Academic Forum 32 (2014–15) Credits We appreciate the efforts of Dr. Brett Serviss, who oversaw the project which was the source of the data used in this paper. Also, we appreciate the Ellis College Planning and Advisory Committee who funded the presentation of this paper at the regional Oklahoma-Arkansas Mathematical Association of America meeting. References Arkansas Vascular Flora Committee (AVFC). 2006. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Arkansas. Arkansas Vascular Flora Committee, Fayetteville, Arkansas. A. Cannon et al., STAT2, Building Models for a World of Data, Ed. (Freeman, New York, NY, 2013) Biographical Sketches Michael Lloyd graduated cum laude and in the honors program in Chemical Engineering with a B.S. in 1984. He accepted a position at Henderson State University in 1993 shortly after earning his Ph.D. in Mathematics (Probability Theory) from Kansas State University. He has presented papers at meetings of the Academy of Economics and Finance, the American Mathematical Society, the Arkansas Conference on Teaching, and the Southwest Arkansas Council of Teachers of Mathematics. He has been an active member of the Mathematical Association of America since 1993, earned 18 hours in computer science, and has been an Advanced Placement statistics consultant since 2002. Jonathan Eagle received his B.S. in Biology, minoring in chemistry and statistics, in 2015 from Henderson State University. Graduating cum laude as member of Honors College and the McNair Scholar Program, he was recognized as the Outstanding Graduating Senior in the Biology Department. He plans to continue his education at the graduate level in the area of biomolecular sciences. The Man-Forged Miscreants Peter Wilson Mentor: Peggy Dunn Bailey, Ph.D. In this essay I deconstruct the facilitation we as people provide in the formulation of our most dangerous enemies. These miscreants are generally reflections of their creators, and often in literature they triumph over their creators in ironic or thought-provoking ways. To support this notion, I compare and contrast the antagonists from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner using textual evidence and several critical responses. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein utilizes a significant portion of its text deliberating what it means to be human. In the literal sense, Victor Frankenstein is the human and the creature a humanoid facsimile. Yet most readers identify Victor as the monster and his creation as a more emotionally human and relatable character. As the story progresses, it becomes clear to Victor what horror he has unleashed upon himself and his family. In denying the beast the fair treatment it craves, Victor creates his own arch nemesis. In Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, this idea is similarly explored. The mariner’s greatest obstacle throughout the text is divine retribution. His refusal 53 Academic Forum 32 (2014–15) to accept a status quo brings into existence the issues that, if the story is to be considered factual, still plague him to this day. The character is haunted by the choices he carelessly made. Like in Frankenstein, this is one of the most troubling attributes of the piece. The idea that our humanity is delicate enough that a single thoughtless misstep could derail it completely is an agonizing one. This concern accompanies the mariner throughout The Rime. This is because readers as humans love the idea of being blameless victims unaccountable for our own failures. Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner address the fact that we are often completely responsible. The two pieces are often relegated to the horror genre because they bring to light an uncomfortable truth: that man creates his own monsters. As an antihero, Victor is primarily characterized by his relentless ambition. In chapter 3, Victor recounts to Walton the joy he took in fostering his own intelligence. He claims his “proficiency, that of the masters . I improved so rapidly, that, at the end of two years, I made some discoveries . which procured me great esteem and admiration at the university” (Shelley 931). After his discovery of the way to reanimate a corpse, he takes the opportunity to liken himself to a combination of the mythical Prometheus and God, saying “. I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (933). He initially attempts to create the beast merely to prove that he can. He is essentially blinded by his irresponsible motivation. Up to the moment his creature breathes for the first time, Victor’s thoughts are only of the task at hand. He thinks of neither the terror the creature would engender nor the danger he puts himself in. This inability to multitask ends up causing him significant misfortune; as soon as his creature is brought to life, Victor considers his task concluded. As soon as this happens, he realizes he has no further plans for the disfigured being currently struggling to make sense of the world. In this moment, Victor’s fight-or-flight response activates and he flees. It is only later that he realizes his ambitions have come to a screeching halt. Shelley’s creature is a perfectly crafted foil for Victor. Whereas Victor is characterized by his ambition, it becomes the nature of the monster to subdue his creator’s aspirations at every turn. When Victor believes the monster has died of its own ignorance in the harsh German environment, he sees the demon with his own eyes. When Victor attempts to rendezvous with Henry Clerval, he finds his friend’s mutilated corpse surrounded by accusatory locals. And on his wedding night, when Victor has decided either he or the monster shall die, the monster trumps him once again and throttles Victor’s bride. Victor builds the creature to prove it possible; the creature haunts Victor to prove that he can contradict this assertion. The mariner’s goal is a different one altogether, yet the results are the same: the formation of a dangerous adversary. The mariner’s original intention is identical to every other sailor aboard the ship. He hopes to avoid misfortune on the journey. But when he “inhospitably killeth the pious bird of good omen” (line 79), this fate becomes impossible. The difference between Victor and the mariner is the shapes their monsters take. Victor’s nemesis is a hulking brute of a creature, far smarter and faster and more powerful than any mortal man. The mariner’s enemy is the price he must pay for his actions. It is the knowledge that there is an immense force waiting to deliver karma upon him. This scares the mariner; he knows he has made a grave error in killing the albatross, and he is just as afraid of cosmic retribution as Victor is of the creature. 54 Academic Forum 32 (2014–15) One of the main causes of strife for the mariner is something that has also caused confusion among scholars. The fact that there is no premeditation to the mariner’s killing of the albatross indicates no reason exists for the action. In Frankenstein, the reader is walked through every step leading up to the eventual formation of the creature. Political, emotional, and curricular motivations are considered by the narrator, and the result is astounding: a plot development that makes sense from every perspective. The slaughtering of the albatross has none of this, and this conspicuous lack of purpose remains unanswered throughout the rest of the piece. The mariner killed the albatross for no reason, and it is this fact that haunts the mariner. He is being punished for an act that he committed likely out of boredom. He knows he is culpable, and not even his own reasoning can absolve him of his penalty. Even though both the mariner and Victor Frankenstein “create their own monsters,” they go about it with entirely differing methods. A large section of Frankenstein is dedicated to the sheer amount of effort it required to bring such a goal to fruition. Just as the story considers his emotional and scholarly motivations for doing so, it also details the minutia of the process. His childhood infatuation with the magical arts inspires him to study the occult and eventually delve into biology and other natural sciences. One of his college professors berates him for his ignorance while another supports him on his path to knowledge. The novel outlines how the character went about collecting the fragments of tissue and piecing them together. It takes hard work and months of planning for him to accomplish what he decides to do. The mariner’s summoning of the monster is achieved much differently. It is accidental and instantaneous. Immediately after the killing of the albatross, the other sailors detest his actions. They viewed the bird as a symbol of good luck, and chide the one that ended its life. But when the tempest is calmed, they find justification in his actions. For this reason, Coleridge states, “they make themselves accomplices in the crime” (99). As time passes and the weather is transformed into calmness unfit for sea travel, the sailors again turn on him and his fate is left to be determined by Death and Life-in-Death. Just as his life was changed forever by the untenable decision to kill the albatross, the state of his soul is established with the result of a game of dice. His decision to kill the bird was made not out of reason; it was an absent-minded and reckless choice.