October 28, 2021

“How differently would one deal with youth if one could more clearly see the remote effects of the usual method of treatment, which is employed always, without discrimination, frequently without discretion!” “Tolerance never led to civil war; intolerance has covered the earth with carnage.” Whether Jean-Jacques Rousseau is writing his Confessions or François-Marie Arouet is philosophizing in his Treatise on Tolerance, the messages, when deeply considered, are the same; equality cannot be equal if intolerance is one’s second language. This brings forward the importance of Mary Wollstonecraft. A female writer/philosopher in a ‘man’s world.’ A Vindication of the Rights of Woman should be read; It is not specifically meant to be feminist propaganda, but words of wisdom and a demand for people to be who they can be without regard to their gender.

We are all of sound mind if we are given the freedom to be. Mary Wollstonecraft was a visionary that managed to send a message about the potential of women by first stroking the male ego, then appealing to their logic. She implies that men are the reason women are the way they are- if men were to change the way they think about women as people, they have the power improve the world. Her predecessors Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Voltaire agree with the idea and have their own thoughts on the functionality of humankind without a proper, or strong, society.

Imagine, if you will, a brain in a jar- a single mature brain with no identifying markers. Would we, (those of us that are not expert neurologists), be able to distinguish if the brain is male or female? There are no flashing lights or cosmetics that scream out “don’t listen to me, I’m a female brain!” If man thinks of woman as meek, child-rearing, housemaid, she will always only have one use until she becomes a determent to them; after which society starts to crack. Vindication makes the play fair because Wollstonecraft is not just regarding men, she throws snark toward the female readers that may disagree with her; “my own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone” (Wollstonecraft 14). She does lay blame on the men, but her tone tells the audience there is no anger or ill will, which should send her point about education and speaking with reason to the forefront of our minds.

Thomas Paine shares a similar idea with his declaration on the Rights of Man: Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as possess (Paine 117). While Paine is more explicitly politically minded with his regards, he is adamant that man is nothing without society. “To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character” (Paine). He continues his lecture by adding the idea that nature is doing to men what men are doing to women. She [nature] created him to be social, but also to stay within his station. “No one man is capable, without the aid of society” (Paine). Using that idea, we might conclude that women know no better because men have not been dared to learn better. Wollstonecraft brings forth the notion that men love a challenge, as it makes them feel masculine and in charge, so she does just that- she sets them a challenge. When they change their own ways, so too, will others.

She forces us to think about life after us- how life will be for the daughters and granddaughters. The Journal of the History of Ideas “Writers Who Have Rendered Women Objects of Pity”, claims that in the Eighteenth-Century women were impressionable and tended to follow contemporary fads (Sireci 248). This meant that they sought to fit in to the present society by whatever means. If those means were thinking about the future, they would think about the future. The unfortunate downside to a fad frenzy is the disingenuousness; the young ladies are not really looking into the future at all- they are just straddling the topic because everyone else is. To wholly understand what Mary Wollstonecraft is saying, is to accept that change is not a fad- to evolve as humans is a necessity. Paine fiddles with that idea as well, with his thoughts on nature making mans’ social construct essential:

She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness (Rights of Man 187). In other words, man may think he is happy, but true happiness comes from compassion and recognition of others’ potential, even if it is done under the illusion of selfishness.

As Wollstonecraft continues to play with reason and feed male logic, she tells her audience that man uses reason to determine their choices, but they do not see the error of their reason once it is set in their mind without additional reasoning being fed to them (Wollstonecraft 18). When she proclaims, “society is formed in the wisest manner” (Wollstonecraft 20) she is not saying it already is, she is telling us it can be if we listen to what is wrong with society. As with patriotism, we respect the society we live in, but we understand what should be changed to offer more efficiency. Women, Wollstonecraft surmises, will make men better if they are granted the opportunity to make choices and express a different view that men may overlook.

The argument that women are weaker because they are sensitive and emotional is not ignored in the work either, as she posits, this is where men fall short. Women are not afraid of the emotions they feel, but they are frustrated they are not being heard genuinely. It is to the point that woman lose faith in the male species’ ability to see the error of their ways and the damage their shallow views and logic bring to society. She goes on to use an analogy about a rake and how women prefer that to a man of sense because they have never been taught that opposition is okay. “If they are not allowed to have reason sufficient to govern their own conduct, all they learn must be learned [by routine] … why should they be bitterly censured for seeking a congenial mind? (Wollstonecraft 186)” She is not saying that women are inferior to men, but that they too can learn by reason- if only to help those of the opposite gender see reason- should man allow the idea.

Concerns and other Discourses

The most debatable argument Wollstonecraft makes is her opinion on submissive women. She comes off a bit hostile to the idea that there are women okay with taking a more submissive role. The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, (and inspiration for this section) tells its readers Mary Wollstonecraft believes most of her contemporary peers are “slaves to their husband, father, or society in general” because they could not choose how to live their lives, whom to live with, or have the capability to leave a terrible relationship (Berges 90). She accuses woman of being enslaved to their own senses. The article offers this ‘for example’

She describes upper-class women as ‘enervated’ beings who ‘seek for pleasure as the main purpose of their existence.’ This is both because it is judged to be good for them, as women are supposed to be ‘made to feel’ in the same way that men are ‘made to reason’ but also, conveniently, it panders to men’s desires, leaving women with little to do but make themselves attractive to men, as if they were in a harem (Berges 90). This goes back to the impressionability and fad frenzy previously written on. The argument one may have comes in the form of her bias. She speaks of the potential of humanity if man was open to the idea, but back slides because she does not count the variety of women in the world.

Any modern television show will show us the necessity of the choices of women. We see the career oriented, power-suit wearing, woman that may or may not have children of her own (but is content if she does not) who is best friends with the happy and thriving stay-at-home mom. Then we see the super moms that manage both a career and full-time motherhood. We must also account for Mr. Mom- the men that are both father and mother to their children. What would Mary Wollstonecraft say about them? Would she be disappointed and express her disdain in the same manner she has with Vindication? Or would she depose them, as she has done with the other submissives?

Speaking further on submissive women brings us to her notion that historically women have either been a slave or a despot (Wollstonecraft 85). ‘Slave or despot’ is not the issue here, the issue is her comparison of the severity to a specific civil rights movement. In a way, Wollstonecraft is degrading women below slaves as there are former slaves that became free and self-educated. Is she assuming women will not educate themselves, regardless of the standards of society? She writes that pleasure is the business of a woman’s life… inheriting a lineal descent from the first fair defect in nature. The sovereign beauty and the power they must maintain causes them to resign, or at least rein in, their natural rights. They would rather have a short-lived lavish life than seek out the challenges of equality (Wollstonecraft 86). This too, highlights the distasteful nature of her thought as this implies that women do not care about their rights. The point is made, but it is insensitively made. Although we can assume her point is the offense, the controversy of the situation demands face time.

Women, Wollstonecraft argues, are ‘degraded by the same propensity to enjoy the present moment;’ and despise freedom- of which they have no virtue or desire to even struggle with or attempt to maintain (Wollstonecraft 82). She continues her musings by adding that men are tyrants, yet also submissive- but they are submissive to oppression. They have the ability to command change.

Men, they further observe, submit everywhere to oppression, when they have only to lift up their heads to throw off the yoke; yet, instead of asserting their birthright, they quietly lick the dust, and say, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (Wollstonecraft 82).

Her description manages to crack the foundation of her full message to our contemporary society, and though she never flat out wrote it, there is a negative connotation to this thought. All the ego stroking she has done becomes a modicum less. She went from ‘okay men, if you want to change the word, blindly seek out potential’ to ‘well, if I’m honest, you men are stunted and too dumb to realize that if you don’t seek out opinions other than your own, you will grant yourself an early death.’ This is the equivalent to archaic dress code rules that a few schools still follow in this contemporary world. The context of those codes (and Wollstonecraft’s thought) implies little to no faith in the male gender. There is, fortunately, an upside to her contradiction. The creation of the necessity of commentary on the subject, turbulent as it may become, and historical context.

To feed Thomas Paine’s idea, we can consider Wollstonecraft’s words on human reason and immortality: was man created perfect, or did a flood of knowledge break in upon him, when he arrived at maturity, that precluded error, I should doubt whether his existence would be continued after the dissolution of the body. But, in the present state of things, every difficulty in morals that escapes from human discussion, and equally baffles the investigation of profound thinking (Wollstonecraft 83).

She finalizes that pitch by saying reason is the simple power of improvement and dissertation of truth. The nature of reason works best when it is the same for all. There should be no gender or class recognition. A Discourse on Inequality takes a more compassionate and enthusiastic stance on the same issue:

O man, whatever country you may belong to, whatever your opinions may be, attend to my words; you shall hear your history such as I think I have read it, not in books composed by those like you, for they are liars, but in the book of nature which never lies. All that I shall repeat after her, must be true, without any intermixture of falsehood, but where I may happen, without intending it, to introduce my own conceits…How much you are changed from what you once were! (Rousseau 11).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau ends his Discourse (Upon Origin) chapter with a bit of persuasion akin to Mary Wollstonecraft. ‘A manner of life’ he calls it; from which there are received qualities where education (and one’s personal habits) depraves us of identifying. However, if one cares to look deeply enough, they will discover the hidden pocket where the qualities are hidden (Rousseau 11). Deprived of affection, but not destroyed. That offers hope for change. It was earlier mentioned that humankind will be genuinely happy only when it is willing to accept the potential of a mind, not just a man. Rosseau agrees. He shares the idea that there is an age when man decides to stop behaving as they are and look to the future and the past to identify the present issues. He closes the section with the possibility of condemnation and terrorizing misfortune to those that will succeed us.

Let us move on to Voltaire’s thoughts for intolerance and unfair treatment. Throwing the religions aspect of his prose in the wind, we can still breakdown his opinion. He uses hyper religious words such as idolator and Creator, but his message about accepting all beings and their opinions is worth note. ‘It does not require any great art or studied skill to prove that [we] ought to tolerate one another’ (chapter XXII). He also claims it is those who hold others in contempt that are to blame for the condition of humanity. Of the nine-hundred million “insects” (Voltaire 125) that inhabit the earth, those who share the mindset of equality and compassion will be eternally happy. He states in the previous chapter (using an interesting village analogy) that it would be madness to pretend everyone thinks alike.

It would be the height of madness to pretend to bring all mankind to think exactly in the same manner in regard to [the principle of thought]. We might, with much greater ease, subject the whole universe by force of arms than subject the minds of all the inhabitants of one single village (Chapter XXI 121).

However, as anyone who studies philosophy- and history- knows, forcing a society, or person, breeds discourse. Making everyone the same does not leave room for improvement; it is counterproductive at best, emulsifying at worst. Voltaire takes a more violent stance when discussing discourse within the religious sector. He says anyone who acts out against the church will get snatched up and have no contact with the outside world (and we can assume their family) but promised favors if they succumb, only to be condemned when they do by one of a variety of tortures. This pious idea helps us see the error of expecting every being to have the same mindset.

Conclusion

As strong as Wollstonecraft’s ideas are for equality, she does have her faults. She goes about expressing ideas the wrong way; or it is her intention as a philosopher? Previous thoughts on the unfair comparison creates questions about the mental health of women. The question was already asked about her ideas on other types of compliant humans, whether male or female, now we must wonder how she would feel about those individuals with mental incapacities. Does she consider them less than human- incapable of decision, or indecision, and therefore already a detriment to the improvement of society? Is she presuming that women in abusive relationships deserve it because they do not have the constitution to change their situation? If that is the case, why isn’t male ego-driven decision brought into question?

She vouches that woman are not inferior to men unless they allow themselves to be but goes on to say that men too, tend to be victims of society. Even today, we say women must work twice as hard as a man to be considered just competent enough, but have we deeply investigated the toxicity of the male perspective? That is where we should be grateful for Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire. These philosophers already had a better chance for being heard, as they are men with a majority-male audience. Whether they are comparing men to wild beasts, or preaching religious tolerance, the points they creatively make infect us with curiosity and a thirst for answers.

Philosophy is a fickle thing- it promotes one’s attempt to question everything, while answering just a few of life’s major questions. As we seek answers, we find more questions. Sometimes those questions spark more ideas. There is no wrong or right answer to philosophy, just the absurdity of spending one’s life seeking the truth of humanity. Standing atop Mt. Everest seems like an easier venture. This is also why philosophers are likened to heroes. Not in the ‘pulled one out of a burning building’ sense, but in the sense that they are willing to take on an impossible task to help humanity become the best version of itself.

In summary, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the others mentioned- Rousseau, Voltaire, and Paine- use male logic and reasoning to persuade the men of society to seek out change. She feeds them the idea that change stands with them. Even if their acceptance of women seeing logic is selfish- to keep “man strong”- when done habitually, the act becomes second- nature to them and the “rake-hearted” women that serve them. Women will eventually understand they have the freedom, whether by fad frenzy or their own internal reasoning, to think like a man, (she implies logic is a masculine trait), because that is what is needed to evolve as a civilization and serve humanity best. As a society, however, we must maintain the logic that not every being, male or female, will be content following specific gendered roles. To maintain harmony and help a society grow is to accept variety as the spice of life. Every human has their purpose, we just have to be granted the ability to find said purpose.

Works Cited:

Berges, Sandrine. “Angels and Beasts.” The Routledge Guidebook to Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Routledge, 2013, pp. 119–37, doi:10.4324/9780203094181-12.

Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man. http://www.scribd.com, https://www.scribd.com/book/342870237/Rights-of-Man. eBook.

Sireci, Fiore. “‘Writers Who Have Rendered Women Objects of Pity’: Mary Wollstonecraft’s Literary Criticism in the Analytical Review and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 79, no. 2, 2018, pp. 243–65. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2018.0015.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. http://www.scribd.com https://www.scribd.com/book/271642601/The-Confessions-of-Jean-Jacques-Rousseau

Voltaire. Voltaire: Treatise on Tolerance. http://www.scribd.com, https://www.scribd.com/book/352891257/Voltaire-Treatise-on-Tolerance.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. 1792. Alicia Editions, 2019, https://www.scribd.com/book/417572140/A-Vindication-of-the-Rights-of-Woman-Premium-eBook.

Written December 18, 2021

Growing up most who are taught about natural selection are introduced to the British scientist Charles Darwin, whose theories are interpreted one of two ways; he is either a genius, or a nut-job. As we get older and decide to further our level of education- whether formally or otherwise, we can choose to investigate on a more personal level the truth of Darwin’s ideas about life and humanity. His theory of natural selection, or “Darwinism” as modern audiences call it, is not ‘just let stupid be stupid.’ He cared enough about humanity to explain how we can better ourselves if we are willing. It feels like more of a philosophical theory based around compassion, empathy, and conservation. Humanity has this innate urge to improve themselves while also suffering from severe reluctance to acknowledge the necessity for change. That is not to say we have not earned the fuss; we have pampered parts of our society with manufactured mechanics and autonomy. We chose to improve our world so much that we no longer know how else to live. Darwin’s work shows his audience that he is expecting resistance, as if the resistance proves his concept. It is this thought that brings forward the discussion.

Darwin creates an idea in the Origin of Species, that there are groups that live the same way generation to generation because that is all they know. In The Descent of Man, he revisits the idea and compares human ignorance to that of lower species- they can only develop so far because they are offered limited variability. The environment in which they live has changed little, thus creating no need for genetic change. The example he uses is domestic verses nature bound animals; those exposed to the elements and other factors of nature have need of change, while a house pet is reliant on their human companion providing them with food, shelter, and warmth. The diversified and changing nature to which they have been subjected is the foundation for the variables (Descent 49). On the concept of inherited traits- traits from both parent genes, we must consider including humans’ genes with an extra factor. Darwin classified plant and animal life with durability in the environment, but we must keep in mind that for humanity, inheritance is also the possibility of genius or deficit mental inheritance (Descent 49).

Questions and Arguments of a Curious Mind

Having read that, a curious mind can wonder if those ancient, or intentionally secluded, tribes survived only by small percentages have learned to adapt in a way that suits them for living their best life- which leaves out the affliction of contemporary amenities. If Darwin classifies “savage races” as places without diversity, and those “races” or communities are intentionally disconnected from the rest of the forward developed (and problematic) society, does that make them evolutionarily advanced? They understand their time is limited because they understand the way they choose to exist makes it such. Not to mention, they would be less advanced in contemporary society with all the bits and bobs of electronics and vehicles. ‘Variability of multiple parts and compensation of growth,’ as Darwin writes. By the time the natural tribe becomes used to the human-made artificiality of our world, it changes again, and they would have to start over.

At which point has Darwinism shifted? Are those that choose to live as one with the natural world better off in the end, or are the concrete jungle dwellers the champions? We look to history for lessons of the past, so it makes sense that those who supply the planet in an equal way the planet supplies them will find it easier to deal with a new dark age- were it to come about. A snapshot of “Ways of Knowing and Doing” implies just that- the Indigenous people connect with, respect, and trust the land and its blessings. The article (and Aboriginals) also teaches researchers about respect, effort, and collaboration. We cannot be a ‘one man show’ as we owe it to Darwin’s idea of evolution to expect and accept the idea of compromise. We are permitted, and encouraged, to have an idea in our head, but we are not allowed to be disappointed if that idea is drowned out by reality; especially if we are out of touch with the concept of conflicting environmental subjugation.

Jonathan Bennett and Francesco Bello share a similar opinion in their article Similarities between invaders and native species: Moving past Darwin’s naturalization conundrum. The article is opened with the idea that invading species must have similar traits as the native residents to be tolerant enough of the environment they sought, but different enough to remain curious and exploratory. This brings up an earlier provoked question about the pre-Darwinian society’s idea of human development. As earlier discussed, Darwin shares his idea for dual inheritance of traits, but how did they (those Darwin was sharing his ideas with) cope with a child if the child ended up more like a grandparent? Did they just assume character traits, and flaws, only carried one generation? Just father and mother to child. Was there no consideration that a child will inherit genes that are passive? Did they not know about active/passive genes?

If they knew of such a concept, they contradict their own ideals- they live the same way generation to generation because that is how it was done, but they are disavowing the idea that future generations can be a characteristic mirror of past generations. They are not naturalists, or futurists, they are not even Humanists; they are just there. Did they learn from the past? If they did not, there is no character development- which is a back slide in Darwin’s theory. Do they even respect the land they’ve thrived on for generations? Can they be considered survivalists before anything else? Invasive species may disrupt the ecosystem (Moving past Darwin) and the argument can be made that by staying where they are comfortable, they have minimal effect on said ecosystem, but not adapting as the plant and animal life adapts is just as damaging. Hyper aggression is not the implication, but genuine academic interest asks how they would manage the situation of crops not growing or the loss of livestock. What is their moral code? “Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important” (Darwin). If they do not have the code to attempt survival, does that not make them inferior even to their ancestors? Or is it that our moral compass and freedom of choice makes us inferior to the natural flow, despite our actions? Are we the disruption that changes the ecosystem and natural law?

Interpret Charles Darwin how you wish, but the closer is this- he opened dialogue for the free speakers and thinkers of the world. He showed us where he agreed and disagreed. It is the use of agreements and disagreements that highlighted the need for communication and understanding in order to evolve into a better version of what humanity can be. His work brings out philosophical questions we will spend lifetimes answering- but his contribution to the science world is profound for even our contemporary world as we balance the past with the present and learn to compromise with ourselves and nature.

Works Cited:

Bennett, Jonathan A., and Francesco Bello. “Similarities Between Invaders and Native Species: Moving Past Darwin’s Naturalization Conundrum.” Journal of Vegetation Science, vol. 30, no. 5, 2019, pp. 1027–34, https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12779.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man Scribd.com

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species Scribd.com

Grey, Kim, et al. “The Strength of Indigenous Australian Evaluators and Indigenous Evaluation: A Snapshot of ‘Ways of Knowing and Doing’ Reflecting on the 2014 Darwin Conference of the Australasian Evaluation Society.” New Directions for Evaluation, vol. 2018, no. 159, Wiley Subscription Services, Inc, 2018, pp. 79–95, https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20330.

Written June 25, 2022

What would it take for you to sell your soul? Money? Success? Fame? A culmination of the three? Would you risk driving yourself to the edge of madness for someone you know you should not trust? The story has been told before; a character gets tempted by a sinister being and ends up on the wrong end of the deal. It is a bit of a gender bent story of Eve being tempted by the snake, but with a twist. While this project began with the idea of strictly and exclusively comparing three versions of the Doctor Faustus story, the final idea is a discussion of the three and how Faustian elements have seeped into modern media network shows from the early and mid-2000’s through 2021. The versions to be discussed are written by Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Christopher Marlowe, and Thomas Mann.

Faustian themes in early 2000’s network media

Lost

From 2004 to 2010, the American Broadcast Company (ABC) aired the dramatic, science fiction, mystery series Lost. What started out as a story about plane crash survivors stranded on a mysterious island became a deeper, philosophical story about individual decisions and the long-term effects not only for the individual’s life, but the lives of those around them. Each person had their reasons for getting on the plane- from giving up a baby for adoption, to being an extradited fugitive. The series plays on humanity, character arcs, and their long and short-term decisions.

At the time of publishing, Sharon M. Kaye was an associate Philosophy professor at John Carroll University. In Lost and Philosophy, she introduces the show as a series that sinks its teeth into the audience and will not let go. This show was chosen for the discussion of Faustian themes for the metaphorical messages within the series. L.O.S.T. in Lost and Philosophy stands for Love, Origin, Survival, and Transformation. While certain parts of episodes play off like an anthology of short stories, the main story always comes back to the present. Professor Kaye asks the readers if they have ever been lost, and to remember how they felt when they were (Kaye 2010). That is what the island is- it is our lowest point. But it is also the point of transformation.

The idea of Faust, or Doctor Faustus is that a man willingly bargained with demon and sold his soul to the devil for decades of personal gain. Lost is Faustian by means of the characters who chose to remain on the island. The character named John Locke stayed to protect the island, the character Rose Nadler and her husband Bernard choose to stay on the island so she can live. Both Lost and the stories of Faustus have elements of dark magic. Where Faustus sold his soul in the beginning of the story and is granted his version of success, Rose, John, and the rest of the characters that choose to stay created the bargain from that point on. John was confined to a wheelchair before his trip to the island, now he can walk. Rose had terminal cancer, but the island has made so that she is cancer free. All the characters- despite their reasons, came to the same conclusion: the island giveth, and the island can taketh away.

Criminal Minds

A crime procedural show may seem surprising when discussing Faustian themes in popular culture, but the season seven episode “Snake Eyes” is about an Atlantic City in-debt gambler. In opposition of Faust, he is already married, but the gambling debt is causing a strain on the marriage. All he wants is to take his wife to Tahiti in hopes to rebuild the relationship. He loses a poker game with a large buy in, and, in a rage, he kills the man he borrowed money from. After the murder, he finds a stroke of luck and wins a jackpot- but he soon realizes that the luck is conditional- murder equals a lucky strike. The more murders he commits, the more “luck” he gets. Although after killing a random gas station attendant and not having the luck, he realized there is another caveat to his situation: if the person means more to him, (such as his best friend) the jackpot of luck granted becomes bigger.

Akin to Thomas Mann’s version of Faust, the character is driven into madness (sans syphilis) by his quest for fortune. After his wife says she wants a divorce his spiral deepens. No longer in the right frame of mind, he decided the only way to keep his luck is to kill the one he loves the most- his wife. He finds her at her sister’s house and takes them hostage. He also blames the sister for ruining his lucky streak. Though he is already “damned” for prison, he finally realizes what he has done and releases his wife. The episode differs from Doctor Faustus because he chooses suicide. His actions, however, damned him either way.

Supernatural

In 2005, The CW Television Network (formerly known as the WB) aired the supernatural mystery show Supernatural. It follows a pair of brothers, their friends, and acquaintances, as they save the world from beings with supernatural abilities. The Faustian elements are present throughout the series as characters- major and minor- are always making bargains with demons. The show depicts the condemned character being dragged away to Hell by invisible (to all but the condemned soul) creatures known as Hellhounds. The bodily death is violent if the soul resists. That idea by itself could be the difference between Goethe’s version and the versions written by Marlow and Mann.

The main characters had the bad habit of bartering with their own souls to save their family and friends. In an entertaining twist to the Faustian tale, the series manages to kill the personification of death twice. The original character of death was named as such, but the second one was a former reaper named Billie. Going forward, to make it easier for readers, they will be addressed so. The oldest brother, and one of the show’s protagonists, Dean seems to have made friends with Death. (Who knew cheap diner food was the key to befriending death?) The show tells us that Death was at one point a servant of Lucifer, so making a bargain with death is the same as bargaining with the devil. Death eventually escapes servitude but is still “Big Daddy Reaper” making his bargains death sentences if he wills them such. In the show, even as a villain, he is not truly a villain.

Supernatural makes a point to show all the recurring characters as neither fully good nor fully bad. Even the demon Crowley- “The King of Hell” sacrificed himself so the Winchesters could find their way back to their reality. The show’s introduction to Angels and God himself, is no exception. As the show progresses its heavenly storyline, the audience learns that like humans, we cannot trust half the angels on the planet or in Heaven. Castiel, even after all his indiscretions and internal misdirection, earned the trust of the Winchesters, who eventually considered the trench coated angel family. The point must be known that the angels are celestial beings that must be granted permission from the human vessel they wish to possess, before possessing them, which is different from the demons, as they can just hop into any body- living or dead.

The audience expects the demons to go against their word, but the angels are supposed to be “the good guys.” When Dean finally grants the Archangel Michael permission to use his vessel, he makes a bargain that he expected to be held: “If we do this, it’s a one time deal. I’m in charge. You’re the engine, but I’m behind the wheel. Understand?” (“Let the Good Times Roll”) after which the archangel nods in agreement. Once Dean finished the task, Michael goes against his word and forces Dean’s consciousness be a prisoner in his own body. Seems an oddly demonic thing to do for a heavenly being.

The final Faustian theme could be Faux Faustian. Giving your soul to God would imply to the devout that you are doing good for the world. Supernatural exercises the idea that God does not care; he is out to help his self. He will help you only if you are of use to him. The show portrays God as mostly selfish- even when his sister wanted more for the world, he locked her away and continued with his life, going as far as refusing to acknowledge her existence until he could not. Billie, the previously mentioned reaper-turned- Death often bargained the same way as God- and the way we expect the demons to- under false pretenses. By the time the brothers figure out the plans from either God or Death, it is too late to change the outcome.

Fantasy Island

The last show for discussion is a summary of the concept, and coverage of a single episode. In 2021 Fox Network aired the pilot episode of the contemporized adventure, fantasy, drama series Fantasy Island. The show tells stories about people that have a fantasy they wish to fulfill, and travel to an island that claims to do just that. The island has rules though- you must play the fantasy out as it is to be or learn the lesson within the fantasy. In the pilot episode, this couple, of retirement age, come to the island to live out the fantasy of being young and healthy once again. Ruby, like Rose from Lost, is terminal. Because the island is magic, she is not terminal. If she were to leave the island, she would remain terminal. She was at peace with her diagnosis and willing to accept her fate. However, the guardian of the island takes a liking to her and her selfless personality. Roarke offers the option to stay on the island and aid the other island goers. As she was going to die anyway, she and her husband agree that she should stay and help the island while he leaves. Because Ruby was terminal when she and Mel (her husband) booked the trip to a secret island that appears to you when you need it, it is acceptable that Mel goes back to their family with the news that she died peacefully on the island.

Though not as dark or grim as the original theme suggests, Fantasy Island shows its audience that a bargain, even one created for a selfless reason such being able to spend more time with a loved one for the sake of the loved one, does not always end the way you think. There is good in the bad and bad in the good- Life gives us shades of Gray and Black. It is our job to find our comfort shade.

The epic tale of Doctor Faustus

There is a copy of The Atlantic Monthly from 1858 that tells the legend of Doctor Faustus and the lesson it is meant to teach us. The entry claims that Faustus’ journey is decidedly “the stamp of the great moral revolution of the time.” The story goes on to say that two saints were tempted with possessions and worldly prosperity and fell deeper into sin than Faustus himself. But repentance saved them. (Atlantic Monthly). While this legend is based off Christopher Marlowe’s Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, can we assume that Johann Wolfgang van Goethe came across this legend and got inspired to write his own version and give Faustus a different fate?

An academic may question whether Faust truly deserved to go to heaven even though he sold his soul. Damned to Heaven says this-

One of the most contentious debates in literary history revolves around the ending to Goethe’s magnum opus, Faust. Some of the controversies have focused upon moral issues. Does Faust deserve to go to heaven? If so, is it because his striving accords with

God’s notion of human existence as described in the play’s prolog, his seeming regret at some of his deeds, or his larger plans at the end for the greater good of humanity? (Tantillo).

Where Goethe’s version shies away from the above legend is that it can be taken as a challenge to religion from science.

Faust [sic] ascension is meant to be read as an unhappy, tragic event. The tragedy, however, is not a moral one in the Christian sense. It is not that an evil, non-repentant man goes to heaven, thereby breaking a traditional, Christian moral codex. Instead, Goethe’s scientific principles replace a Christian moral code within the play, and Faust’s final end is tragic in that he is rendered incapable of further activity. In this sense, the play signals its ultra-modernity: a scientific, naturalistic understanding of the world replaces a religious one. Productive activity replaces moral rectitude as the goal of human striving (Tantillo).

The article goes on to justify Faust’s damnation as being condemned to an eternity of stasis. It is that stasis- inactivity- is more damning than eternal torment.

The previous paragraph brings forward another idea from the show Supernatural. If every soul that goes to heaven has ‘their own heaven’ it would make sense that Hell should also be based on individual torment. When considering heaven being broken up into the individual’s version of heaven without access to even a passed-on friend’s heaven, those of us that wish to, are left wondering how much of a blessing being sent to Heaven truly is. It is house arrest if you will. Going by this idea, Faust, as written by Goethe, was damned. Had he descended to Hell instead, he may have lived his afterlife in a constant state of doing and being which, he seems to prefer. A Meditation of Knowledge summarizes the legend as such-

The medieval legend, Doctor Faustus was a scholar who had come to the unhappy realization that his knowledge and pleasures were limited. To overcome the barriers that prevented him from enjoying the fruits so unjustly denied to him, Doctor Faustus struck a deal with the devil. Thus [sic] he obtained the vast powers he desired—but at a very dear price.

With that idea of the legend, we can assume that this version of Faustus, or Faust also floating about in nothingness is the ultimate punishment. The more in-depth the research of Goethe’s version of the story gets, the more irony it seems laced with. The bad in what we thought was good.

Works Cited:

Davis, Jeff, and Bruce Zimmerman. “Snake Eyes.” Criminal Minds, season 7, episode 13, CBS, Feb. 2012.

“The German Popular Legend of Doctor Faustus.” The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 2, no. 12, 1858.

“Hungry Christine/Mel Loves Ruby.” Fantasy Island, created by Elizabeth Craft, et al., season 1, episode 1, Fox, Aug. 2021.

Kaye, Sharon M. “Introduction.” Lost and Philosophy: The Island Has Its Reasons, Blackwell, Malden, Mass, 2010.

Lost. Created by J. J. Abrams, et al., ABC, 2004.

Mann, Thomas. Doctor Faustus. 2019, Kindle.com.

Marlowe, Christopher. Tragical History of Doctor Faustus from the Quarto of 1604. Pub One Info, Kindle.com.

Schuler, Douglas. “Doctor Faustus in the Twenty-First Century: A Meditation on Knowledge, Power, and Civic Intelligence.” AI & SOCIETY, vol. 28, no. 3, 2012, pp. 257–266., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-012-0411-5.

Supernatural. Created by Eric Kripke, The CW, 2005.

Tantillo, Astrida Orle. “Damned to Heaven: The Tragedy of Faust Revisited.” Monatshefte, vol. 99, no. 4, 2007, pp. 454–468., https://doi.org/10.1353/mon.2008.0024.

Turnau, Theodore A. “Inflecting the World: Popular Culture and the Perception of Evil.” The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 38, no. 2, 2004, pp. 384–396., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.2004.00118.x.

Von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. Faust Part I & II. Translated by A.S. Kline, Poetry in Translation.

Written September 20, 2021

O human love, thou spirit given,

On Earth of all we hope in Heaven!

Which fall’st into the souls like rain

Upon the siroc-wither’d plain,

And, failing in thy power to bless,

But leav’st in the heart of wilderness!

Idea! Which bindest life around

With music of so strange a sound

Hearts remote yet not asunder,

Distance and no space was seen

‘ Twixt this Turtle and his queen;

But in them it were a wonder.

So between them love did shine

That the Turtle saw his right

Flaming in the phoenix’ sight;

Either was the other’s mine.

And beauty of so wild a birth—

Farewell! For I have won the Earth!

            There are millenniums littered with love stories and poems, across the miles and around the world. Many authors have written love poems: Lord Byron, John Keats, Robert Browning, William Shakespeare. Even the master of macabre himself, Edgar Allan Poe, wrote about love. The latter two may be years and continents apart, but their devotion to a loved one speaks to audiences just the same- even if that loved one is majority fictitious. The English may not be the same, given the geography and years, but the poetic message is equal; and on occasion, they flow well together. For example, take the above segment- shoved into Edgar Allan Poe is a bit of William Shakespeare. This article discusses the shared ideas between two stylistic storytellers contemporarily lauded in their time, their figures of speech, stylistic devices, and cultural ideation while using Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren’s four presented questions for readers.

            Edgar Allan Poe is known for macabre works such as The Raven, The Pit and the Pendulum, and The Tell-Tale Heart. However, he is also known for writing about love. On the other side, William Shakespeare writes mostly about love- and love during war. Going forth, we will discuss shared themes between The Phoenix and the Turtle and segments from Tamerlane and Annabel Lee. Following Adler and van Doren’s How to Read a Book, we must ask what the book is about, what message the story is delivering, whether the book is factual- and if it is, question the significance of the information covered (70-71).

            As we know, the work discussed is fictional; therefore, we can be less stringent with the fourth question. However, we must keep in mind what Aristotle said about the plot of any story- whether lyrical, imaginative or fact: a plot is the life and soul of the story (275). Poetry is a particular type of literature that is not pleasant to most casual readers in the same way most moviegoers do not enjoy musicals. Perhaps the animosity for poetry comes from its loose definition, informal presentation, obscurity, and acceptance of varying styles (297). Adler and van Doren also discuss the polarizing thoughts that poetry only works if it is about love and other praises in a rhyming scheme.

            While the poems have rhyme, it is most notably their rhythm that stands at the forefront of their beauty. They are about love, but the overall message is bittersweet. As much love was given in life, so too was it remembered in death. So, we know the answer to Adler and van Doren’s first question: the stories, or in this instance, poems, are about love after love. There is no statute of limitations for devotion; it is immortal and evolutionary. Post-death devotion may shape a person’s life and shift their purpose. For The Phoenix and the Turtle, like Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers die together but are assumed to be older, and there is no poison.

            Annabel Lee and The Phoenix and the Turtle share subjectivity- they are essentially funeral dirges. However, the difference lies in point of view– Annabel Lee is told in the first person while The Phoenix and the Turtle is told in the third:

She was a child and I was a child.

In this kingdom by the sea,

But we loved with a love that was more than love

I and my Annabel Lee (Poe lines 7-10)

So between them love did shine,
That the turtle saw his right
Flaming in the phoenix’ sight;
Either was the other’s mine (Shakespeare lines 33-36).

Burton Pollin claims Edgar Allan Poe manifested his appreciation of William Shakespeare throughout his collective works. He goes as far as to say Poe considered Shakespeare ‘the best English writer of all ages and the greatest playwright of all time’ (157). There is some assumption that Edgar Allan Poe lauded William Shakespeare because his mother was an actress who participated in numerous Shakespearean plays, as Pollin shares:

There have been a few small studies of specific items of influence on Poe’s works aside from annotations in editions…  The only work developing the broad subject at all is The Histrionic Mr. Poe, by H. Bryllion Fagin, and his treatment is almost entirely of Poe’s comments on Shakespeare as a writer, not on the effect on Poe’s creative work. Fagin’s contribution is valuable, since he reminds us of the tremendous role of the drama in general in Poe’s life, and his extensive treatment of that topic has obviated the need for a full presentation here. Perhaps too much has been made of the indirect influence of Poe’s actor-parents, whom he knew directly only through the few relics left by Elizabeth Arnold Poe, his English-born mother (158).

Though Fagin, feels Poe commented on Shakespeare’s work without it affecting his own, our own experience tells that inspiration bleeds through whether we realize it or not. Edgar Allan Poe claims William Shakespeare is successful because he can identify with all humanity. The given example is Hamlet; Shakespeare projected himself into the character of Hamlet and forced the audience to see the truth of the story behind the fiction (159). Pollin goes on to say Poe is unashamed with his admittance to borrowing lines and ideas from Shakespeare’s texts. Pollin ends his review with the claim that Edgar Allan Poe enjoyed the “antique phrasing” and “poetic beauty” (162) of the language in which Shakespeare wrote.

            Speaking on borrowing ideas, Shakespeare Quarterly attests that William Shakespeare recycled themes. “If we consider the proximity in time of the composition of Hamlet and “The Phoenix and Turtle” it is not irrelevant to examine the grave-side scenes that are presented in the two works” (Bates 26). While Poe thinks of Shakespeare as endearing because of the style and symbolism- even at the weakest, other critics proclaim he [Shakespeare] handles his subject matter and characters in an ambiguous manner (27). This is where symbolism becomes paramount.

As we are not Shakespeare, we are only left with assumptions as to the true symbolism of the Phoenix and the turtle. There are, however, academics that have the explicit idea that Shakespeare took heed of the phoenix myth. The phoenix is said to symbolize rare and enchanting beauty and virtue, while they claim the turtle is symbolic of love and chastity (29). There is also the profoundly philosophical idea of resurrection; a phoenix lives its life to a fiery end, only to be reborn from the ashes left in its wake. This leaves hope for us that the lovers will meet again in the after or next life. Annabel Lee is a direct devotional with little symbolism but a lot of imagery. However, Tamerlane gives readers a similar symbolism we have come to expect and appreciate from William Shakespeare. The narrator is transcribing a letter, we later learn, to his father (or maybe the father) about a lost love. He sits on his throne considering the choices he has made over the years. “Of Earth may shrive me of the sin/ Unearthly pride hath revell’d in // You call it hope– that fire of fire! /It is but agony of desire (1-2,4-5). He chose power over love but may have regretted the choice.

O, she was worthy of all love!

Love—as infancy was mine—

‘Twas such an angel minds above

Might envy; her young heart the shrine

On which my every hope and thought

            Were incense—then a godly gift

       For they were childish—and upright—

Pure—as were young example taught:

            Why did I leave it, and adrift,

                     Trust the fire within, for light? (86-95)

Continuing the comparison of The Phoenix and the Turtle with Tamerlane, we bear witness to the devotion of the men:

Phoenix and the turtle fled

In mutual flame from hence.

So they lov’d as love in twain

Had the essence but in one;

Two distincts, division none: (Phoenix and Turtle 23-28)

 As we already know these two are dead, we can assume “two distincts, division none” is the scribe’s way of telling us they are two bodies, but one soul.

We grew in age—and love—together,

            Roaming the forest, and the wild;

My breast her shield in wintry weather—

And, the friendly sunshine smil’d,

And she would mark the opening skies,

I saw no heaven—but in her eyes. (95-101).

The Phoenix and the Turtle offers readers an end to the lover’s story, but Tamerlane leaves us disappointed yet curious. It makes us want more. Would it be farfetched to want the two pieces to supplement each other? Tamerlane could very well be the prequel to The Phoenix and the Turtle, assuming the pair did die of old age.

            Linguistically, Edgar Allan Poe is often more direct in his narrative than William Shakespeare. We know that dear Annabel froze to death overnight in her seaside kingdom because it is written simply- “The wind blew out of a cloud by night… Chilling/ and killing my Annabel Lee” (15, 26). However, Poe is creative with the close of the close of Annabel’s story-

For the moon never beams without bringing me dreams

Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

And the stars never rise, but I see the bright eyes

            Of the beautiful Annabel Lee;

And so, all the night-tide, I lay down by the side

Of my darling, my darling, my life and my bride

            In her sepulcher there by the sea—

            In her tomb by the sounding sea (34-14).

Which offers similarity to the Threnos at the end of Phoenix and the Turtle:

Beauty, truth, and rarity.

Grace in all simplicity,

Here enclos’d in cinders lie.

Death is now the phoenix’ nest;

And turtle’s loyal breast

To eternity doth rest.

………………………….

To this urn let loose repair

That are either true or fair;

For these dead birds sigh a prayer (53-58, 65-67).

Both poems tell the readers there is death and burial, but in this instance, William Shakespeare’s poem, from beginning to end, is cohesive with whole message. Annabel Lee has us wondering how long her love stayed by her side. Did he die there and the whole story is an assumed narrative written by someone who discovered the tomb? If that is the case, is her name even Annabel? Or is this a firsthand account of a man’s lost love after a period of mourning?

            Some suggest a number of Shakespeare’s works were implicitly religious, specifically The Phoenix and the Turtle with its burial ceremony. Tom Bishop wrote in Personal Fowl: “The Phoenix and the Turtle” and the Question of Character, “”The Phoenix and the Turtle” thus looks like an experiment in what might happen if certain religious vocabularies were taken as potential accounts of mundane selfhood” (72). Edward Wilson-Lee offers us this for his review of Shakespeare and the Truth of Love: The Mystery of “The Phoenix and Turtle”:

The resistance offered by the slippery blend of ambiguity and paradox in “The Phoenix and Turtle” to any simple decoding through political or religious contexts makes it an attractive text for the current moment in literary scholarship: Shakespeare’s riddle reminds us that language ceaselessly strives to express the personal, immaterial, and abstract, even if it cannot fully sever itself from involvement in worldly antagonisms (346).

This tells us that whether William Shakespeare agrees with the [political or religious] contexts or does not, he illuminates and challenges the ideals in his work. The Phoenix and The Turtle is a deliberate challenge that fought medieval philosophy. He likely chose this technique because of the intriguing curiosity to question human desire through paradox (347).

            Let us bounce back to Edgar Allan Poe, another poet and author that enjoyed challenging world views. For someone born during the era of romance, his constant theme of death surrounding is oddly comforting, most especially after the 20th century. Symbolism in Edgar Allan Poe’s Selected Short Stories tells us this:

At the beginning of the 20th century the world was affected by two world wars. Humanity had no place among people. They forgot to be romantic or dutiful toward others. People changed into self-centered persons whose communication was in a low level with society. In the meantime, the “absurdist’ movement appeared. The topics of their writings were like horror, suffering of life, death as an important part of life, lack of love, separation from their love and others which become Allan Poe’s writing style. Poe was known as the society’s mirror, mirror of their psyche (Language Studies 318).

Poe may have been deemed society’s mirror, but William Shakespeare taught us empathy. Without Shakespeare to teach us that lesson, we would not have the ability to identify Poe as being the mirror to our psyche. The Dean of the Pennoni Honors College gives us this nugget of wisdom “Empathy involves feeling beyond the self—feeling for others—and, at its most extreme, feeling for the Other: the individual whom we are superficially unable to identify with and feel for” (Cohen, Of Human Kindness excerpt). She implies that even if you hate a character- hate the way they make you feel, or hate yourself for sympathizing with them, you recognize that feeling and become a better person. We learned the same way Shakespeare learned- through diversity, experience, and hindsight.

            In conclusion, William Shakespeare and Edgar Allan Poe deserve the esteem they are given. They are a piece of history meant to play with our emotions and question our own place in the world. Both writers inherited ideas from their history, cultural theology and structure, and their station. Regarding the poem at the top, lines 9-16 are from The Phoenix and the Turtle. To reiterate Adler and van Doren’s questions the books are about love and death. The overall message is to illustrate devotion between you people. Whether the loves stories are true remains up to the imagination- but the ideas of pure devotion and unconditional, unfaltering, love give us hope in a world of cynicism and animosity- and that is the truth of the poems.

Works Cited

Adler, Mortimer Jerome, and Charles Lincoln Van Doren. How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading. TouchStone, 2014.

Bishop, Tom. “Personal Fowl: The Phoenix and the Turtle and the Question of Character.” Shakespeare Studies (Columbia), vol. 34, Associated University Presses, 2006, pp. 65–74.

Cohen, Paula M. “‘Of Human Kindness: What Shakespeare Teaches Us About Empathy.” Berfrois, 3 Aug. 2021, https://www.berfrois.com/2021/08/of-human-kindness-what-shakespeare-teaches-us-about-empathy-by-paula-marantz-cohen/.

Fagan, B. W. “James P. Bednarz. Shakespeare and the Truth of Love: The Mystery of ‘The Phoenix and Turtle.’ Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. x + 252 Pp. $80. ISBN: 978-0-230-31940-0.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, 2014, pp. 715–16, doi:10.1086/677514.

Jandaghi, Hatameh S., and Esmaeil Zohdi. “Symbolism in Edgar Allan Poe’s Selected Short Stories.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 8, no. 3, 2018, pp. 314-319. ProQuest, https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/scholarly-journals/symbolism-edgar-allan-poes-selected-short-stories/docview/2015722610/se-2?accountid=8289, doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.17507/tpls.0803.06.

Poe, Edgar Allan. Edgar Allan Poe: Complete Tales and Poems. Fall River Press, 2012.

Pollin, Burton R. “Shakespeare in the Works of Edgar Allan Poe.” Studies in the American Renaissance, Joel Myerson, 1985, pp. 157–86, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30227534.

Seltzer, Daniel. “‘Their Tragic Scene’: The Phoenix and Turtle and Shakespeare’s Love Tragedies.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 2, The Shakespeare Association of America, Inc, 1961, pp. 91–101, doi:10.2307/2867380.

Shakespeare, William. The Phoenix and the Turtle. Project Gutenberg. Wilson-Lee, Edward. “Shakespeare and the Truth of Love: The Mystery of ‘The Phoenix and Turtle.’ by James P. Bednarz (review).” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 3, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 346–47, doi:10.1353/shq.2015.0051.

Written August 17, 2019

            Along with having a Zygoma that would make a cheese knife jealous, Benedict Cumberbatch marvelously portrays the fictitious, and often socially blind, detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and is brought up as one of the many iterations of Sherlock Holmes. Whether you prefer the serious only-time-for-fun-when-I-drank-to-much, Cumberbatch and Freeman as Sherlock and Watson respectively, or favor Robert Downey Jr. and his Watson, Jude Law’s more comical approach, you have seen at least one version of the duo represented on-screen that is different from their literary counterparts; Which is anything but surprising, as it is a series of shorts that were written in the 1880s. Some laugh at the idea that fan-made fiction is an artifact of pop culture, but every story is inspired by another story. Even the original stories are often based loosely, stiffly, or satirically around witnessed events. Fanfiction is a study in humanity, and it’s social and historical developments. It also brings out creative thinking, individually and collectively.

What makes writing stories using Sir Arthur Doyle’s characters on a platform such as Wattpad (or Tumblr) less accepted than a BBC or Hollywood production? It does not matter where the source material comes from; the original idea will be spun into someone’s inspiration. The amount of research and work that goes into a good fanfiction should be commended as well, as writers can spend hours researching methods or mental incapacities. Then again, “good” is a subjective term, and you can often tell when something isn’t thoroughly researched. Even with films, tv shows, and big, commercially marketed books, there is an argument over whether the story is good or bad. While some consider fan-written fiction lower than kitsch, being a mimic is a skill. Yes, some of the characters are already established, but the writer still created an original character- or characters- and plot ideas, which means the story already has a new element added and they now must create interactions with the pre-established characters without disrespecting the constitution of the original characters or their creator. Whether the original creator would accept the fans version of the story matters little, as both versions are the author’s headcanon. As with any form of art, kitsch or not, it will enviably cause controversy.

Cumberbatch’s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is the updated inspiration presented by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. To be more relatable to a broader audience, Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty are younger, and electronically inclined but still clever enough to keep the “old-timers” interested. As times change, more ideas are allowed. The mental health of it all has developed as well; the more scientists learn about mental wellness and the human psyche, the more we can be algorithmic with how characters will or won’t react to different disorders. Sally Donovan calls Sherlock a freak, John Watson rolls with it, and Detective Lestrade sees Sherlock’s potential.

While there is little exploration as to why Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes is the way he is, looking at it from a psychological point of view, we can identify the adolescent issues that caused Cumberbatch’s Sherlock to have grown into the man he is. Nothing sums up young Sherlock’s development more than “the mind is inherently designed to understand life as a narrative.” (Borges, 1962) Even Sigmund Freud agrees that the psyche reshapes the conflicts revisited in narratives as a way to cope (Danesi, 2019). In Gatiss’ version, the Holmes brothers have a younger sister. She was closer to Sherlock’s age and began to feel ignored and jealous of Sherlock’s relationship with his best friend Victor, so she shoved Victor down a well and refused to tell them where he was. It is not until after she burned down the family home and is sent away that Sherlock rewrites his memories, forgetting his younger sister and making his childhood friend his childhood dog, (that never existed), Redbeard. At one-point, Mycroft tells Sherlock he is the man he is because of the memory of his sister.

The same events also lay the foundation for understanding Mycroft as well. The human psyche is a precious thing. Where Sherlock forgot his trauma, and his brain seems to have rewritten the way he reacts completely, Mycroft lives with the guilt of knowing what he did. He knew the Eurus was locked away and did not die in the house fire she set, as he told his family. Perhaps his internalization of emotions is how he lives with the guilt, like a self-inflicted punishment. The more you pay attention to Gatiss as Mycroft, the more you can tell he truly cares about his little brother, but he is afraid to look weak, so he instead acts like he does not and allows the hostility.

Inspirations grow with the times. More ideas are accepted, and technology is upgraded. While Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes occasionally falls back into archaic tendencies, he uses modern technology such as keeping a blog and texting. Downey Jr. offers us the closer to the original version with telegram communications. Setting aside the Abominable Bride episode which is meant to take place in 1895- it is likely that if the two versions were to switch places, they would not be able to do their job as efficiently, if at all. They wouldn’t have the technology they know how to use; one would have the advanced tech while the other would think waiting for, or writing, a telegram is tedious.

When studying Pop Culture, we must recognize that linguistics and logistics have changed to sate modern speech and society. “The game is afoot” becomes “the game is on.” Texting and calling someone on their mobile phone became the new telegram and messenger correspondence. Phrases like “brother mine” and “blud” are granted between the Holmes brothers to show affection, even if it is sarcastic. There is a scene between Detective Inspector Lestrade and John Watson where Lestrade tells John that Sherlock is a great man and that maybe one day he will be a good one. (Moffat et al. 2010) Which implies that Sherlock is good at what he does, but not the kindest person. It is this scene that tells the viewers that if Sherlock were less talented but compassionate, he would be a good person.

The good man speech is alluded to in the third episode in the fourth series when Sherlock shows genuine concern for his brother and even addresses Lestrade by his correct first name, indicating character growth. That humanizing character growth is what gives Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock an appeal that Robert Downey Jr.’s version does not have. It also suggests that Cumberbatch’s Sherlock pays attention but chooses to goad their disdain deliberately, thereby making moments like that more precious.

What was it Carl Jung said about mischief? “In every person, there exists a predilection for puerile mischief.” (Dansei, 2019) So In a way, this incarnation of Sherlock Holmes is The Hero and The Trickster. He also has more than one form of the shadow he is dealing with- the shadow within himself, and the shadow that takes the form of cases and enemies. When considering Sherlock, a “trickster,” we must look past the usual villainy that is partnered with the mythology. His trickery comes from his lack or denial of social skills. In the second episode of the first series, The Blind Banker, Sherlock allows himself to be contradicted to move his case along. He also tends to use physically harmless manipulation when a case is involved. In that same episode, there is a scene with Molly Hooper that illustrates this action. Though non-cannon to Sir Conan Doyle’s original work, she is a specialist registrar, (intern), in the morgue at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital that Sherlock flirts with Molly to gain access to bodies in the morgue without having to go through official channels. He recognizes her affection for him and manipulates that. However, he has never intentionally been cruel to his tolerable affiliates. That is where he differs from the usual trickster mythologies.

When Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat created their version of Sherlock Holmes, it was not your twelve-year-old-girl-who-doesn’t-understand-the-dimensions-of-the-characters, fantasy. They cared about the characters and enjoyed the adventures of the detective so much growing up they wanted to create their own version., and that admiration demanded the creation of a beautifully magical world that transcends the archaic and challenges the archetypes. There are even liberties taken with John’s wife, Mary. As she does not have a detailed back story in the original work, she is probably the most natural character to build around. She could have been a ‘villain’ or ‘the wise old Oak’ that helps John in ways Sherlock can’t. Which takes us back to the role’s women play throughout history and anthropology.

Pop Culture can be considered an experiment and expression of postmodern democracy, and as with any other viewpoint, it is not shared universally (Dansei, 2019). This democracy and societal growth are evident in the way BBC’s Sherlock portrays Mary Watson as a strong, independent, and charismatic woman who enjoys the eccentricities of Sherlock Holmes. She even understood why he faked his death. Since the beginning, she has been in his corner and pushed the relationship between John and Sherlock to stay the same. It was not until later in the series that we find out why she is so accommodating. Where Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes shows us Mary Watson as ‘John’s soon-to-be-wife, who happens to be a governess,’ Sherlock shoves the progression in our faces.

Historically, women have been submissive; to be seen and not heard. 2009’s Sherlock Holmes movies played by Robert Downey Jr, there is the implication that women are second-class citizens and not often taken seriously, which allows the deception between Ms. Adler and Mr. Holmes. While she was using him for information, he was using her for creature comforts. It was not proper to openly discuss sexuality or lack thereof. The audience doesn’t even know how or when Sherlock Holmes met Irene Adler in this ideation. However, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat challenge their audiences with a polar opposite character in their version of Irene Adler. She is an open and marketed Dominatrix, which accepts that women can take charge of their own life. In the wake of movements like #HeforShe and #Mettoo, Laura Pulver gives us the power to challenge inequality and harassment.

As previously mentioned, Molly Hooper is a character of merit in the BBC world of Sherlock Holmes. However, there is no place for her in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s works. The idea of women being in a power position like that was outside of comprehension in the 1880s. There is some subjugation with Molly accepting the way Sherlock treats her, but she is smart and influential and respected. Her education in the medical field illustrates how society has grown.  Women can study more than the necessities for being “Susie Homemaker.” Molly is Sherlock’s access point to bodies and labs in the hospital. Her allowing him access to the hospital helps him solve the crimes without breaking more laws himself by breaking into the morgue. He will never admit it, but she helps keep him human and occasionally inspires ideas with her medical perspective. It also helps that she is not “a complete idiot.” 

While the drug use seems to be a staple in the Sherlock Holmes lore, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock doesn’t drink eye drops to get high when he can’t find substance. He also isn’t trapping flies under a glass container and plucking the violin to observe their reactions. This version of Sherlock Holmes also portrays scientific advancement outside of women now contributing. It is mentioned in the show the Sherlock is a graduate chemist, and he is often seen appropriately using a microscope and slides when testing drops of blood and chemical compositions. There will always be new scientific methods and discoveries. The microscope and sterile slides are scientific improvements that were needed to help science move forward. The best science starts with a sterile environment. Sherlock even enjoys experiments with microwaves and refrigeration, implying that he is monitoring the viability of a subject in various temperatures, and the bacterial reactions as well. Though there were refrigeration units, the microwave experiments would not exist unless he was to first invent a unit to conduct and control microwaves.

Some of the experiments are used to solve current cases, while others are entertainment because he is bored. He is meticulous with his work and can even identify 140 different types of tobacco ash. Another thing that has grown with over the years is the knowledge of chemical reactions. The scientific advancements shown to audiences with any Sherlock Holmes variation seem to live with the memories of Sir Conan Doyle’s own growing up in the era of scientific change. Some, such as BBC’s version, highlight the advancements, some stay stagnant, but the impact is still there, whether it is a history in science lesson or scientific progress that inspires new ideas. Each version of Sherlock Holmes has a certain cleverness to it. New ideas in science, intelligent women, even annoyingly clever criminals. Every release is another piece of the puzzle, a collaborative art form that feeds on societal growth, innovation, and invention while somehow keeping our history present.

In general, Sherlock on the BBC gives more humanity and dimensions to the characters. Character building is a skill that many take for granted. World-building is two steps beyond that. But to take old-fashioned characters and throw them forward in history is taking that challenge and upping the ante. Both versions illustrate how much humankind has changed over the years, but also how we stayed the same. We’ve always been creative beings, and while Robert Downey Jr. was not afraid to don a dress and bonnet (which offered him anonymity as a woman), Cumberbatch takes a different approach to the “hide in plain sight” idea. Creative difference, but just as effective. Whether our creativity comes from something manmade or our own ingenuity, we never grow out of it, just develop it.

References:

Black, R. W. (2010). Online Fan Fiction and Critical Media Literacy. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 75–80. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ907122&site=eds-live&scope=site

Cherry, K. (2019, July 17). The 4 Major Jungian Archetypes. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-are-jungs-4-major-archetypes-2795439

Danesi, M. (2019). Popular culture: Introductory perspectives. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

“Eurus Holmes.” Baker Street Wiki, bakerstreet.fandom.com/wiki/Eurus_Holmes.

Gatiss, M., & Moffat, S. (Writers). (n.d.). A Study In Sherlock [Television broadcast]. In Mark Gatiss: A Study in Sherlock. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com/watch/80101903?trackId=13752289&tctx=0,0,8a6a509b-8f87-45ab-9582-0021a7b95874-104244256,

Gatiss, M., & Moffat, S. (Writers). (n.d.). Sherlock [Television series]. BBC.

Google Image search

Matier, D. (2019, March 09). The ‘Trickster’ Figure in Folklore and Mythology. Retrieved from

https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Trickster-Figure-in-Folklore-and-Mythology

Ritchie, Guy, director. Sherlock Holmes. Warner Bros. Entertainment, 2009, http://www.netflix.com/watch/70110558?trackId=13752289&tctx=0,1,f58aeb1fda4f6a0ed5779ee63c9bb1efaf37cfca:aeb106dc5321510704226141fb88125607f74050,

Samutina, N. (2016). Fanfiction as world-building: transformative reception in crossover writing. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 30(4), 433–450. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1080/10304312.2016.1141863

Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 547–549. (2018) https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/1077699018763315

“Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”

“Any idiot can face a crisis; it’s this day-to-day living that wears you out.”