burning passion and restrained disdain

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

The end of the world has been on everyone's mind at least once. I know it was definitely trending during winter of last year, the days leading up to December 21st. The end of days is a topic that's always been highly debated, whether it's about its time of occurrence or actual existence.

From a literal direction, Robert Frost is speaking of the world's destruction. Will the world burn or freeze? He acknowledges the destructive capabilities of both fire and ice, that either one would sufficiently fulfill the task of ending the world. However, in addition to their cataclysmic characteristics, he also wrote of their association with "desire" and "hate." Fire and ice, therefore, could be interpreted as "passion" and "loathing."

Passion has often been described as "burning," a quality that could also be associated with fire. When one has a burning passion for something, their yearning is so intent and raw that they'll go to any means to fulfill their want. The individual is consumed by this wish, just as a blazing fire consumes everything in its path. Usually the individual who is passionate is highly expressive of his or her passion, whether it be verbally or visually. The idea of passion revolves around the concept of being able to share that passion to others. Therefore, the passion, or fire, is able to be acknowledged and spread to many people at a time.

Ice can be considered of a preserving nature, freezing life and inhibiting growth. This restraint can be similar to hate, which is often times bottled up within an individual. Just as passion consumes an individual, loathing limits an individual. If someone's described as cold-hearted, they're said to lack affection and only display emotions of hate. Just as their "heart" is cold, as is their nature; their attitudes of hate are piercing and biting, similar to the qualities of ice. 

An example of the downfalls that come from these qualities could be from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Passion could be found in Victor Frankenstein, the creator who eventually gets caught up and consumed with the idea of glory and fame. Loathing could be found in Frankenstein's creation, who lived the entirety of his life without love and care. Both characters met their demise as a result of these characteristics, neither of them really obtaining what they had always wanted -- pride for Frankenstein and love for his creation.

The downfall of the world due to either passion or loathing, according to Robert Frost, is neither here nor there. With his attitude, Frost believes that while the end is inevitable, the means through which it occurs is unimportant. By using the word "suffice," it seems as though Robert is acting flippant towards the controversy of how the world will end. Despite the harsh reality of it all, his unconcern portrays him as accepting of the world's eventual fate. 

all the world is grotesque

gro·tesque

grōˈtesk

anything unnaturally distorted, ugly, ludicrous, fanciful, or bizarre, exploiting the abnormal

Leonardo da Vinci, Grotesque Profile, c. 1487

Individuals who abuse, individuals who cower, individuals who insult, individuals who compliment, individuals who laugh, individuals who cry -- despite our differences, we are all humans. Regardless of personality traits, of mental capabilities, of sexual orientation, of religious background... we are all human.

And as humans, we are all grotesque.

As Sherwood Anderson wrote in Winesburg, Ohio, a truth is a composition of "a great many vague thoughts." Man produced these truths with his own knowledge -- truths of virginity and of passion, of carelessness and abandon; "All about in the world were the truths and they were all beautiful" (Anderson 23). These truths were what Anderson associated with all that was awesome in the world.

"And then the people came along. Each as he appeared snatched up one of the truths and some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen of them. It was the truths that made the people grotesques" (Anderson 23-24). His belief was that once man took these truths and tried to live his life by it, he became a grotesque, as did his truth. But was it really the truths that turned us?

According to Sherwood, it was man who created these truths -- truths so incredibly magnificent and wonderful and winsome. If man had been the creator of truth, and mankind had been the collector of these truths, aren't we to blame for our own grotesqueness?

Since the dawn of time, humans have been stumbling through life, seeking that one great truth: what is the purpose of our existence? We've been driven by various ideas and thoughts in an effort to answer this question: we exist to seek knowledge; we exist to achieve biological perfection; we exist to love; 42. Some believe that life has no meaning, or that its meaning is so complex, it's better left alone. This last one, I believe, is an accurate representation of the message Anderson was trying to get across.

Once we as humans accept a truth for what it's worth, we attempt to abide it for all our life. Our persistence in maintaining this truth causes us to waste away and decay, shut from novel possibilities and new ideas. However, in Anderson's work, one of his characters discovered a preventative of keeping out the grotesqueness that comes with truths: "It was the young thing inside him that saved the old man" (Anderson 24). 

When I read this, I thought, "Youth can keep the truth out." When I think of this, images of babes and infants come to mind; so innocent and precocious are they, they're completely oblivious to the truths of the world. It could be acknowledged that this old man from Anderson's story was saved by his regression. 

But then I remembered that the youth wasn't a youth at all. "It was a woman, young, and wearing a coat of mail like a knight" (Anderson 22). Surely poetic and beautiful in its written form, its meaning can be obscure. Perhaps he equating women with gullibility and disregard for the truth; maybe he's praising them for accepting what he cannot, for bracing it like knight.This would make sense as he dedicated his work to his mother, "whose keen observations on the life about her first woke in me the hunger to see beneath the surface of lives."

cats and Frankenstein

A genetically-modified, hypoallergenic kitten.

Love cats but are allergic to them? No longer an issue! Companies such as Allerca and Felix Pets have been developing hypoallergenic cats, or cats that are less likely to cause an allergic reaction to humans. This is accomplished by cellular modification, in which scientists remove or suppress the gene that creates Fel d 1, the allergen protein found in cat saliva. By manipulating this cell, scientists then implant the new gene into a surrogate mother, who would then give birth to an allergen-free kitten.

So what do hypoallergenic cats and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein have in common? Genetic engineering. 

Genetic engineering is highly controversial and widely debated around the world. Involving the direct manipulation of genes, the techniques arise issues on ethic and moral grounds. With hypoallergenic kittens, the controversy is not so extreme; the purpose of the modification is understandable, and as the kitten is transformed while it's still a single cell, the harm is minimum. 

A glow-in-the-dark cat for AIDS research.

Another example could be the breeding of glow-in-the-dark kittens. When I first read about glowing cats, I was outraged: for what purpose would one have to make a cat glow? However, with further research, it was revealed to me that the "glowing" gene implanted in the kittens was an effective resister of feline immunodeficiency virus, or FIV, which causes AIDS in cats. This gene, it was researched, could also be passed on through generations. Although the cats aren't 100% AIDS-proof, the results of these experiments have been promising

In Frankenstein, the purpose of Frankenstein's experimentation with cellular modification are questionable. While Victor Frankenstein evoked numerous displays of seeking glory -- "...but what glory would attend the discovery, if I could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!" (Shelley 22) -- he also implied a desire to advance sciences for the future -- "...yet, when I considered the improvement which every day takes place in science and mechanics, I was encouraged to hope my present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future success" (Shelley 32). 

In my opinion, Frankenstein had begun his experiment with primarily selfish motivations. He seemed to have realized his folly after the creation of the monster: "A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his [tranquility]" (Shelley 34). Perhaps he had regretted his greed for fame, or maybe he felt guilty for being consumed in his work; nevertheless, his regret was short-lived. 

When Frankenstein was working on his creation's female counterpart, he began to think of the potential consequences following her awakening. Initially, it seemed to me that he was worried for the future of mankind should he follow through with his experiment: "Had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations?" (Shelley 121). However, immediately after this, he voiced another fear that "future ages might curse [him] as their pest," a fear that seems more oriented towards his own selfishness. The worry about his creation and the female wreaking havoc is understandable; the monster had committed murder, and maybe with a new friend, these acts would increase. On the other hand, he seemed more concerned with his namesake rather than the safety of the people. Afraid of how his name would forever be associated to the potential havoc, Frankenstein decided to end his experiment.

With the manipulation of genes within the aforementioned kittens, the purposes were strictly scientific. In Frankenstein's case, however, his goals seemed to be a combination of both scientific advancement and achieving fame. Scientific experiments, I hope, are conducted for the betterment of life. If genetic engineering were to be conducted, it should be done with good intentions rather than achieving glory.