Thus!

"I have no friend, Margaret: when I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy; if I am assailed by disappointment, no one will endeavour to sustain me in dejection. I shall commit my thoughts to paper, it is true; but that is a poor medium for the communication of feeling. I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me; whose eyes would reply to mine" (Frankenstein, 4).

Aww.

Robert Walton, the author of the four letters, directly characterizes himself. He describes himself as "cool, preserving, and prudent," not humbly but rather candidly (7). That makes sense, as he's writing to his sister Margaret Saville, with whom he evidently has a healthy and trusting relationship. However, Walton's problem is that beyond his sister in London, he has no true friends; in the above quote, he directly characterizes himself as lonely by saying he desires "the company of a man" (4). He is also passionate and strong in will; "success shall crown my endeavors" (7).

What do you know? This exhausted European guy (almost reluctantly) comes aboard Walton's ship and reveals he has the same loneliness and the same passion as Walton. Actually, their characters coalesce perfectly. Walton calls the stranger -- let's call him, say, Victor -- "the brother of my heart" (11). He finds a friend, signalling that no matter how isolated someone may feel, he should never abandon the idea that his loneliness may be solved via a complete stranger who comes aboard his ship and feel just as isolated as he does. Metaphorically, of course.

Then, at the end of the fourth letter, Walton commences the frame story structure of the novel. Walton resolves to record "what he has related during the day," so the story shifts from Walton's point of view to Victor's point of view. We can infer that Victor's tale will be one of caution: "I imagine that you may deduce an apt moral from my tale; one that may direct you if you succeed in your undertaking, and console you in case of failure" (13).

Seeing into the Mind of Iago

"Thus do I ever make my fool my purse, / For I mine own gained knowledge should profane / If I would time expend with such a snipe / But for my sport and profit. I hate the Moor, / And it is thought abroad that 'twixt my sheets / He's done my office. I know not if 't be true, / But I for mere suspicion in that kind / Will do as if for surety" (Othello, I.iii.363-370).

I was going to shorten that quote, but I just had to keep typing -- everything Iago says is pure gold.

What we have here is a significant contrast between what the audience knows and what the characters know. In Othello, the only character who has a firm handle on what's actually going on is Iago. (This is essentially due to the fact that this play is from the vantage point of Iago, who is actually the antagonist.) Here, he establishes a contrast between what the audience knows and what Roderigo and Othello know. Roderigo believes that Iago will help him win back Desdemona if he gives Iago money, but Iago is using him for his "sport and profit." Othello believes that Iago is an honest ensign, but Iago is planning his revenge against Othello who (a) appointed Cassio as his lieutenant rather than Iago and (b) maybe slept with his wife, Edith. I mean, Emilia -- why do I have issues with that name? Maybe it's just because I'm a fan of Edith Wilson.

Iago delivers another soliloquy at the end of Act II to reveal his plan to plant a seed of suspicion that Cassio is spending time 'twixt the sheets with Desdemona, Othello's wife.

What sort of breaks this special relationship Iago has with the audience is that in Act III, Othello begins to share private information with the audience in addition to Iago. In one soliloquy, Othello expresses his internal concerns about Desdemona potentially sleeping with Cassio (III.iii.259-78). However, still, Othello doesn't know the half of what's really going on -- an instance of dramatic irony. Only Iago and the audience can share in the fullness of truth.

The "Laws of Probability"

"The original paraphernalia for the lottery had been lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born" ("The Lottery," 265).

"Just as Mr. Summers finally left off talking and turned to the assembled villages, Mrs. Hutchinson came hurriedly along the path to the square, her sweater thrown over her shoulders, and slid into place in the back of the crowd" (266).

All right, Perrine, you're asking for it; I've whipped out math in blogs before this one, and I'm not afraid to do it again. I quote the third question. "What normal law of probability has been suspended in this story? Granting this initial implausibility, does the story proceed naturally?"

At first, I wasn't sure what Perrine was talking about, but then I had a little epiphany. Perrine wants to know what happened during the lottery that was implausible. For Perrine, I have two answers, and then I will explode on him.

First, Old Man Warner is "the oldest man in town" (5). Some people might find it odd that someone as old as Old Man Warner would have survived the lottery every year of his life and classify that as "implausible." Second, Tessie Hutchinson was the one person who showed up late to the lottery, and it just so happened that she was the . . . winner (77-79). Is that at all likely?

My first objective in this post is to determine the plausibility of these two scenarios. I'm going to make two assumptions so I can do the math: the population of this village has remained constant at 300 people during Old Man Warner's entire life, and Old Man Warner (OMW, for short) is 150 years old (a generously high age).

• The probability of OMW's survival of the lottery for his entire life is (299/300)^150, or about a 60.6% chance.
• The probability of Tessie's death as the sole latecomer is simply (1/300), or about a 0.3% chance.
• The probability of any person winning the lottery is also (1/300), or about a 0.3% chance.

Certainly, the more implausible case of the first two is the second one -- it's extremely unlikely that the sole latecomer to the lottery would be the winner. Surprisingly, it's somewhat likely that someone can live to be 150 years old without winning the lottery in the village.

My second objective in this post is to say this very clearly. NO NORMAL LAW OF PROBABILITY HAS BEEN SUSPENDED, AND YOUR SENTENCE USES PASSIVE VOICE. I feel very strongly about this. Just because it was unlikely that Tessie (the only person who came late) would be stoned does not mean that a law of probability was suspended. The laws of probability always stand, even when the most likely outcome does not occur.

Unless someone can convince me that Perrine was referring to some other rule of probability, I will remain angry at him. Perrine, you stick to literature, and I'll stick to math, and we won't have to cross each other anymore once I finish this class.