Why Lusus Naturae is the Antithesis of Everything Good In the World

Since I wrote about the story I found most compelling last week, and since admittedly I have not as of yet read any of the assignments for this week, I guess I have to write about another one of the short stories we read last week. I did not like “Lusus Naturae.”

I guess I could not suspend my disbelief; while many of the tales we’ve read have had unnatural tendencies to them (how many people immure enemies?) none of them have crossed over into the ‘supernatural’ realm. That is, all of them have been possible even if they were not plausible.

“Lusus Naturae” is most definitely not plausible because the ‘disease’ or ‘curse’ is (to the very best of my admittedly limited scientific knowledge) impossible. People just don’t turn into vampire like creatures. I’m no expert on vampire culture, but from what I know there are two ways to become a vampire: 1. you are born with it or 2) there is some type of catalyst that brings on your status. – a bite perhaps, or some type of science experiment ‘gone horribly wrong.’

I think this is best classified along the same lines of B-list horror films that have no good background. It’s kind of like the author comes up with this awesome idea of how a quasi-human experiences the world, and has no way of getting the character to the quasi-human part.

Maybe I’m by myself on this. If one embraces the fact that she just became the way she became, the story isn’t half bad. It becomes about a social recluse, a hermit that experiences humanity primarily through reading Keats or Byron. The moment that she sees interpersonal intimacy for the first time also is a watershed moment – she doesn’t completely understand what she sees, but reacts to it in an almost instinctual way. If one can get over the idiotic transformation she undergoes, then the story is quite good.

But I can’t.

Kudos to Science Fiction!

I, myself, being an avid fan of science fiction am greatly pleased to have now had the opportunity to read some great examples of both science fiction and fantasy. Both "7C" and "Luscus Naturae" filled this desire very well. "Luscus Naturae" had me guessing throughout the beginning as to what the little girl in the story was suffering from. I would like to point out that the depiction of a vampire in this story is much different than what I, and I'm sure many others, are accostomed. I especially like that the story is told from the girl's point of view rather than the traditional view of socity against monster. The author goes further by showing that the vampire still displays human characteristics, thoughts, and desires. She chooses to "die" when her sister wants to marry, allows her mother to leave after she wants to move out to live with her the other daughter, scares people away from the castle so they won't live there, and even when she bites the young man she only wnated to be playful and kiss him. In spite of being a monster in the eyes of everyone else,the girl in the story is very much so a human.
"7C" was very intriguing, but very confusing to follow at the same time. It took me an entire day to figure out that the two sentence breaks from the story were the narator addressing the reader instead intermitant breaks of the timeline of the story breaking in at certain points. The overall idea was very original and once the story came full circle I was left reeling. Each of these was a great example of modern science fiction and fantasy literature.

Lusus Naturae

This story was really interesting to read. The narration was through the eyes of the protagonist which made it come to life to the reader. We were expressed with her various emotions and why she felt her story was unique from any other story told. I felt really sorry for the protagonist. She was a very misunderstood character, and knew that her case was very special. She attained some form of sympathy for herself, but refused to be a burden to the ones she was really close too. Examples can be seen with the sacrifices she made for her sister and her mother. She pretended to be dead in order for her sister to be able to wed, and offered to take care of herself so that her mother could live a life free and happy. I admire her selflessness, but was disappointed by how it was reciprocated. She was ostracized from society all because she was different. Her outward appearance made her extremely vile, even though she was a sweet and kindhearted person deep down. The protagonist also had to devise ways to remain happy and to entertain herself. Some might see her actions as to haunt the inhabitants of the house and the innocent bystanders at the park as evil, but I feel that is was an extreme cry for attention and to prove her existence in society. This story is an excellent example as to how society catogorizes people base on their looks and do not judge a persons character and base their opions accordingly.

To be Classic or not to be Classic

I think Jacob makes a strong point in his last blog. And I agree with his views of all the “new” short fiction that we have read. I may be wrong here, but Poe, Hemingway, and the other great authors were not instant classics when they were first published. I’m sure their story’s were appreciated for their entertainment value, but were seen by the critics of their time, as Jacob says, to lack substance and originality in comparison to previous classics. I think for any literary work to be truly appreciated and deserve that prestigious title of classic it must pass the everlasting test of time. This is obvious, that is why to generalize all short fiction as lacking originality and literary value is a large leap to make. And how many new styles of writing are there? Sure, Poe and Hemingway’s writing styles are very distinct. But, due to the internet and the ease with which we can experience any author or writing style, the “new” fiction is automatically affected by the classics and other literary influences. Thus, it is very difficult to be completely original.
I do agree completely with Jacobs take on “Tits Up in a Ditch,” it does have that “wow” factor, as he puts it. The story is powerful; it gives a beautifully hopeless story of today. The story, in my opinion will be a classic, it just needs time.

"Somethings Missing" reply

I agree with Jacob. He has a strong point that i noticed as well while reading the "new" short stories. They don't seem to create there own style. It is just like he said no one told Joyce to write like Joyce, and no one told Hemingway to write like Hemingway. Short story authors of today are seemingly trying to mold their stories after what they have read, and after these famous authors. This is common with everything we do in society. As kids we try to model our parents. As athletes we try to model the pros. As authors you try to model your favorite author's style. But is this interesting? The joy of writing fiction is that you can make up whatever you want. By modeling their style after a certain author they are decreasing their directions in which they could have gone with the story. Everyone has already read the type of story the old authors have written, and gotten joy from them. Why not write something with your own style, that will leave a lasting impression in the readers mind with your own name instead of leaving the reader comparing you to another. As jacob is saying these "new" short stories don't seem to create their own path so to speak. They tend to follow the one more traveled, or traveled by their idol.

I also agree that the only "new" story that has left a lasting impression has been "tits-up-in-a-ditch." It has followed it's own direction and leads us somewhere we have not been led before as a reader. It expresses many different views from the character of Dakotah. We get a real life look into her life, and all of her encounters and troubles. This story was truly the only story that had the "wow" factor as Jacob stated, and i will have to agree for the reasons i have previously mentioned that i long for the days of reading the "classic" short story rather than the "new."

Something's Missing

The "new" short fiction does not impress me like the "classics". The classics deserve their title; they masterfully play with character relationships, suspense, and story structures. Whereas in contrast, I feel like all of the new fiction lacks substance. Each holds entertainment value but seems to fail at claiming substantial literary value. For example, "7C" won an award for being Poe-like, but that's just the problem it's Poe-like--not even as good as Poe and not original. "Happy Endings" contains comical elements, but the final paragraph's hammering home of death seemed inconsistent. Yet, Joyce's "The Dead" builds beautiful imagery and character relationships while moving the plot to a dismal realization of one's imposing death; but nonetheless, the story subtly encourages one to live life to the fullest--not to be a Gabriel. Just describing the story (and not doing it justice) demonstrates its richness. The new authors experiment (hints the genre) with numerous literary elements, but none succeed in finding the right mix. But, maybe this is their problem. I doubt anyone told Joyce to write like Joyce, nor Hemingway to write like Hemingway; also, I bet neither wrote with a desire to win the favor of critics. I'm not making an acqusation, but I am saying I would struggle to find a distinct style in the last week's readings. "Tits Up in a Ditch" had the most "wow" value because of its elements of social realism and character relationships, which may be the beginning of this author's trademark. Overall, short fiction as a genre continues to impress me with its succintness, but the new genre has yet to give me a new favorite.

The Blog of The Story of An Hour

The story is a different look at gender then what we are used to in these stories. There seems to be a usual set of hegemonic difference between the man and the woman, but here the man seems to be presented as quite benevolent and very much a loving husband. Yet, for some reason, the woman still finds herself immensely relieved and overcome with feelings of liberation upon the news of her husband’s death. It is difficult to determine if this is a commentary on the nature of marriage, on gender, or on just a particular case of an independently minded person.
I have wondered what would be different about the life of a woman who lost a loving husband, and this story did not match my initial musings. It seems natural for a woman, or a man for this instance, to be happy or overcome with feelings of freedom when a tyrannical or evil spouse is struck dead from calamity. But surprisingly, Mrs. Mallard reacts in a way that is most unexpected. She seems to have a sort of existential epiphany when she realized her “possession of self-assertion which she suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being” (p. 58).
Ultimately, I find the story to be a commentary on a particular person who was stuck in a marriage she did not enjoy, as opposed to marriage or gender alone. Perhaps further, it is a comment on marriage based on convenience or social habit, not love. It takes two to tango, and Mrs. Mallard apparently never felt like dancing at all.