In both Frankenstein and Skylark the material incarnation of ugliness dramas a cardinal function in the narrative. Esterhazy argued that the inordinate ugliness manifested in Skylarks ‘ human signifier is “ non a symbol ” ( xv ) , but the platitude of mundane life ; the mundane order “ of our lives that are so stiff ” ( xv ) . However, whilst undeniably Kosztolanyi ‘s captivation with “ the trifle of mundane life ” ( Kiade 371 ) plays a critical function in the novel, it is questionable whether Skylark ‘s ugliness itself is that which is fiddling. Her ugliness appears to be the incarnation of a profound hurting ; an internal aching. Although it is through Skylark that the mundane has its beginning in the novel, it is instead as a response to the overbearing hurting of her ugliness. A life of platitude is chosen as the dampening medical specialty employed to dull the hurting of world. In blunt contrast, the ugliness Mary Shelley conjures up in Frankenstein is founded in pandemonium. The abhorrent visual aspect of Frankenstein ‘s creative activity is founded in a deficiency of coherency, as its really being escapes definition or classification: “ the term “ ugly ” emerges at the precise point when the speech production topic is about to be consumed in incoherency ” ( Gigante 569 ) . In differentiation from the surplus of order in Skylark ‘s humanised ugliness, the monster ‘s ugliness arises from the disjunctures inherent in his ambivalent being. The “ catastroph [ Intelligence Community ] ” ( Shelley 39 ) result of Victor ‘s Frankenstein ‘s enterprise, to “ creat [ vitamin E ] a human ” ( Shelley 35 ) , is a being who is neither human nor carnal. It is this supernatural component which links the novel with the Gothic motion in literature. This equivocation of categorization, as the being seems to expose analogues with humanity yet besides resists this definition, lies at the root of the animal ‘s hideousness.
Yet whilst Skylark ‘s ugliness is explicitly human, the abhorrent visual aspect of Victor Frankenstein ‘s creative activity is caused by the juxtaposing elements of that which is human and that which is other. The monster seems to possess “ the form of a adult male ” ( Shelley 12 ) whilst at the same time being of a really different nature ; for its ‘ “ malformation [ aˆ¦ renders it ] more horrid than [ aˆ¦ ] humanity ” ( 56 ) . Whilst Frankenstein ‘s purpose was to convey to life “ a human being ” ( Shelley 35 ) , the animal he is faced with is, in fact, a “ suffering monster ” ( 39 ) . However, the hideousness of the animal is non found in its distinctness but the “ horrid contrast ” ( Shelley 39 ) between the characteristics which point to his affinity with humanity and those which suggest his nonnatural nature. It is the differentiation between “ his dentition of a pearly whiteness ” ( Shelley 39 ) and his “ dried-up skin color ” ( 39 ) which causes Frankenstein to shrivel away in “ disgust ” ( 39 ) . The “ luxurian [ T ] ” ( Shelley 39 ) , human facets of his visual aspect merely render the monstrous parts more abhorrent. As Sherwin asserts “ the parts [ Frankenstein ] chooses are beautiful but they are monstrous in concurrence – or, instead, [ … ] in their absolute disjuncture ” ( 896 ) . The animal is “ horrid ” ( Shelley 40 ) because of the “ co-presence of the normative, to the full formed [ … ] and the unnatural, unformed, ” ( Harpham 11 ) . He is horrid because his aspect combines that which is monstrous and that which is human as his “ signifier is a foul type of [ ours ] ” ( Shelley 105 ) ; at one time human and other. It is this epistemic confusion which provokes reactions of “ horror and alarm [ in those aˆ¦ ] visual perception ” ( Shelley 110 ) it. Therefore he may be understood as grotesque ; “ for the ‘grotesque ‘ is another word for a non-thing ” ( Harpham 3-4 ) . The grotesque is “ an ambivalent being belonging to no existent category of objects ” ( Harpham 5 ) .
In Frankenstein, all who face the monster are unfailingly filled with repulsive force as they behold “ his abominable and nauseating individual ” ( Shelley 105 ) , yet Skylark trades with her ain ugliness by quashing and dampening her emotions. Her intense effusion of feeling is killed in the “ decease of hurting ” ( Kosztolanyi 14 ) as she chooses non to show but to hide her interior torture ; “ indifference ” ( 14 ) becomes her “ self-defense ” ( 15 ) . Hence as she greets her Uncle Bela on the station platform, she one time once more “ smile [ s ] ” ( Kosztolanyi 16 ) , and therefore nowadayss him with an outside that is absent of existent emotions. The armor of apathy with which Skylark apparels herself is a life of the mundane. However, the mundane is conceptualized as more than merely that which is “ ordinary, platitude aˆ¦ missing involvement or exhilaration ” ( “ Mundane ” . Def. 1c. ) . A life consumed by platitude ; is a life in which the humdrum of the mundane ebbs off at the ability to experience. As Skylark chooses to stamp down the well of emotions within her and keep back her true ego, she allows the pettiness, humdrum and mundaneness of day-to-day life to devour the life within her.
Consequently, Skylark ‘s presence in the novel is characterised by a feeling of “ nothingness ” ( Esterhazy xv ) : an absence. It is important that Skylark ‘s characteristic airs is that in which “ merely her black hair could be seen, projecting [ aˆ¦ ] a heavy shadow on about two-thirds of her face ” ( Kosztolanyi 5 ) . She adopts this place due to her consciousness of her ain ugliness. But it denotes something more than this as it forms a barrier between herself and the outer universe. Her hair forms a head covering of “ heavy shadow ” ( Kosztolanyi 5 ) , a shield, over her face and accordingly over her hurting. Whilst being physically at that place, Skylark ‘s emotions and psyche are withdrawn. Therefore in the group exposure although she is materially present she is still, in some manner, “ absent ” ( Kosztolanyi 219 ) in some manner. She is “ like a cadaver [ in ] a bier ” ( Kosztolanyi 220 ) . Although physically alive, Skylark ‘s emotions have been deadened as internal life has ceased. There is a sense in which she is “ dead ” ( Kosztolanyi 35 ) for she no longer lives: she simply exists. Her presence indicates an absence of passion and of life, as they are deadened by the mundane. Thus platitude is conceived as an active power which dulls the ability to sense and to experience, as it destroys the verve which denotes life.
The differing nature of the ugliness which afflicts the two supporters defines the divergency in their personal reactions to it. Whilst Skylark ‘s reaction to her ain ugliness is one of suppression, the monster in Frankenstein responds in repulsion and obfuscation as he can non look to rectify his inside and exterior ego. It is as he realises that, despite the “ emotions ” ( Shelley 85 ) which align him with humanity, “ [ he is ] in fact [ a ] monster ” ( 90 ) that he is “ panicky ” ( 90 ) by his ain ugliness. His confusion and repulsive force at his visual aspect are founded in the inquiries: “ what did this mean? Who was I? Whence did I come? What was my finish? ” ( Shelley 104 ) . As the ego he sees reflected back at him conflicts with his anterior cognition of his “ good temperaments ” , and capacity for love and benevolence ( Shelley 109 ) , he is brought to inquiry: “ was I so a monster [ aˆ¦ ] ? ” ( 96 ) . He is bewildered as he asks “ who ” ( Shelley 104 ) or “ what ” ( 104 ) he is. The “ bitterest esthesiss of despondency and chagrin ” ( Shelley 90 ) do non simply originate from his newfound consciousness of his horrid nature but from the divergency between the ‘I ‘ he is familiar with, whose desire is to love and go virtuous, with the “ abhorrent monster ” ( 109 ) that stares back at him. His “ disgust ” ( Shelley 105 ) is provoked as that which is horrid and that which is familiar base alongside each other to organize ‘I ‘ . It is this “ co-presence ” ( Harpham 11 ) which holds the key to understanding the ugliness of Shelley ‘s monster. It is “ monstrous non because [ it is… ] horrid [ … ] but because, in the thick of an overpowering feeling of monstrousness there is much we can acknowledge, much corrupted or shuffled acquaintance ” ( Harpham 5 ) .
Within Frankenstein this “ acquaintance ” ( Harpham 5 ) takes on a multiplicity of significances. For the bulk of unfortunate characters who encounter the horrid being this “ acquaintance ” ( Harpham 5 ) is limited to the acknowledgment of something human amongst the physical properties of the monster. Walton, for case, hears the being ‘s voice as “ a human voice, [ yet ] hoarser ” ( Shelley 186 ) . However, the reader understands this “ acquaintance ” ( Harpham 5 ) both in this broader sense, as the animal is seen as a deformed resemblance of humanity, but besides in a more specific sense as the monster seems to repeat Frankenstein. Therefore when Frankenstein describes the “ good known signifier ” ( Shelley 176 ) of the animal ; he alludes non merely to his cognition of the being he created, but besides to the extent which he sees himself reflected in the animal. The similarities shared by Victor Frankenstein and his creative activity have been to a great extent commented upon. Hence in one aggregation of essays on the novel a critic felt justified in asserting: “ So permeant has the acknowledgment that Frankenstein and the monster are two facets of the same being that the authors in this volume assume instead than reason it ” ( Levine qtd. in Sherwin 889 ) .
However, such statements have come under onslaught as others have recognised that the animal is “ in fact [ … ] an independent agent, non a psychic bureau ” ( Sherwin 892 ) . The monster does undeniably move apart from Frankenstein, doing determination entirely. Thus it seems that his creative activity should non be understood as a mutual ego, but a device which Shelley uses in order that Frankenstein may see facets of himself reflected in an unknown and monstrous context. This clearly verifies Spooner ‘s theory that “ the rise of the two-base hit is clearly due to the emergent impression of the person in modernness ” ( 293 ) . Whilst being a separate “ independent agent ” ( Sherwin 892 ) , the animal besides serves as a deformed mirror in which Frankenstein sees his ain contemplation: the usage of mirroring can therefore be seen to research the construct of the ego. Whilst the two-base hit has been a “ often celebrated characteristic of Gothic fiction ” ( Spooner 292 ) , Shelley uses it here to research Frankenstein ‘s agonised esthesia. She therefore draws on a trait of Romantic literature: the anguished male psyche, possibly depicted most famously within Goethe ‘s The Sorrows of Young Werther.
One analogue which can be drawn between Frankenstein and the nameless monster is the sense in which the reader perceives them both as fallen. Victor is momently raised, in the eyes of the reader, to an elevated tallness through his idyllic and loving childhood: “ no young person could hold passed more merrily than mine ” ( Shelley 21 ) . He is presented to us by Robert Walton as a one time “ glorious animal ” who now feels the “ illustriousness of his autumn ” ( Shelley 179 ) . It is through the shutting subdivision of epistolatory signifier that the reader catches glances of the “ high fate which [ Frankenstein had ] seemed ” ( Shelley 180 ) fated to carry through. Yet, he is degraded through his creative activity of a monster ; a offense of “ aspiration ” ( Shelley 186 ) in which he attempts to play God. In his enterprises to make a human, he perturbs “ with profane fingers, the secrets of the human frame ” ( Shelley 36 ) . He sinfully attempts to exceed nature ; as he “ aspires to go greater than his nature will let ” ( Shelley 35 ) . Thus his actions mirror that of Lucifer in Genesis as he acts like “ an archangel who aspired to omnipotence ” ( Shelley 180 ) . Frankenstein ‘s evildoing is his “ supremely atrocious aˆ¦ human enterprise to mock the colossal mechanism of the Creator of the universe ” ( Shelley qtd. in Butler xxi ) . Therefore he is rendered “ a wretch ” ( Shelley 68 ) in a “ province of debasement ” ( 180 ) .
Similarly, the reader learns of the monster ‘s possible for good as he is given the chance, in the Centre of the novel, to warrant his actions. Initially after he has educated himself through the select literature which he managed to get, the monster feels “ the greatest ardor for virtuousness rise within [ him ] , and abomination for frailty ” ( Shelley 104 ) . He acts in the chase of love, non devastation, as he, for case, approaches the cottage dwellers in the hope that they “ would feel for [ him ] ” ( Shelley 118 ) . It is merely after he is spurned that he tastes acrimonious “ retribution ” ( Shelley 116 ) : “ I am malicious because I am suffering ; am I non shunned and hated by all world? ” ( 119 ) . Despite, the bias he is faced with, he is neither inherently evil nor a senseless slayer, he is, like Frankenstein, a “ rational animal ” ( Shelley 185 ) degraded both through the fortunes he finds himself in and his ain actions. It is important that his narration is embedded at the novel ‘s nucleus, reflecting both the narrative of Victor ‘s Frankenstein and possibly besides proposing a destiny, which under different fortunes, may besides hold belonged to Robert Walton. He provides yet another analogue of Frankenstein, driven by curiousness about the building of the being. However, unlike Frankenstein, he is reproached for his defect: “ Are you huffy [ … ] Would you besides create for yourself and the universe a amuck enemy? ” ( Shelley 178 ) .
Frankenstein ‘s attitude towards his creative activity is one marked by absolute repugnance, therefore Gigante asserts that the ugliness of Frankenstein ‘s creative activity is “ the beastly fact of the animal himself ” ( Gigante 570 ) . For Gigante, he becomes a barrier to the projection of our phantasies as his ‘ ” shrivelled skin color ” radically disrupts any attempt to promote him above the “ foul mass ” of his flesh ‘ ( Gigante 573 ) . For he lacks smoothness, labelled by Burke a important constituent of beauty ; as “ smooth tegument [ allows… ] the topic to project his or her phantasy of the transcendent human being inside the object of perceptual experience ” ( Gigante 573 ) . However, for Frankenstein, it is non the inability to project his ideal human onto the “ deformations ” ( Shelley 119 ) of the monster ‘s face, which repels him, so much as the image of himself he sees reflected in the horrid being. Therefore as he tells Walton of the monster ‘s “ thirst for retribution ” ( Shelley 185 ) we hear echos of his confession of his ain “ tantrum of… lunacy ” ( 185 ) . Merely as the animal is “ panicky, [ when he ] positions himself in a crystalline pool ” ( Shelley 90 ) , so Frankenstein is sickened as he sees his ain warped contemplation in this “ monster ” ( 90 ) . He sees something of himself mirrored in this being, despite its “ spiritual ugliness ” ( Shelley 76 ) ; it is this which causes his ain repulsive force.
After the creative activity of the “ demonical cadaver ” ( Shelley 40 ) , Frankenstein ‘s bloodcurdling dreams near with an image of his “ jaws unfastened [ ing ] ” ( 40 ) . The image signifies at the same time Frankenstein ‘s horror as his hungriness for the “ skill of cognition ” ( Shelley 35 ) ends in “ calamity ” ( 40 ) and besides features as a predicting mark of the devastation the animal will harvest. As the narrative progresses the monster ‘s oral cavity becomes a monstrous mention to the “ agape oral cavity of Satan ” ( Bahktin 329 ) and the “ jaws of Hell ” ( 329 ) . It is repeatedly portrayed as a symbol of his thirst for desolation ; the oral cavity is therefore used to mean “ the subject of decease, of get downing down ” ( Bahktin 329 ) . The monster becomes non merely the merchandise of Frankenstein ‘s unsafe desire for cognition but a contemplation of his quenchless hungriness itself ; as Frankenstein ‘s sees his “ insatiate passion ” ( Shelley 188 ) for cognition reflected in the monster ‘s appetency for “ retaliation ” ( 140 ) . Frankenstein ‘s defect is irrevocably linked with that of his monster as
an image of his ain hungriness foretells the animal ‘s craze. Significantly, before the animal begins his violent disorder of decease, it is Frankenstein who is portrayed “ sat on the shore fulfilling [ his ] appetency, which had become famished ” ( Shelley 142 ) . Thus the animal ‘s desire for desolation and agony signifiers an reverberation of Frankenstein ‘s ain frailty: his “ appetite ” ( Shelley 142 ) . The monster ‘s inordinate “ thirst for retribution ” ( Shelley 188 ) is a contemplation of Frankenstein ‘s ain “ firing thirst ” ( 144 ) .
Such comparings do non, nevertheless, provide grounds of Frankenstein ‘s ain consciousness of the mirror the animal holds up to him. Alternatively his consciousness of the similarities which unite him with his creative activity are made clear through the linguistic communication he uses. Whilst in Frankenstein ‘s histories of the monster ‘s destructive Acts of the Apostless he dwells on the animal ‘s oral cavity, in the monster ‘s narrative of the slaying of William he repeatedly alludes to his ain eyes: “ I gazed ” ; “ I perceived ” ; “ I fixed my eyes ” ( Shelley 117, 117, 118 ) . The monster focuses on the unfairness he felt as he “ remembered that [ he ] was everlastingly deprived of the delectations that such beautiful animals could confer ” ( Shelley 117 ) . Yet Frankenstein centres on the animal ‘s grim lecherousness for decease. He is fixated on the monster ‘s hungriness as it echoes his ain fatal defect ; the “ mindless wonder ” ( Shelley 140 ) which drove him. For case, after he refuses to make a female comrade for the monster and therefore the animal ‘s desire for devastation is stirred, he notes that the monster ‘s choler is marked by the “ gnash [ ing ] of dentitions ” ( Shelley 140 ) ; a scriptural image associated with snake pit and destruction. Furthermore, subsequent to the slaying of Elizabeth, the monster ‘s oral cavity is portrayed by Frankenstein as he describes the “ smile ” ( Shelley 166 ) on the animal ‘s face as “ he seemed to scoff ” ( 166 ) . As his creative activity begs for compassion, it is as “ [ he sees ] the foul mass that [ … ] talked ” that his “ bosom sickened ” ( Shelley 121 ) . It is as his regard is drawn to the animals mouth, a deformed contemplation of his ain hungriness for cognition, that his “ feelings [ are ] altered ” ( Shelley 121 ) ; for he perceives his ain frailty before him within the monstrous context of this “ foul mass ” ( 121 ) . He is filled with “ horror ” ( Shelley 121 ) as this “ figure [ so ] horridly deformed and loathsome ” ( Shelley 96 ) resonates with acquaintance ; as the monster is at one time both “ spiritual ” ( 76 ) and “ good known ” ( 176 ) .
In the same manner, for Akos in Skylark, it is the visual aspect of that which is familiar amongst the “ terribly ugly ” ( Kosztolanyi 68 ) which causes him pain ; as he sees his ain “ aged ” ( 216 ) ego reflected in Skylark. The sunshine which tells of “ the age ” ( Kosztolanyi 214 ) of his girl, triggers the eventual realization of his ain delicate province as he “ eventually [ sees ] himself as he truly [ is ] ” ( 152 ) , going aware of his “ old castanetss ” ( 152 ) . Thus any alteration in Skylark ‘s “ visual aspect ” ( Kosztolanyi 8 ) renders him “ suffering ” ( 8 ) , as it brings with it a new consciousness of his girl ‘s ugliness. He is one time once more faced with an reverberation of himself in her hideousness as he perceives in his ain similitude, “ his ain flesh and blood ” ( Kosztolanyi 10 ) , everything he “ detests ” ( 167 ) . Thus Akos and Skylark ‘s female parent choose, merely as Skylark does, to quash the hurting they feel in the face of their ain girl ‘s unsightly visual aspect. Akos intentionally avoids walking “ beside her ” ( Kosztolanyi 9 ) , standing “ a twosome of gaits in front ” ( 9 ) so that he can hedge the truth of her ugliness for a few more cherished minutes. They excessively embrace a life of the mundane.
Yet, merely as the mundane has devoured the life within Skylark, it threatens to steep the life within her parents as their fiddling being becomes a numbing repeat founded in “ day-to-day ” ( Kosztolanyi 7 ) modus operandi. The absence of bangs and pleasance in their lives, causes Skylark ‘s male parent, Akos, to experience more “ alive [ aˆ¦ ] in the yesteryear ” ( Kosztolanyi 23 ) than the present. However, it is important that a big proportion of the novel takes topographic point whilst Skylark is absent. Therefore leting the dampening “ force ” ( Kosztolanyi 14 ) of the mundane to loosen its clasp on her parents: “ Her absence relieves them of the load of day-to-day modus operandi ” ( Czigany 414 ) . As they wake for the first clip whilst she is gone “ they [ aˆ¦ ] feel their [ ain ] emptiness ” ( Kosztolanyi 41 ) . A deep hungriness begins to stir within them and they become cognizant that they are “ ravenous ” ( Kosztolanyi 41 ) . But as they venture outside the confines of their narrow universe, it becomes evident that their hungriness is more than merely a demand for the nourishment key to endurance ; it is a deep frozen desire to populate in surplus of mere twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours being. Their senses begin to hunger stimulation one time once more. So they begin to set in more visible radiation bulbs, “ inundation [ ing ] ” ( Kosztolanyi 55 ) their dull room with “ a warm even light ” ( 55 ) . What had been “ semi-darkness ” ( Kosztolanyi 56 ) becomes a bright, “ warm ” ( 55 ) environment as their antecedently deadened senses are awakened one time more. Akos ‘ imaginativeness splashs as he conceives the esthesiss of “ smell tickl [ ing ] the olfactory organ while [ … ] gustatory sensation flatters the lingua ” ( Kosztolanyi 61 ) . He desires inordinate indulgence hence the linguistic communication is full of alliterative, slow, soft sounds: “ encephalons in brown butter ” ( Kosztolanyi 62 ) . “ Something ha [ s ] stirred inside ” ( Kosztolanyi 63 ) Akos ; his sensualness has become witting and he yearns for indulgence. Hence as he dreams of “ rich, reddish gulyas soup with hot sweet pepper ” ( Kosztolanyi 63 ) , his imaginings are crammed with an copiousness of animal imagination. The reader envisages the graphic “ reddish ” ( Kosztolanyi 63 ) soup, tastes the “ light and creamy ” ( 63 ) texture of cheeses and smells the “ steaming murphies ” ( 63 ) .
Yet whilst Akos desires the “ hot ” spicy spirit of “ paprika, he informs us that Skylark “ ne’er uses paprika [ aˆ¦ ] or any other spices ” ( Kosztolanyi 61 ) in her cookery. Skylark, as the beginning of the mundane, does non function nutrient which arouses the senses but the nutrient necessary for endurance ; her cookery is casual and “ economical ” ( Kosztolanyi 61 ) . Being with Skylark was a life in which “ void ” ( Esterhazy xv ) reigned and accordingly platitude suppressed and dulled their sensualness. In blunt contrast, whilst Skylark is off, her parents bask a whirlwind of animal indulgence as they feel “ long disregarded esthesiss ” ( Kosztolanyi 72 ) one time once more ; the inordinate sensualness breathes life into their “ two dried-up organic structures ” ( 168 ) as even the Barbers store becomes a universe of phenomena. Akos is reanimated as his “ face [ is ] smeared midst with whipped pick ” ( Kosztolanyi 77 ) hence he reacts with exhilaration “ like ” that of “ a small male child treated to bars at a patisserie ” ( 77 ) .
Skylark ‘s safe reaching place marks a return to their old half life of deadened sensualness: a life in which the fiddling reigns. Therefore as Akos awaits his daugher ‘s train he is one time more “ gaunt, sickly and pale, merely as he had been when his sister had departed ” ( Kosztolanyi 186 ) . “ The rosy, priestly glow ” ( Kosztolanyi 131 ) he had begun to “ exudate ” ( 131 ) has vanished along with his newfound vivacity. The new life of lushness which has blossomed within Skylark ‘s parents, over the spring and summer, must decease one time once more as Skylark ‘s arrival brings with it the reaching of fall and accordingly the terminal of summer ; “ when she arrives, humdrum responsibility besides returns to their lives ” ( Czigany 314 ) . Kosztolanyi ‘s simplistic secret plan therefore places accent upon the necessary repression of the sensualness which had reawakened in her parents, as even the reaching of fall is “ without stateliness, catastrophe or ceremonial ; without rugs of aureate foliages ” ( Kosztolanyi 208 ) . Merely as being with Skylark is a life in which the senses are dulled, so the fall is one without the profusion of coloring material or the crispness of foliages.
Skylark ‘s presence brings with it the dampening weight of the mundane. Thus Esterhazy ‘s reading of the novel seem accurate on the surface, as it identifies Skylark ‘s ugliness with all that is commonplace ; “ it is “ our lives that are [ … ] so predictable, ” ( XV ) . However, the trivial is introduced non through her ugliness itself but as a reaction to it. Skylark ‘s ugliness is non the pettiness of life but an embodiment of her hurting as her animalism reflects her ain internal province, instead than the corporate mundane of our lives. Both Skylark and her parents choose to react to the acrimonious sting of world ; by taking to blunt their torment through a life in which esthesiss are blurred and in which sensualness is repressed non indulged. For Akos, it is “ merely in the inundation of sunshine ” that his hurting is reawakened as he realises that his girl has become “ shriveled and old ” ( Kosztolanyi 8 ) . The perforating beams of the Sun stir both his senses and his torment, he therefore lives in a province of darkness in which “ he [ ca n’t ] see excessively good ” ( Kosztolanyi 55 ) in order that he might hold the stirrings of both. Therefore as Skylark returns he allows “ that soft but unerasable ashen haze [ to… ] descend over her tegument ” ( Kosztolanyi 215 ) , one time once more, so that his hurting may be dulled. In this deadened province he does non experience sorrow but a sense of “ content [ ment ] ” ( Kosztolanyi 221 ) .
In both Frankenstein and Skylark, the writers have to some grade inverted the norm as they have used the bodily exterior as a contemplation of all that the reader would anticipate to stay interior. Whereas it is customary for facial look to be used to dissemble and hide hurting and angst, Skylark ‘s heartache is manifested in her organic structure, her ugliness, and the profound inquiries of ego, which Frankenstein ‘s animal is bewildered by, are reflected in the pandemonium of his animalism. The organic structure is used to mean, non hide, the supporter ‘s intimate emotions to the reader. Thus they are efficaciously turned ‘inside out ‘ . Their ugliness is used as a vehicle to show their internal convulsion as they become, in different ways, a physical representation of a psyche in torture.
Additionally, their horrid visual aspects serve as mirrors to those around them, frequently uncovering to the spectator more about themselves than the one whom they behold. It is this which provokes reactions of repulsive force in Akos and Frankenstein as, much to their desperation, they see facets of themselves echoed amongst the ugliness they so despise. As the presence of the unsightly organic structure analogues or echoes other characters it becomes an geographic expedition of the impression of ego. The unattractive signifiers of Skylark and the being in Frankenstein reflect that which is perceived to be negative within humanity ; Akos sees his ain aged ego reflected in Skylark along with his hurting and solitariness, whilst Frankenstein perceives his ain defect, the unsafe thrust for cognition, echoed in his creative activity ‘s hungriness for destruction. However, the employment of ugliness in the two novels deviates here.
Skylark ‘s unattractive and revolting surface visual aspect becomes a mirror to that which is inevitable ; the patterned advance of each person towards old age and decease: “ The lone thing I have to state [ … ] is that I am deceasing ” ( Kosztolanyi qtd. in Esterhazy xiv ) . Thus Akos dreams of his girl ‘s “ dea [ th ] ” ( Kosztolanyi 35 ) as she represents to him the certainty of his destiny. However, the mirror Frankenstein ‘s monster holds to society is of a different sort as he reflects all that is evil within society ( Dolar 18 ) . Victor Frankenstein is sickened by the animal as he serves merely as a reminder or indicant of all that is evil within him ; rousing an consciousness of his ain defects. Thus “ his freak is the freak of civilization ” ( Dolar 18 ) . It is this divergency which explains the differing nature of the ugliness embodied by Shelley ‘s monster and Kosztolanyi ‘s human supporter. The monstrous animal in Frankenstein is detestable as his helter-skelter signifier is both human yet other. He reflects the corruptness infecting human society whilst besides being of an unknown “ nature ” ( Shelley 56 ) . On the other manus, Skylark ‘s ugliness, ordered and humanised, becomes symbolic of the ineluctable destiny of humanity every bit good as the solitariness we can non look to relieve. The overly horrid, or ugly, organic structure is therefore used to mean a flustered internal province every bit good every bit working as a contemplation of the wickedness and gradual decay of each member of humanity.