Author Archives: Majken Hirche

Dan P. McAdams’ teori: Personlighed på tre niveauer

Test din egen personlighed i forhold til amerikanske præsidenter her (på engelsk) eller her (på dansk).

af Ryan Smith

Psykologen Dan P. McAdams er ikke så kendt i Danmark, men hans integrative teori om personlighedspsykologiens tre niveauer er nyttig for at danne sig et større perspektiv på den måde, vi anskuer personligheden på. Ifølge McAdams kan personlighedspsykologi overordnet deles op i tre niveauer.

Niveau 1 – Trækteori

Niveau 1 består ifølge McAdams af træk. Såsom hvorvidt en person er indadvendt eller udadvendt, og hvorvidt vedkommende foretrækker at forholde sig tænkende eller følende, når der skal træffes beslutninger. Niveau 1 er med andre ord de træk, som man kan tillægge en person i (tilstræbt) videnskabelige personlighedsmatricer som The Big Five-test systemet samt i Jungs typologi. Interessant nok, så anser McAdams ikke denne type information som særligt dybdegående; som han siger, så er det information, som trænede psykologer hurtigt opsnapper om andre mennesker, og ifølge McAdams er det denne type psykiske indsigter, vi falder tilbage på, når vi vil forklare ting om mennesker, som vi dybest set ikke kender godt nok til egentlig at vide noget om. McAdams er altså relativt kritisk over for trækteori og typologier, selvom han anerkender deres validitet.

Niveau 2 – Faktisk livshistorie

Niveau 2 omhandler derimod den afledte person, der opstår som en følge af de træk, vedkommende er født med, samt de betingelser, som vedkommende er født ind i. Hvad er personens mål i livet, og hvad er personens bevidste og ubevidste strategier for at opnå disse mål? En person, som er meget Følende i Jungs typologi kunne f.eks. være mere tilbøjelig til at opsøge en tilværelse som sygeplejerske eller psykolog, hvor vedkommende skal give mennesker omsorg, hvorimod en meget Tænkende type derimod kunne tænkes at blive advokat eller ingeniør, hvor de skal ”slå huller” i andre menneskers argumentation (advokat) eller måske overvejende undgå at have kontakt med andre mennesker (visse typer ingeniører). Men man kan ikke sige noget om, hvad en person har af mål i livet ud fra vedkommendes personlighedstræk alene. Man kan kun tale om større eller mindre sandsynligheder. For at blive klogere på en konkret persons mål i livet og måde at leve sit liv på, bliver man altså nødt til at bevæge sig væk fra Niveau 1 (trækteori) og videre til Niveau 2 (den specifikke persons livsforløb).

Som nævnt er McAdams kritisk over for trækteori (Niveau 1). Derfor mener McAdams, at vi som minimum bliver nødt til at bevæge os fra Niveau 1 og til Niveau 2, før vi kan sige, at vi kender en anden person. Trækteori (Niveau 1) er ifølge McAdams ikke andet end abstrakte karakteristikker. Først når det kombineres med et kendskab til personens unikke måde at udtrykke disse generelle træk på, kan vi ifølge McAdams tale om, at vi nu analyserer og kender en rigtig person af kød og blod.

Eksempelvis kunne en person, der udelukkende så mennesker gennem trækteori (Niveau 1) mene, at en person, der er meget Tænkende i Jungs typologi, var blevet advokat, fordi det ligger til Tænkende mennesker at blive advokater (undersøgelser viser, at langt de fleste advokater har en præference for Tænkning over Følen i Jungs typologi). Men hvis vi sagde, at denne person kun var blevet advokat, fordi han var Tænkende, så ville vi ifølge McAdams gå glip af de specifikke omstændigheder, der har gjort, at vedkommende oprindeligt blev advokat: Det er ikke nok at have Tænkende træk for at blive advokat; der må også være konkrete omstændigheder, der giver vedkommende adgang til at læse jura osv. Og her er McAdams’ pointe så, at vi udelukker os selv fra at opleve disse nuancer, hvis vi insisterer på kun at se personen igennem trækteori (Niveau 1).

Således kunne man sige, at Niveau 1 groft sagt består af en persons medfødte, eller tidligt formede træk, mens en persons Niveau 2 repræsenterer det liv, personen har levet op til nu, og den unikke måde, som vedkommende har udtrykt sine træk på op til nu. Niveau 1 er altså groft sagt arv (nature), mens Niveau 2 groft sagt er miljø (nurture). Men som vi nævnte i starten af denne artikel, så består McAdams model af tre niveauer. Så hvad mangler der? Jo, det tredje niveau – identitet.

Niveau 3 – Identitet og narrativ

Niveau 3 omhandler ifølge McAdams en persons selvforståelse, vedkommendes personlige fortælling om sin livshistorie op til nu. Niveau 2 er det konkrete liv, som personen har levet, og Niveau 3 er den historie, som vedkommende har fortalt sig selv om sit liv op til nu. Forskellen på Niveau 2 og Niveau 3 kunne f.eks. være følgende: Lad os sige, at en person har forsøgt selvmord to gange i sit liv. Personen har måske undertrykt og fortrængt det ene forsøg, og har derfor selv en livshistorie, som indeholder et enkelt selvmordsforsøg. Men måske har personen stadig arrene på armen efter det ene selvmordsforsøg, som vedkommende altså har ”glemt” igen ved at fortrænge det. Det er præcis forskellen på Niveau 2 og Niveau 3: Niveau 2 er virkeligheden, som den ville se ud, hvis terapeuten havde et fuldstændigt indblik i patientens livshistorie. Niveau 3 er personens livshistorie, som så kan divergere mere eller mindre fra det faktiske liv (Niveau 2), men også fra vedkommendes træk (Niveau 1). En person, der er født meget indadvendt, men ser sig selv som udadvendt, er f.eks. en person, hvor vedkommendes Træk (Niveau 1) er i konflikt med vedkommendes Narrativ om sig selv (Niveau 3). Niveau 3 er altså den virkelighed, som man socialt har konstrueret for sig selv og for andre. Det er det mest overfladiske niveau, idet man kan fortælle en anden historie om sig selv end den faktiske; eksempelvis siger mange alkoholikere til sig selv, at de vitterligt ikke har noget problem med alkohol, og mange af dem tror selv på det. Men samtidig med, at Niveau 3 er det mest overfladiske niveau, så er det også det mest intense og emergente, fordi vores kommunikation med den anden altid må gå gennem personens selvforståelse (Niveau 3).

Vi kan nu vise McAdams’ model i kortform:

McAdams-niveau Indhold McAdams’ mening om denne type indsigt i andre
Niveau 1 – Trækteori Medfødte træk, præferencer på The Big Five, Jung-Type Personkendskab, hvor personen kun forstås gennem abstraktioner; kendskab som var personen ”en fremmed”
Niveau 2 – Livsforløb og psyke Konkret livsforløb, formative hændelser, personens mål, forsvarsmekanismer og unikke mannerismer Umiddelbart personkendskab; mere direkte end Niveau 1, men ikke så dybt som Niveau 3
Niveau 3 – Narrativitet Personens historie om sig selv Personkendskab, hvor man kender personen intimt

Og her er så det skarpsindige ved McAdams’ personlighedsteori: Psykisk velvære er, ifølge McAdams, når alle tre niveauer passer sammen. Har vi f.eks. en person, som (fra naturens hånd?) er født meget indadvendt, men hvis opvækst har fundet sted i et miljø, der har påtvunget udadvendt adfærd, så passer McAdams’ Niveau 1 og 2 f.eks. ikke sammen. Der er et mismatch, som skaber følelsesmæssig ustabilitet (neuroticisme) i personen. Ligeledes, hvis personen ikke anerkender, at vedkommende har skullet “svømme mod strømmen” i sin opvækst, men fortæller sig selv, at “det da ikke var så slemt”, så passer niveau 1, 2 og 3 ikke sammen. I så tilfælde vil personen  sandsynligvis have uerkendt frustration over sin opvækst, som får vedkommende til at reagere adverst i voksenlivet.

Således kan man komme på mange og varierede eksempler på, hvordan en konflikt mellem nogen af disse tre niveauer fører til uligevægtig adfærd og følelsesmæssig ustabilitet. Opskriften på psykisk sundhed er derfor: (1) Lær dine egne karakteristika at kende mht. trækteori; tag f.eks. en Jung-test, find ud af nogenlunde hvor du ligger i forhold til gennemsnittet, hvad angår personlighedstræk, opvækst, socialklasse, m.v. (2) Få afdækket evt. “løgnehistorier”, som du selv, eller din familie, kan have fortalt dig om din opvækst (f.eks. fortæller mange familier hinanden, at de er “finere” end de er, at de engang var adelige m.v.) (3) Tag et grundigt blik på dig selv og vurdér, om din nuværende livshistorie og dit nuværende selvbillede virkelig står i mål med realiteterne. På kort sigt, f.eks. til jobsamtaler eller på byture, er det måske en god idé at lyve sig bedre, end man er, men på længere sigt vil folk, der er udstyret med bare et normalt rummål af empati, kunne fornemme det, hvis man lyver for meget for sig selv, eller hvis man projicerer et selvbillede ud i omgivelserne, som ikke står i mål med virkeligheden.

Vurdering

Som det fremgår af det ovenstående, er McAdams dybest set kritisk over for trækteori, mens hans egentlige kærlighed er narrativiteten. McAdams er bedst, når han integrerer forskellige tilgange til psykologien til et større hele, og værst, når han prøver at gøre narrativitet til noget mere ”ægte” end trækteori: Selv har jeg det nemlig modsat af McAdams, og på den måde er det måske lidt ironisk, at jeg har gidet skrive om ham. McAdams mener, at vi kun virkelig kan kende en person, når vi kender vedkommende på vedkommendes egne præmisser. Jeg mener, at trækteori er det mest sigende af McAdams’ tre niveauer, og som god trækteoretiker mener jeg endvidere, at ens præference for henholdsvis trækteori eller narrativitet i sig selv kan være afledt af, hvilke træk der præger ens kognition. – Hvis jeg da ikke er enig med Buddha i, at en person dybest set ikke har noget selv, og at selvet derfor er en illusion.

Topnazisternes IQ ved Nuremberg-retssagerne

I 1945 fik en allieret psykolog ved navn G.M. Gilbert lov at undersøge de tilfangetagne nazi-ledere. Han udsatte dem bl.a. for den tyske version af Wechsler-Bellevue-IQ-testen, og resultaterne var som følger:

1 Hjalmar Schacht 143
2 Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141
3 Hermann Goering 138
4 Karl Doenitz 138
5 Franz von Papen 134
6 Eric Raeder 134
7 Dr. Hans Frank 130
8 Hans Fritsche 130
9 Baldur von Schirach 130
10 Joachim von Ribbentrop 129
11 Wilhelm Keitel 129
12 Albert Speer 128
13 Alfred Jodl 127
14 Alfred Rosenberg 127
15 Constantin von Neurath 125
16 Walther Funk 124
17 Wilhelm Frick 124
18 Rudolf Hess 120
19 Fritz Sauckel 118
20 Ernst Kaltenbrunner 113
21 Julius Streicher 106

Nazisternes reaktioner:

Papen: Irritabel, men dog tilfreds, da det senere viste sig, at han havde opnået en høj IQ score.

Goering, Speer, Hess, Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, Saukel, Fritzche: Syntes det var morsomt at tage testen, forholdt sig åbne og imødekommende.

Goering: Som nævnt entusiastisk omkring testen, men skiftede til skeptisk, da han senere fandt ud af, at han ikke var den iblandt de tilfangetagne nazister, som havde højest IQ.

Schacht (som scorede højest): Skeptisk over for selve ideen bag IQ-tests. Syntes, psykologer og psykiatere bedrev et “trist erhverv”.

Keitel: Fascineret af testens objektivitet og entusiastisk omkring, hvor meget bedre den var end det “nonsens”, som der Wehrmacht brugte i sine tests. Samtidig ved man dog, at Keitel selv havde forhindret brugen af intelligenstests i nazityskland, da hans søn havde dumpet en sådan test.

Yderligere informationer:

  • I 1945 ville IQ 130 og derover kvalificere til Mensa.
  • Havde de af nazisterne, hvis IQ var 130 eller derover, scoret således på de IQ-test, der administreredes i visse amerikanske grundskoler på det tidspunkt, så var deres forældre blevet tilbudt at få sat deres børn i eliteskoler.
  • Nazisterne var generelt imod IQ-tests, da de fostrede individualitetsfølelse, og da jøder ofte klarede sig bedre end etniske tyskere på dem.

Kilder:

Mosley, Leonard: The Reich Marshal: A Biography of Hermann Goering – Forlag: Dell (1975)

Miale & Belzer: The Nuremberg Mind: The Psychology of the Nazi Leaders – Forlag: The New York Times Book Co. (1975)

A Psychological Analysis of Shelley’s Frankenstein, part 2

Continued from part 1 of this essay, also published on this site.

by Majken Hirche

It has repeatedly been observed that the literary value of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ mainly relies on a fortunate convergence of romantic and pre-romantic archetypes creating a powerful mythology of the self.[1] Claiming to be a tale about the modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley successfully blends Greek mythology as inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses (especially, it seems, book three on Narcissus and Echo) with other works such as Milton’s Paradise Lost, Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Goethe’s Werther and Byron’s Manfred.[2] But the truly innovative aspect in Mary Shelley’s novel might lie somewhere else. Her description of Victor Frankenstein’s mental world and behaviour match the definition of a pathological narcissist to such a degree that it makes it quite improbable for her to have based the novel solely on well-developed religious and literary tropes. In other words, Shelley must have had real life experience with narcissism which she subsequently used as template for Victor Frankenstein.

According to Christopher Small, Victor Frankenstein is an intentional portrayal of her husband Percy Shelley: “Frankenstein’s first name is Victor, the same […] that Percy Shelley took for himself on a number of occasions in boyhood and later.”[3] Eustace Chesser has a similar hunch, suggesting that “Shelley was narcissistic, to such a degree that it was a barrier to the formation of other relationships.”[4]

However, according to Philip Ball[5] it is much more likely that Victor Frankenstein is a portrayal of Mary Shelley’s father, William Godwin, to whom the book was dedicated. Just like Frankenstein disowns his creature, Godwin abandoned Mary when she decided to get romantically involved with the married Percy Shelley who himself more likely was represented by Frankenstein’s faithful friend Henry Clerval.[6] This psychological constellation could explain why Frankenstein is described in such ambivalent ways, and why Mary Shelley never really condemns her two protagonists. It might also explain why the creature is described with such warm feelings, even though Frankenstein is the official narrator of the novel. Mary Shelley cannot but identify herself with the creature.

Whatever the case may be, understanding Victor Frankenstein as a narcissist might help to pinpoint the reason for the novel’s immediate popular success and its long term influence on many genres of literature, such as Gothic novels and science fiction.[7] In general, the romantic era was characterized by negative attitudes towards scientific rationalization of nature, and in contrast had positive attitudes towards emotions of authenticity, purity, awe, the sublime and similar introverted experiences boosting the feeling of the self.[8] Modern parents, when raising a child with such inclinations, would probably send it to a school psychologist who would diagnose it as a mild narcissist with escapist tendencies.

The cultural influences of ‘Frankenstein’ have been immense. Since 1982, 130 works of fiction based on ‘Frankenstein’ have been made, fifty fiction series, more than forty adaptations in film and more than eighty stage productions.[9] No wonder then, that the ideas derived from Victor Frankenstein and his creature have grown into a huge basket of adapted, distorted and sophisticated mythologisations. Although literary critic Chris Baldick has stated that “the truth of a myth is not to be established by authorising its earliest versions, but by considering all its variations.”[10] Enumerating them all would be a daunting task.[11]

What is of main interest from the perspective of a psychological analysis of Victor Frankenstein are the following two myths: 1) Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ constitutes the first prototype to the idea of the ‘Mad Scientist’, and 2) If the creator has a sick or corrupt character, his (and it is always a man) artificial creations will symbolise an act of hubris and become fatal.[12]

Today, the Mad Scientist is a well-known stereotype. With wild eyes, bristling white hair and always carrying a white lab coat, he is the quintessential lunatic with a brain of a genius. Often he is playing God, sometimes evil, but more likely just an unintentional villain. Examples in literature and films are legion, but some of the most popular ones are Lex Luthor, Dr. Strangelove, Doctor Who, Doctor X, Dr. Clayton Forrester, Dr. Frank-N-Furter, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Moreau, Hari Seldon and all villains in the James Bond movies. Also real life examples like Nikola Tesla and Josef Mengele have contributed to the myth of the Mad Scientist.

The problem with the Mad Scientist is that he not only is a megalomaniac trying ‘to play God’, his greater sin is his sick or corrupt character. This leads to the second important stereotype pervading the mythological ‘science of anthropoeia’: The Mad Scientist unconsciously knows that his motivation for creating an artificial being is a vane desire to create a grandiose version of himself. This is a sin. It erodes behavioural norms, and is the reason why he tends to hide his work behind a wall of stealth and secrecy.

The hubris of self-creation has become a virulent meme in the literature since ‘Frankenstein’. When motivated by vanity or pride, all scientific and artistic creations will become dangerous and fatal. Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray exemplifies this trope from an artist’s point of view. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an example from the perspective of a scientist. Jekyll confesses that “Had I approached my discoveries in a more noble spirit, […] all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend.”[13] Also Dr. Moreau in H. G. Wells’ novel The Island of Doctor Moreau hides away his ‘House of Pain’ where he creates terrifying dehumanised creatures called the ‘Beat People’[14]. While the original culprit of the myth of the Mad Scientist, Victor Frankenstein, never shows any sign of remorse, he still has the wish to hide away: “I shunned my fellow-creatures as if I had been guilty of a crime.”[15], he says, because deep down in his conscience he knows that he is doing something very unacceptable. Nowadays this stereotype of the mad scientist and his hidden narcissistic weaknesses represents the most persistent and annoying myth about science, but also a most funny one, at least in the spheres of fiction where many additional stories are bound to be told.


[1] Bloom, An excerpt from a study of ‘Frankenstein: or, The New Prometheus’, 611-18.

[2] In: Shelley, Frankenstein, xxiii-xxxix.

[3] In: Berman, Frankenstein; or, the Modern Narcissus, 77.

[4] Eustace Chesser (1965). Shelley & Zastrozzi – Self Revelation of a Neurotic. Gregg Publishing, London, 25.

[5] Ball, Unnatural – The Heretical Idea of Making People, 75.

[6] Ibid., 75.

[7] ”Frankenstein” The Oxford Companion to English Literature.

[8] “Romanticism” The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Edited by Dinah Birch. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Copenhagen University Library. 19 December 2011,

[9] Ball, Unnatural – The Heretical Idea of Making People, 88-89.

[10] Chris Baldick (1987). In Frankenstein’s shadow. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 4.

[11] Trying to enumerate them anyway, the most important myths are probably: 1. The consolidation of the naturalistic fallacy: Artificial creations contradict natural order, and natural order is by definition good. Thus, artificial creations are unnatural and unnatural things are bad things, and bad things are evil, and evil things should be exterminated; 2. The takeover of civilization: Artificial creations are not only evil. They will take over the world and cast us aside. Modern fear of biotechnology, cloning and genetic modifications owe a great deal to the rationalization of Frankenstein, that if he creates a mate for the creature they will proliferate out of control, and we all will die; 3. The dangers of science and technology: Artificial beings are created by science and technology, and since we already know that artificial creations are unnatural, science and technology are potentially dangerous; 4. The noble savage with a blank slate: Our artificial creations might be more human than we are. But they will always be corrupted by us because they by definition do not belong. The Replicants in Blade Runner are modern examples of such noble savages who cannot but turn evil.

[12] Ball, Unnatural – The Heretical Idea of Making People, 90.

[13] Robert Louis Stevenson (1979). The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Other Stories. J. Calder (ed.), Penguin, Harmondsworth, 85.

[14] H. G. Wells (1896/1996). The Island of Dr. Moreau. Orion Media, London.

[15] Shelley, Frankenstein, 57.

Bibliography

Baldick, C. (1987). In Frankenstein’s shadow. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Baldwin, T (2010). “George Edward Moore”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Ball, P. (2011). Unnatural – The Heretical Idea of Making People. The Bodley Head, London.

Berman, J. (1990). Frankenstein; or, the Modern Narcissus. In: Narcissism and the Novel. New York University Press, NY, 1990.

Bloom, H. (1965). An excerpt from a study of Frankenstein: or, The New Prometheus. Partisan Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, Fall, 611-18.

Chesser, E. (1965). Shelley & Zastrozzi – Self Revelation of a Neurotic. Gregg Publishing, London.

”Frankenstein” The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Edited by Dinah Birch. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Copenhagen University Library. 16 December 2011.

Millon, T. et al. (2004). Personality Disorders in Modern Life. 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, NJ.

Millon, T. & Grossman, S. (2007). Overcoming Resistant Personality Disorders. John Wiley & Sons, NJ.

Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3rd ed., 2009.

Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., 2003; online version December 2011.

“Romanticism” The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Edited by Dinah Birch. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.  Copenhagen University Library. 19 December 2011.

Shelley, M. (1818/1831/1992). Frankenstein. Penguin Classics, London.

St Clair, W. (2004). The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Stevenson, R. L. (1979). The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Other Stories. J. Calder (ed.), Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Wells, H. G. (1896/1996). The Island of Dr. Moreau. Orion Media, London.

A Psychological Analysis of Shelley’s Frankenstein, part 1

by Majken Hirche

One of the most conspicuous features of Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel ‘Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus‘ is a strikingly accurate portrait of a pathological narcissist as expressed by the novel’s protagonist, the science student Victor Frankenstein. Apart from Victor Frankenstein only one other character appears as fully developed: An unnamed creature, born out of Victor Frankenstein’s grandiose fantasies, scientific skills and pursuit of divine power. All other characters appear as mere scenery on a stage where dichotomies of human nature contrast each other, and where the underlying question of whether or not the two main characters are shadow images of each other is ever present. By focusing on Victor Frankenstein and the creature, Mary Shelley succeeded in creating a novel that mirrors a personal story as well as many of the intellectual and aesthetic themes of the romantic era. It is obvious that Victor Frankenstein suffers from a mental disorder in the shape of pathological narcissism. Therefore, focusing on the disorder might be a useful prism for the understanding of the novel and its subsequent influence on popular culture. In this articleI will (1) find examples in the novel where Victor Frankenstein shows clear signs of having a mental disorder according to Millon and DSM-IV,[1] (2) discuss to what degree Victor Frankenstein perceives the creature as an echo of himself, which not only reflects his mental disorder, but also a fear of the unnatural, (3) discuss the likelihood that Mary Shelley had a personal experience with a narcissist, and thus had a more profound knowledge of narcissism than what she could have derived from the literature, and (4) suggest that Mary Shelley has contributed greatly to the myth of the ‘Mad Scientist’, and to the myth that anthropoeia[2] will never succeed when its maker has a weak and corrupt character such as a vain desire to create a grandiose double of himself.

Born in the romantic era by highly educated and politically influential parents, Mary Shelley (1797–1851) had a first hand knowledge of the intellectual and aesthetic currents of her time when she wrote Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus’. Her father, William Godwin (1756–1836), was one of the first exponents of English utilitarianism, and active in the earliest anarchist movements. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797), had been a philosopher and an eager advocate of women’s rights.[3]

At the age of 17, Mary Godwin began a romantic relationship with Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), a poet and political follower of William Godwin. Unfortunately, Percy was already married, and the resulting scandal and renouncement of the young couple by their families made them leave England and travel through Europe for some months.[4]

In 1816, the ‘year without a summer’, Mary and Percy spend the dark and rainy days in Switzerland, with, among others, Percy’s friend Lord Byron[5] (1788–1824) who was a leading figure of the romantic movement. The company agreed to write stories of the supernatural,[6] and after two weeks of thinking, talking and dreaming about horrific things, Mary Shelley came up with preliminary ideas that subsequently led to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus’. The novel was published in 1818 anonymously, and later re-published in 1823 under her name.[7]

Despite the notion of Mary Shelley being inspired by a romantic archetype of the Shadow or the Prometheus,[8] Mary painted an astonishingly accurate picture of a pathological narcissist in Victor Frankenstein. Surprisingly few literary critics have pointed out this pervasive personality trait in the novel’s protagonist,[9] which might, at least in part, be due to the fact that narcissism and its corresponding pathological description was developed some hundred years later by Sigmund Freud.[10]

In the light of modern psychiatry[11]+[i] ‘Frankenstein’ is a sad tragedy portraying a narcissist at full blast, a total disaster destroying his own being and the people around him in an obsessive and delirious pursuit of divine power. Indeed, ‘Frankenstein’ is richly furnished with descriptions of incidents that expose Victor Frankenstein’s mental condition.

Right from the beginning of Frankenstein’s narrative we are witnessing the grandiose and unrealistic sense of superiority in a man who expects complete submissiveness from his peers and his family. In his earliest childhood recollection Frankenstein’s sense of self importance and special status was already present: “I was their plaything and their idol,” and “the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good.” [12] His wife-to-be Elizabeth is also introduced, her nature and qualities being described as no less than divine in order to complement Frankenstein’s ego: “The moulding of her face so expressive […] that none could behold her without looking on her as of a distinct species, a being heaven-sent, and bearing a celestial stamp in all her features.”[13] However, Elizabeth is never really allowed to be his equal as there can be only one superior, and thus he subjects her by telling that “till death she was to be [his] only.”[14]  Apart from his family Frankenstein has only one friend, the “tender” and “noble spirited” Henry Clerval,[15] as Frankenstein believes himself to be “totally unfitted for the company of strangers.”[16] Frankenstein shields himself from painful experiences of unexpected criticism by surrounding himself with unquestioning, gentle and loving people, the “old familiar faces,” who nourish his grandiose ego.

Later in life Frankenstein attends university. During his studies he is drawn to old-fashioned alchemy and natural philosophy, with a special interest in physiology and the structure of the human frame.[17] These particular studies ignite Frankenstein’s smouldering zest for godlike power, as he one day imagines himself creating life from lifeless matter; indeed, “what had been the study and desire of the wisest men since the creation of the world was now within my grasp.”[18] From here on Frankenstein endlessly pursues his goal for years ”with unrelaxed and breathless eagerness”,[19] disregarding his caring and concerning family in the meantime even though he knows that his year long silence disquiets them.[20] Frankenstein’s grandiose delirium and disturbed nature becomes more and more pronounced as he closes in on his goal:”No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. […] A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their beings to me”[21], and thus he creates a living being, unfortunately however, in the shape of a very ugly creature.[22]

The narcissist’s ultimate nightmare is to have his fallibilities revealed, because this will disrupt his self-image and protection against his painful unconscious.[23] It is of no surprise then, that we see Victor Frankenstein’s narcissism most starkly exposed shortly after he has succeeded in creating a being that turns out to be imperfect. He runs away abandoning any responsibility,[24] and starts vehemently to suppress its existence.[25] Instead of behaving like a truly responsible scientist with an inquiring mind and a calm methodology, Frankenstein does exactly the opposite: He reacts like a spoiled child scared of a toy he was just perfectly happy to play with, and becomes sick and depressed like a hysterical patient who needs to be taken care of by Henry Clerval.[26]

Seen from a narcissist’s perspective, this reaction is understandable: Frankenstein is confronted with a far from perfect version of himself. Faced with his ugly shadow, a disfigured echo yelling distorted grunts to the hidden depths of his narcissistic psyche, he unfolds the typical defence mechanisms of a narcissist ego in danger. He becomes a denialist, desperately rationalizing his responsibilities away,[27] and allows death and disaster to poison his family and friend in the shape of an abandoned creature who is doomed to live in eternal loneliness and isolation.[28]

Things could have been different, though. Like all true romantic novels, an innocent and unspoiled being is not cruel in its natural state. As the creature starts to tell its own story about how it learns the ways of life the reader realises that it is like a ‘noble savage’;[29] innocent, good and free from the corrupting influence of civilization, having no other desires than to love and be loved.[30] Only when faced with its fate the creature turns vindictive and wicked. As Percy Shelley notes in his introduction to Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’; “the destructive consequences of withheld love can only be revenge and wickedness.”[31]

At work is a dyadic transfer: Victor Frankenstein calls the inanimate body “beautiful” up until the point where it opens its eyes and looks “wicked”.[32] But the creature is beautiful on the inside, only carrying a bit of bad craftsmanship on the outer shell. Frankenstein’s inability to comprehend this suggests that the creature might be more human than its creator. In fact, all that was admirable and noble in Frankenstein can be seen as transferred to the creature.

Of course the creature is misunderstood by the outside world. The centuries old fear about the treacherous, Faustian nature of anthropoeia[33] – of the creation of artificial people – is the true cause of the unravelling tragedy, and not the creature as such. Among scholars this is called a naturalistic fallacy; an erroneous belief in the equivalence of the unnatural and evil, the artificial and imperfect, the ugly and wicked.[34]

Only through the reflecting lens of education and civil norms the creature eventually learns to see itself the same way as others do: “Increase of knowledge only discovered to me more clearly what a wretched outcast I was. I cherished hope, it is true, but it vanished when I beheld my person reflected in water or my shadow in the moonshine, even as that frail image and that inconstant shade.” Now the creature only dares to look at itself in the moonshine at night, ashamed of being unnatural and ugly. It has annexed the prevailing beauty ideal by hating its ugliness. It has become naturalized to the fear of the unnatural.

End of part 1 of this essay. Part 2 also avaliable on this site.

Notes:


[1] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.

[2] Sometimes spelled ‘anthropopœia’, from Greek, meaning the making of a human being.

[3] In: Mary Shelley (1818/1831/1992). Frankenstein. Penguin Classics, London, xiv. (As supplement to excerpts from Frankenstein stated in the syllabus. All references in this thesis will be made to the Penguin edition of Frankenstein)

[4] Ibid., xviii-xix.

[5] ”Frankenstein” The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Edited by Dinah Birch. Oxford University Press Inc. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Copenhagen University Library. 16 December 2011, URL =   <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t113.e2906>

[6] Ibid.

[7] In: Shelley, Frankenstein, viii.

[8] Harold Bloom (1965). An excerpt from a study of Frankenstein: or, The New Prometheus. Partisan Review, Vol.       XXXII, No. 4, Fall, 611-18

[9] Jeffrey Berman (1990). Frankenstein; or, the Modern Narcissus. In: Narcissism and the Novel. New York University Press, NY, 56-77

[10] Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3rd ed., 2009, 491.

[11]Theodore Millon et al. (2004). Personality Disorders in Modern Life. 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, NJ, 330-369. Also see endnote i for a scientific description of narcissism.

[12] Shelley, Frankenstein, 35.

[13] Ibid., 36.

[14] Ibid., 37.

[15] Ibid., 40.

[16] Ibid., 46.

[17] Ibid., 52.

[18] Ibid., 53.

[19] Ibid., 55.

[20] Ibid., 56.

[21] Ibid., 55.

[22] Ibid., 58.

[23] Theodore Millon & Seth Grossman (2007). Overcoming Resistant Personality Disorders. John Wiley & Sons, NJ, 129.

[24] Shelley, Frankenstein, 59.

[25] Ibid., 61.

[26] Ibid., 58-63.

[27] Ibid., 68-72.

[28] Ibid., 138.

[29] Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., 2003; online version December 2011,

[30] Shelley, Frankenstein, 103.

[31] In: William St Clair (2004). The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 358.

[32] Shelley, Frankenstein, 58-59.

[33] Philip Ball (2011). Unnatural – The Heretical Idea of Making People. The Bodley Head, London, 1-2.

[34] Tom Baldwin (2010). “George Edward Moore”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)


[i] The unconscious belief of being worthless and inferior is the core problem of the narcissist, and in order to cope with the painful feelings of guilt and shame, the narcissist creates an image of himself as a superior being. According to Millon and the DSM-IV the narcissist first and foremost has a grandiose sense of self-importance that is prevalent from childhood, and it is from this belief that the narcissist sees and acts upon his world. The narcissist is obsessively preoccupied with self-generated fantasies of godlike power, mastermind intelligence, unparalleled success and the like, and thus sees himself as a shining star entitled to inexhaustible admiration. Imbued with excessive zeal and over-confidence, the narcissist pursues his fantasies working tirelessly towards the realization of his glory, while viewing other people as indifferent or instruments to serve as a means to an end, whatever the cost. The egocentric, exploitive and unempathic behaviour stems from an unwillingness to recognize the feelings and welfare of others, and to justify his actions and inconsiderateness, the narcissist rationalizes ad nauseam, to excuse his behaviour. Significant others are seen by narcissist as an extension of his self, and thus their qualities are idealized and elevated to divine proportions, to match the narcissist ego. Confronted with criticism, the narcissist will display a haughty, dismissive or even aggressive attitude, accompanied by denigration of the criticizer. Profound depressions often accompany a narcissistic disorder. In this phase the narcissist will isolate himself from the external world, and sink into dejection and deep despair. Ruminating in this state, his self esteem lowers to a point where it culminates in an expectation of punishment. In: Millon et al., Personality Disorders in Modern Life, 330-369.

Bibliography

Bibliography follows in part 2 of this essay, also published on this site.

How to Write a Good Essay

by Majken Hirche

Humans write, for the most part, to communicate with other humans, and this, of course, also goes for essay writing. It would therefore be productive to consider some aspects of human nature and written communication in relation to what humans perceive as good writing. Humans are curious , and when they read, they like to be presented with something new . Thus, good writing first of all offers new ideas, or at least new ways of looking at older ideas, to teach and please the curious mind. In addition, humans find simplicity difficult to resist: According to social psychologists, the human mind simply loves what is easy and dislikes what is difficult . It is therefore equally important to present the new ideas in a way that is appealing to the mind. Otherwise, what is the point of writing down new and exciting ideas, if no one bothers to read about them in the first place?

Humans are by nature highly curious species, and they grasp every opportunity to explore, investigate and learn something new whenever they can, simply because it gives them a sense of pleasure and reward . It is of no surprise then, that new ideas are likely to invoke a certain amount of interest in humans. Therefore, think of the idea as a vital fundament of writing, and the first element to develop before getting into the actual writing process.

New and exciting ideas do not come by themselves however. It takes time and effort, and lot of mental energy to create new ways of looking at things. Fortunately, a smart guy named Alex Osborn got a brilliant idea one day in 1939 , and created a tool to aid and trigger new ways of thinking: Alex gave us brainstorming. Brainstorming is basically a four step program with the following rules : 1) focus on quantity, and generate as many thoughts and ideas as possible in relation to a chosen subject; 2) withhold criticism, and focus on being open to everything that comes into mind, no matter how odd the ideas may seem; 3) generate unusual ideas by looking at the subject from new perspectives by suspending assumptions; 4) try to improve ideas by combining existing ideas to form a single and better idea.

The brainstorming should result in a list of (hopefully) good ideas, from which the best idea can be picked out, and once the really good idea is found, it is time to consider some other significant elements of good writing.

Simplicity delights the human mind, and it is therefore important to create a text that is easy to read. However, complex writing is often quick and easy, while simplicity takes time, but never the less, less is more, and it is important not to overcomplicate things. Thus, by exchanging foreign words or scientific terms for simpler words, and by keeping the sentences short, the good writer has already done half the work. The text also has to make sense though. Therefore, address the topic and say what is relevant, and say it in a well ordered and logic manner; this will prevent the human mind from thinking too hard, and will in turn release pleasing chemicals in the brain, thereby making the human mind feel good about what it reads . On the contrary, if the human mind has to spend too much energy on sorting things out, it becomes tired and will likely give up reading half way through, and think of the experience as bad. One last thing, also make sure that the grammar is in order, and that the text has been thoroughly worked over many times – as the clever people say; good writing is rewriting.

References

Greetham, B. (2001). Palgrave Study Guides: How to Write Better Essays. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kang, M. J., et al. (2009). The Wick in the Candle of Learning: Epistemic Curiosity activates Reward Circuitry and Enhances Memory. Psychological Science, 20(8): 963-73.

Willis, J. (2008). Teaching the Brain to Read: Strategies for Improving Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension, ASCD.

Winkielman, P. & Cacioppo, J. T., 2001. Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence That Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 989-1000.

A Summary of 12 Angry Men

by Majken Hirche

The room is dense with hot humid air and tense emotions, and apart from twelve arguing men, a large wooden table is the only object in the room: This is the setting in which the main part of the 1957 American film 12 Angry Men takes place, and a setting of which the film is highly notable. 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men deliberating the guilt or acquittal of a defendant who is faced with death sentence in case of a ‘guilty’ verdict. Immediately the story seems simple in action but below the surface an intense psychological drama takes place.

12 Angry Men opens with a court scene in which a jury, comprising twelve men, is being instructed by a judge: The men are to decide whether the defendant, a young boy from the slum, is guilty of stabbing his father to death. Their verdict must be unanimous, and in the event they find the accused guilty, death sentence is mandatory.  With these instructions and the final closing arguments in mind, the jurors recede to the jury room, and after a brief episode where the men get acquainted, it becomes apparent that they are already convinced that the defendant is guilty, and intend to end the hearing by voting without further discussion. However, in the preliminary vote one of the jurors, an architect played by a young Henry Fonda, votes ‘not guilty’: He wants to, at least, talk about the case before making a judgment because he thinks too much is at stake, that is, the life of a young boy. Subsequently, several of the other jurors become annoyed with him as they had hoped to end the case quickly and move on with life.

From here the story exclusively centers on how the men interact and influence each other as they deliberate on the case, and as a result of the interaction a number of psychological group processes develop: Influence of norms and need to belong , as well as dynamics of personal prejudice, are being introduced in the events taking place around the preliminary vote in the second scene of the film . In this scene, several of the jurors do not question the evidence, but readily assume that the young boy is guilty because of his social background, and especially one juror, a business man and troubled father, stands out as being particularly stubborn, opinionated and aggressive, and appears to be the strongest opponent to the idea of examining the evidence. Consequently, the prejudiced jurors influence the other jurors who feel that disagreeing would be going against the norms of the group.

In the face of antagonists and group pressure, the lone dissenting architect juror refuses to give in. Instead he faces the opponents with a calm and reasonable attitude, and by meticulous questioning the details of the evidence he challenges the stand of the group: Thus, like a true Lady Justice the architect juror stands out as an example of bravery, impartiality and fairness. And so, one by one the jurors realize that the evidence is flawed, despite their first assumptions, and the stand of the group subsequently reverses in favor of the young boy – with one exception: The aggressive business man juror, who, in spite of the questionable evidence, refuses to realize his argumentative shortcomings, and instead becomes agitated and hostile.

Here the story reaches its climax, and the architect juror suddenly realizes the reason why the business man juror has been acting offensive, and ‘like a self appointed public avenger’  all along: He is tortured by the memory of his son, who broke away from his rules, and consequently, they have not seen each other for two years. However, instead of facing his unfortunate personal circumstances, the business man juror seeks a personal vendetta redeemed with the death of the accused boy. A short argument between the men then follows until the business man juror breaks down in tears, and tears up a picture of him and his son: And finally, the verdict is now unanimous, and so, the story ends.

Although 12 Angry Men has been criticized of the somewhat unorthodox depiction of the examination methods used by the jurors to examine the evidence materials, the film has become part of many university curricula today ,  as an outstanding example of justice and democracy, human fallibility and the importance of debate. In 2007, the Library of Congress selected 12 Angry Men for preservation in the National Film Registry, as being ‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.’

References

Burton, C.E., 1988. Sociology and the Feature Film. Teaching Sociology 16 (July), 263-271.

McCambridge, J., 2004. 12 Angry Men: A Study in Dialogue. Journal of Management Education 27(3), 384-401.

Rose, R. (Author) and Lumet, S. (Director), 1957. 12 Angry Men. Twentieth Century Fox.

On Metaphors and Cognition

by Majken Hirche

A metaphor comprises a certain form of language expression. Basically, a metaphor can be defined as a figure of speech that implies a comparison between things or ideas by using ‘an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea.’ As the definition above suggests, metaphors can be found in a wide variety of forms and contexts. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to represent a complete outline of all known categories of metaphors, or to provide the reader with a long and diverse list of metaphor examples. Instead, this paper will focus on how metaphors in everyday language influence and shape the way we think and reason, as evidenced by a resent published paper  in the open access scientific journal PLoS ONE.

Before the cognitive revolution in the 1950’s a metaphor was exclusively understood as an element of literary, poetic or rhetoric language, and not as something that was generated in the realm of everyday language.  Today, however, we know that we use metaphorical expressions almost every time we speak and most often so, without realizing it.  In the light of this knowledge, psychologists and sociologists have been trying to understand the impact of metaphors on thinking and reasoning for a long time, but, the research area is extensive and complex, so solid answers have not yet been found. However, a recent study has now added another drop in the pool of metaphor research, taking us one step closer an understanding of metaphors in everyday language.

In February 2011, psychologists Paul Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky from Stanford University published a paper , based on an experiment, in which they showed how metaphors affected peoples thinking and reasoning in relation to crime as a subject. In the experiment, 1.485 students were divided in two groups and asked to read a text from a report describing the crime in the fictional city of Addison. The groups were presented with different versions of the text, respectively, differing only in a single description: In version one, crime was described as ‘a beast’; in version two, crime was described as ‘a virus’.

The text was presented as following with the differences inserted in parenthesis:

‘Crime is a (wild beast preying on/virus infecting) the city of Addison. The crime rate in the once peaceful city has steadily increased over the past three years. In fact, these days it seems that crime is (lurking in/plaguing) every neighborhood. In 2004, 46,177 crimes were reported compared to more than 55,000 reported in 2007. The rise in violent crime is particularly alarming. In 2004, there were 330 murders in the city, in 2007, there were over 500.’

Subsequently, the students were asked to propose solutions on how to solve the crime problems and were given the following questions:

1) In your opinion, what does Addison need to do to reduce crime?
2) What is the role of a police officer in Addison?
3) Please copy the part of the report that was most influential.

The result of the questioning revealed that the students who read crime as ‘a virus’ were more inclined to propose solutions that involved prevention and treatment of crime by investigating causes of crime and instituting social reforms, and the students who read crime as ‘a beast’ were more inclined to fight back crime by ‘hiring police officers and building jails, to catch and cage the criminals […].’  In regard to what part of the report the students perceived as being the most influential, the answers generated a noticeable result: All of the students identified the crime statistics ‘as the most influential aspect of the report’ , and subsequently as the main cause of their proposed solutions.
In a following experiment, the researchers also showed that ‘virus’ and ‘beast’ only had an effect in writing: When the students talked about the metaphors before being presented with the text, this time without metaphors, the metaphors had no effect on how the students solved the crime problem. Moreover, the sequence of the metaphors also seemed to play a crucial role: In a last experiment, ‘beast’ and ‘virus’ were introduced in the end of the text close to the place where students were asked to propose solutions, and as in the previous experiment, the metaphors had no effect.

Now, what do these experiments tell us about metaphors in everyday language? First of all, the initial experiment suggests that even though they have a great impact on how we perceive the subject they represent, metaphors are virtually invisible to the receiver. It also suggests that a text containing numbers and statistics is good at blurring metaphors, possibly because numbers and statistics implicitly contain a metaphor about being objective and reliable, and therefore are regarded as strong evidence for reasoning. Third, a metaphor is highly context dependent, and seems to create ideas and a framework that is difficult to ignore, and when placed in the beginning of a text it even gains in strength as we read on, because the ideas the metaphor has created to begin with, somehow coerces the subsequent information into its framework.

Thus, metaphors are indeed more than just elements of literary and rhetorical language. They expand our capacity for thinking, and give us the sensation of understanding. However, metaphors also create unconscious captivity of our thinking – a captivity that seems to be very difficult to escape.

References

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Thibodeau, P. H. & Boroditsky, L., (2011). Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PloS ONE 6(2): e16782.

Love in Shakespeare’s Sonnets

by Majken Hirche

Adolescent development is synonymous with emotional development. It is a time in life where young people are inevitably bound to break away from parent influence and seek out individuation and identity of their own, and in this process, exploring love and searching for romantic partners are central themes to the minds of adolescents. Shakespeare’s sonnets offer a great opportunity for students to explore the emotional world of human nature and psychology, besides from introducing one of the most progressive, sophisticated and influential writers in the history of English literature. The sonnets introduce a range of perspectives on love and relations, among other themes, and show how love is a complex emotional phenomenon encompassing contradictory feelings and confusion in mind; themes that most adolescents can identify with. This lecture will invoke discussion and independent thinking about love, emotions and reason, and will focus on sonnet 116 in which we explore the first theme; love as perfect and ideal, and contrast it to sonnet 147 in which we explore the second theme; love as unhealthy and a disease. In between we will talk about the third theme; reason and emotion, inspired by sonnet 147. The students will contemplate love on their own, and relate their ideas to the poems. Some questions will be given the students to aid them in contemplating, and to show how the themes are related, e.g.: What are the differences and the similarities between the two descriptions of love in sonnet 116  and 147? What role does reason play in poem 147, if reason plays a role at all? In sonnet 147, there is a struggle of reason against emotion. Do emotions always lead us astray in love? What are the differences and similarities between reason and emotion, and what role do they play in thinking? Does reason and emotion affect the way we think about love, and if so, how?

Sonnet 116 presents love in an ideal form, and it does so by defining and defending the nature of love in a most dramatic way. The sonnet is rather straightforward in structure with each quatrain describing what love is in a concrete manner. In the first quatrain we are presented with the idea of love as loyal and unchanging in a world of change, even if the changes are encountered in the loved one (l.2-4). The changes in the loved one can be understood as; even if the lover is unfaithful (love is still standing). In quatrain two the poet uses seafaring metaphors to further emphasize the permanent, unbending and withstanding nature of true love, ‘being an ever-fixed mark’ (l.5), a ‘lighthouse’, that ‘is never shaken’ (l.6), even if it encounters a violent storm. The use of double negatives ‘never/ever’ in line five and six act as intensifiers, and add further to the dramatic scenery as well as underlining the constancy and dependability of love. The fixation on love as unwavering continues in quatrain two with the description of love as a steadfast ‘star to every wandering bark’ (l.7). Quatrain three introduces a timeless and ever lasting perspective of love, as love ‘alters not with [times] brief hours and weeks’ (l.11), and only some great and final apocalyptic destruction will make it cease to exist (l.12). Thus, the first theme for the students to identify is ideal love as expressed in this sonnet.

In sonnet 147 we now find the poet suffering at the mercy of love as it has taken over his body and mind like a maddening disease. Love is no longer overbearing and dependable, but rather yields its shadow in the shape of a self-perpetuating downwards spiral paving the way for self-destruction, disease and eventual death. The first line of quatrain one introduces an illness discourse that remains throughout the text, and thus becomes the sustaining theme of this sonnet: ‘Love is as a fever’, the poet asserts in line one, and continues to describe its unhealthy desiring nature feeding on the object of love, only to become ever more craving (l.2-4). In quatrain three love is furthermore characterized as inflicting insanity making the poet a mental patient beyond cure (l.9-12), only capable of bewildering speech: ‘My thoughts and my discourse as madmen’s are, At random from the truth vainly express’d’ (l.11-12). Thus, love is not only imposing somatic response, it also attacks the mind rendering the victim utterly helpless, and deprived of reason and clarity of mind. The ending lines, however, are somewhat ambiguous in nature in regard to whom or what they address: ‘For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright, Who art as black as hell, as dark as night’ (l.13-14). Given that sonnet 147 is taken out of a context, and studied isolated with sonnet 116, the most meaningful interpretation in this case would be to ascribe the characteristics to love. Thus, the poet seems to momentarily wake up from his state of insanity, confronting his prior beliefs to an extent where he destroys the fair and shimmering image of love. Thus, the second theme for the students to identify is unhealthy love.

In the chosen sonnets, love is ascribed different characteristics which can be seen as two extremes on a continuum representing feelings of love. Thus, read together, the poems are almost bipolar in nature, leaving out all other facets of love that might be found on the continuum. In sonnet 147, quatrain two, line 5-8, however, the poet seems to know in the back of his mind that he is overindulging the feelings of pain and despair, and could he only hold on to reason, there might be an escape from darkness and hell – and perhaps even other ways of looking at love itself. This last statement is rhetorical towards the students and underlines the third theme of this lecture: Reason and emotion.

Understanding English literature as a whole begins by gaining a greater insight in the history of English language and literature. Shakespeare is, so far, one of the most influential writers in English literature. His sonnets encompass progressive and sophisticated writing and thinking, and it diverged significantly from conventional sonnet writing at that time, thereby paving the way for modern writing and thinking in future English literature. The sonnets have influenced modern romantic poets in particular