understand, and it was agreed upon that the mob would certainly have killed Lennie if given the chance. The idea of infantilization was again mentioned as leaving Lennie out of this final decision is one last act of babying him and rendering him incapable of controlling his own life. 

Dr. Foss brought up an interesting point, asking why George wants the burden of killing Lennie himself rather than letting him run away into the woods. This is, of course, the opposite scenario of that between Victor Frankenstein and the Creation. I think the answer has to do with genuine love and respect, which also lends evidence to the earlier point that George truly does respect Lennie, even if it is sometimes hard to see through his actions. There was no affinity between Frankenstein and his Creation, only disgust and fear, which is what causes Frankenstein to run initially and continue running after the Creation to his eventual downfall. Dr. Foss also mentioned a list of questions that teachers often ask their students regarding this novella. These were examined by a student doing an individual study. This student found the questions always asked what a student would do in the end if they were in George’s shoes, automatically assuming the reader would give themselves the custodial role. There was never any consideration of how they would feel if they were Lennie or how the final scene might be different if the figure was black and disabiled like Crooks. 

Lastly, we had a brief discussion on the unifying characteristics of some of the other minor characters. Crooks and Candy are both old and lonely, and Crooks is also physically disabiled and black. In many ways, Crooks is similar to Lennie, but there is no one there for him, no George-figure to guide him and take his side. Curley’s wife is also lonely; in her conversation with Lennie preceding her death, the two speak to each other about their various musings and concerns without ever really hearing each other or connecting about anything. Just when they start to connect, Lennie kills her, leaving the two isolated and lonely yet again. With that, the time had reached 1:30 pm. Dr. Foss offered to let us stay for the rest of class to discuss Puar in small groups, but, after a few somewhat awkward moments of silence, Hollis spoke for us all when he said we had had enough, and we all departed. 

Overall, the class discussion led to productive discourse about Steinbeck’s representation of disabled character(s) and their social standing in his society. We focused on instances in which these character’s rights were usurped and how readers are conditioned to respond to the novella’s end as a compassionate act. However, when viewed through a disability studies lens, these actions are far from entirely merciful.  

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work. 

Hannah Harris 

Hollis Cobb’s Class Summary for September 9th

Class opened today with a series of duck related jokes and puns. While somewhat entertaining, these jokes were horribly unfunny. Much to my chagrin, duck jokes became a theme of the class, appearing at various points through the reading quiz and class discussion.
The majority of class discussion centered around the essay reading for the day, Mitchell’s “The Biopolitics of Disability”. The essay centered around a few key terms and their relationship to the biopolitics of disability, which we defined as a class prior to large group discussion. Dr. Foss selected passages to clarify the class’ understanding of each term. Biopolitics, the concept underpinning the entire reading, is defined by Mitchell as the “process of managing population resources through demographic record keeping at the level of the state” (10) in a neoliberal society. Dr. Foss continued by defining neoliberalism, with a scathing definition provided by the reading, as “the arrival of hyper market driven societies that organize identities largely as consumers” (4) that “rationalizes the use of public resources for the global expansion of capital by ransacking the commonwealth” (10). The commonwealth is solely an entity to be exploited by corporate entities, and members of the commonwealth are exclusively viewed as consumers.
This neoliberalism is especially problematic, Dr. Foss pointed out, through its expression of able nationalism, the idea that nationalism is rooted in unconscious yet systemic ableism. Further, expressions of disability under able nationalism are relegated to victimhood only. Mitchell advocates for creating a large space for Crip/Queer identities that looks past victimization. To conclude the lecture portion the class period, Dr. Foss elaborated on the essay’s proposition for exploring alternative modes of being that do not fit the ableist, heterosexual model that neoliberalism demands.
Class then shifted into asking questions regarding “The Biopolitics of Disability”. Jacob commented on how applying the discussion within the essay regarding the commodification of disability under neoliberalism and connected it to the ongoing issue of “Big Pharma” in America. Dr. Foss added to Jacob’s observation by pointing out that neoliberalism and capitalism programs us to see ourselves as deficient, which creates more profitable consumers looking to “fix themselves”. Jamie emphasized the reclamation of terminology by Crip and Queer communities, repurposing previously stigmatized terms into ones of self identity. Jacob again contributed by observing how disabled individuals have moved from being unacceptable to acceptable solely as a consumer, to which Dr. Foss pointed out that said products seek to “normalized disabled individuals to make them fit the able nationalist ideal. This observation contributed to a larger discussion contributed to by many members of the class about the normalization of medication, and whether medication detracts from a person’s true identity.
The reminder of class consisted of small group discussion regarding Oscar Wilde’s fairy tales. Due to time constraints, we did not get to unpack these discussions in a larger class setting. Finally, we briefly mentioned the Walt Whitman poem “The Wound Dresser”. While we did not deep dive into the work, Irena brought up the relationship between disability and war, and how war somewhat normalizes disability as soldiers return from war with various amputations and mental illnesses.
There was no significant argument for the day’s discussion considering most of class was spent unpacking a dense essay with weighty terms and concepts. The lecturing and discussion shed significant light on these concepts, and the period concluded with students having a significant command of the manifestations of disability within a neoliberal society.

I Pledge
-Hollis Cobb

Lisa Gisselquist’s Class Summary for September 9th

On September 9th, the class discussed several pieces including “Introduction” from The Biopolitics of Disability by David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder and three fairytales by Oscar Wilde entitled “The Fisherman and His Soul,” “The Happy Prince” and “The Star-Child.” Though there was a poem reading assigned for this class, we did not have time to cover it. The class was broken into three main parts: Professor Foss explaining the terms from Mitchell and Snyder piece, large group discussion of said piece, and small group discussion of the fairytales. The first section helped to provide clarity to the Mitchell and Snyder piece through a discussion of the terms; based on this information, the second section then discussed the ramifications of neoliberalism in the modern world before we split into small groups to discuss how the characters in the fairytales could be considered as disability-aligned.

To help ensure comprehension both for the following discussion and in general, Professor Foss began with a discussion of Mitchell and Snyder’s piece, specifically all of the terms involved. The first term, biopolitics, designates processes of managing population resources through demographic record-keeping at the state level. This connects to neoliberalism, in which people, especially those with disabilities, are being channeled to have a consumer identity. It argues that all of the disabilities can be ‘solved’ by one product/medicine or another. Society is being driven to think that we have shifted away from eugenics and institutionalization and have become a more accepting society. In reality, disabled people are pushed to believe that they need to normalize themselves by using products, as neoliberalism wants. Finally, ablenationalism, the last piece of the puzzle, joins nationalism with the opportunities of ability that come with being a citizen. This simple explanation helped to lead the discussion into the actual specifics of how this is found in today’s world.

The large discussion centered around the general experience of the students with neoliberalism. Many students mentioned their own struggles with feeling like they needed medication and how they were concerned that they might become addicted to it. The conversation also turned to some of the problems with neoliberalism. For example, neoliberalism sells advantages that were not available in previous societies and are not available in most third-world countries. Furthermore, some people believe that medication saved their life to make them who they want to be, but for many others, medication does not work. This leaves them as outcasts in a supposedly ‘accepting’ society. One student even questioned how we could form solid conclusions when it comes to a certain disability or mental illness when the conditions are different depending on the person. The professor responded by bringing up how a lot more money went into curing Alzheimer’s and cancer than went into mental health research. Towards the end, one student asked whether drug addiction and alcoholism would be considered a disability. The general consensus was that it would be. For the most part, this discussion centered around students struggles living in a neoliberal society, which further supports the authors’ point about its failings.

For the remainder of class, we broke into small groups to discuss Oscar Wilde’s fairytales. In my small group, we started by discussing “The Star-Child” and how the transformation of the Star-Child into a disabled character was a punishment for pride and prejudice until he learned his lesson. This made the discussion of him being the ‘disability-aligned’ character difficult. How could his actions cause or cure disability? We then turned briefly to “The Happy Prince” and discussed the possibility of the Happy Prince having a mobility issue that caused him to need the sparrow to do things for him before moving to “The Fisherman and His Soul.” In this tale, we thought that the mermaid and the Sea-folk were the disability-aligned characters. However, we struggled to make sense of the role that the soul played in the story or how the fisherman could become ‘disabled’ and join the sea-folk but then recover on a whim. Our final conclusion was that if this story was looked at as a disability-aligned story, the witches’ involvement with the devil; the implications that the Sea-folk, as the disabled characters, had no souls; and the role of the soul in the story made it difficult for this story to be advocating for the disabled. However, as Oscar Wilde probably never intended them to be taken this way, they still serve to create a discussion of the treatment of disabled people (exp. The rejection of the sea-folk by the priest).

Throughout the class, there were two main themes: Neoliberalism, and whether characters were disability-aligned. The general consensus of the discussion of Neoliberalism was to detail some of the larger issues that it creates. As for the disability-aligned characters, Oscar Wilde’s fairytales, similar to Frankenstein, can convey lessons to the audience but become problematic when carefully examined. Overall, this class served as a fascinating discussion of the Mitchell and Snyder piece while also continuing our evaluation of disability-aligned characters.

Word Count: 831

Chy’Nia Johnson Class Summary for 9/7/21

Word count: 740

On September 7th, Dr. Foss began our class session with one of his classic witty jokes, this one about Labor Day (I love these jokes, by the way). After his joke, we started class in a large class discussion about the conclusion of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the author’s portrayal of disability, and some thoughts and comments were spoken about the progression of both characters, Victor Frankenstein and the Creation. Through the analysis of the large group, it was noticed that there were mixed reviews on the progression of both characters, there was more progression in the Creation because of the development of the Creation throughout the book; having turned into a character that readers could fully sympathize with, identify as, or disagree with and Victor having his sort of progression with being more persistent with finding the Creation after the death of Elizabeth and showing more obvious signs of a form of disability according to the book.

The floor was opened to comments about Victor and the Creation’s progressions, and it was recognized that Victor had progressed to a more neurotic and frantic personality as he was trying to hunt down and find the Creation. This was a change to his personality as at the beginning of the book he was more indulged in creating something that was out of the ordinary. Once the Creation was created, he seemed like he was crazed and dealing with a mental disability, he fell ill and feverish and was taking medicine to help with this “fever”. It was depicted in our discussion that Victor was suffering from sociopathy and psychopathy and showed narcissistic values. When Victor received his threat from the Creation about his wedding night, he thought that the Creation was going to attack him. He neglected the fact that Elizabeth would also be there with him, meaning that he was only thinking about himself in that situation.

The other side is the progression or development of the Creation. Throughout the book, we saw a huge development of the Creation, from being created and learning the aspects of life to becoming a lonely murderer that wanted revenge. The Creation showed signs that he was susceptible to being loving and affectionate, this was shown when he would clear the pathway from the house of the blind man and his children and get them wood for their fireplace. The Creation is also shown as an extreme caricature or representation of disability. He just wanted to be accepted in the communities that he went through, but the people or society saw him as ugly or a freak or a monster because of his appearance. Even Victor saw him as a horror and did not want to help him when in need. This can be portrayed in the disabled community, especially those with physical disabilities. They want to be treated the same way able-bodied people are treated but society does not accept them that way. Society creates a stigma that creates a barrier to block disabled people from being accepted. This also compares to the other story that we had read for the day called The Birthday of the Infanta. The dwarf, in the story, was treated terribly in a sense but he was oblivious to this until the end of the story. With these comparisons, readers can empathize with the Creation because they would feel bad for the way he is being treated. The Creation developed into a murderer only because he was hurt over the fact that he was not accepted, and that Victor would not help him be able to not be lonely in his life. I suspect that he did not want to murder those people, but he wanted to make sure that Victor suffered the same way he was suffering.

To wrap up this summary, the class had some mixed answers and comments to the progression of both Victor Frankenstein and the Creation, because both have pros and cons and complexity to their progressive ways. It all depends on which aspect is picked up when the reader is reading. They could empathize with the Creation at one point in the book and disagree with his development and how this is displaying the representation of the disabled community, whereas you could disagree with Victor at the beginning and then understand his representation in the disabled community. The complexity of the two characters shows the similarities and differences in the disabled community.