After you have read one or more of the articles--please post a new insight you gained today from something you read. It is fine to summarize the author's point or use a quote---but be sure to include your own reaction as well. I'm asking that each of you post 1-2 different comments (3-6 sentences approximately) and reply to two of your classmates.
In the article Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein, Deborah Williams discusses how the absence of female characters within the novel speaks greater than the presence of tough and strong female role models. When the creature ask Frankenstein to make a female companion, Frankenstein fears that the women might not go along with the creature's desires. This suggests that the largest threat to this experience is the female autonomy and how she might have her own way of thinking. Another threat that Frankenstein was concerned with was the possibility of breeding. He was concerned that because women hold the power to reproduce it could create a race of monsters. Williams explains how the absence of the female companion creates a variety of problems and leaves the creature unfulfilled.
ReplyDeleteI remember briefly talking about this during class a few times. Where similarly to the Garden of Eden story, women complete men and while they are generally physically weaker, they also think for themselves and have the ability to incite men to explore i guess 'forbidden paths'. Females with sovereignty over themselves, while essential as companions, are also threats to this idea of male dominance and them being the protector and provider.
DeleteIt is interesting that Shelley would have written about feminism this way given she was a women herself. I think this reflects on the time period and how women viewed their role in society.
DeleteI agree that the topic of feminism in Frankenstein really does say a lot about that 1800's society Shelley lived in, and how women weren't really in the picture. I wonder what Shelley would have written about if she lived today.
DeleteI agree with Alle in that it is interesting how she describes women in the story, considering that she too was a women. I would say that this comes from the time period they were in at the time, and given that she only knew how people treated women back then. (thats what she was used to)
DeleteI am amused by how women were viewed during this time and how Mary Shelly showed that type of society in "Frankenstein". The discussion of women in this book is off-putting. The disregard for women throughout the novel, like when Victor denied the creatures request for a companion, really makes you wonder why Mary Shelly decided to write the book this way. Why were women only thought of as bodies who can have children? Did Mary Shelly purposely try to make it seem this way?
DeleteI read "'Frankenstein' Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era", and one of the points that stood out most to me is that, to this author, it seems Shelly did not even fully understand the Victor that she created. I think this becomes wholly evident in the end of the book, because, despite his actions, he gets to die being revered as tragically heroic, his own ambition having got the best of him. This is a heroism that he doesn't ever really earn, but is portrayed by Shelly because only the murderous creature is willing to criticize him. How heroic can he be, when he abandoned his own ambition as soon as he achieved what he had always been pursuing and it became demystified, causing harm to all of the people in his vicinity?
ReplyDeleteI did not know that Shelley didn't have a full understanding of Victor when writing the book. I agree that this makes a lot of sense looking back on the ending of the story. I wonder if she would have written a different ending to the book if she had a better understanding of Victor?
DeleteI also read this article, and found the authors points very eye opening. I thought it was particularly interesting when the author discussed how Victor was viewed as heroic even though he really did not do anything to deserve this title. I also agree that Shelly did not even fully understand the character of victor that she created. I think this was shown multiple other times throughout the book in addition to the ending. One of these times that stuck out to me was right after Victor created the creature. Despite his continual pursuit to create this monster, Victor expressed a variety of conflicting emotions such as fear and resentment while never really getting to understand or know the creature. I think that Victor is a very complex character, and I like how Shelly left some of his traits open to interpretation for the reader.
DeleteI read this article as well. I found the authors perspective different from the other articles I read. She says that the creature is portrayed as some type of hero, but he has only done the cruelest of things, like killing several of Victor's loved ones. I also think this type of ending (Victor and the creature dying) doesn't seem to resolve the problems that they were both having in the first place. The creature was lonely, miserable, and jealous. While Victor was a guilt-ridden and delusional man. Unfortunately, both characters failed to achieve the hopes they wanted, especially because they were both burdens to each other. Adding onto Eloise, I agree that Shelly left traits open for interpretation for each reader. This book is dense--- so many events, emotions, and personal thinking on each page that it catches the reader off guard. It is nice to be able to interpret scenes in your own way, but then what if Mary Shelly's message isn't quite getting to readers?
DeleteI thought that the article "The Strange and Twisted Life of 'Frankenstein'" by Jill Lepore was quite interesting in that it detailed the different instances in Mary Shelly's life that influenced her to write certain themes and occurrences in her novel. After reading this article, I feel as if Shelly was less writing to convey a certain message, but more so to reflect and process her feelings about her own life. For instance, the article touches on Shelly's author name being pieced together from the names of her loved ones, and how this parallels the creature being pieced together from parts of cadavers. While some could argue this method of the creature's creation being a commentary on modern science, I feel that this article speaks to it being a comment on Shelly's life instead. She viewed herself as a combination of all who have influenced her, to an extent, so she decided to mirror the monster to herself in this way. Similar examples of influence from her life are stated throughout the article that relate to equally popular interpretations of the novel. Thus, I generally thought this article was an interesting commentary on Shelly's life and its influence on her work, as it facilitates thinking about the truth of Shelly's true purpose and message behind "Frankenstein"
ReplyDeleteI think it's so interesting how Shelly's life was reflected in "Frankenstein" and how the creation of the novel could have been a reflection of her own feelings. I remember when we first learned about Mary Shelly that she had lost many children at a young age. The death of her many children could have sparked the idea of resurrection or the creation of human beings which could also have lead to the inspiration of "Frankenstein".
DeleteThis is a very interesting concept to me because the article by Griffith about how the monster mirrored an inner reflection of humanity can also connect to this idea. Shelley herself felt a connection with the monster and her own life, possibly based on the evilness of how human treatment towards others can be and the consequences it can create. What I find most interesting, however, is how you stated that she was possibly using the book to process her own life. This makes me think about how Griffith stated that "Frankenstein" is a book about the pursuit of self-discovery, which is what Shelley was ultimately doing in the making of this book.
DeleteI read Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein. At first, I felt that the article made a lot of valid points about how the topic of feminism does not necessarily apply to women or the presence of women. I thought the article was going to talk about how Frankenstein transcended gender norms for men in the way in which it portrayed men through a gentler and more feminine lense. This could be seen in captain Walton, Victor, and in Clerval. However, Deborah Williams instead makes the claim that the absence of women is a feminist decision in order to punish the men in the book for attempting to enforce this absence. She claims that Victor decides not to make a female monster because he does not want an autonomous woman that can make her own decisions and give birth to children, and that he is therefore punished in this book. I disagree for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that Victor simply feared the species he was creating, not the gender, and feared the woman monster would be autonomous because he expects that from women. The fact that he even considers this possibility in the first place shows that he does not overlook women as simply people who will do what they are told, but as natural human beings with their own thoughts and choices. Additionally, I do not think that Victor's fate was sealed at the decision to destroy the female monster. Even before this decision, his conscience was weighed down with the guilt of the deaths of Justine and William. I believe that the book itself even claims that everything begins to go downhill from the moment Victor creates the first monster or even from his own birth since it claims he was destined to this downfall.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that when Victor decides to not create the woman creature it was not fear of the gender but it was more of a fear of the species, as you stated. I also agree with your point that Victor decides to not create the woman monster because he believes that women's freedom to have children and make their own decisions is a risk to the human race, Victor does not perceive women as controllable or subordinate.
DeleteI also read this article and had similar feelings to why some of the authors points seemed to me as a bit of s stretch. Although I appreciate that the author is applying a new lense that is unique, I also feel that the destruction of the monster had less to do with the gender of the monster and more to do with Victors fear of creating more monsters. Additionally, in this chapter of the book Victor expresses clear anger towards the creature, so I believe the destruction of the monster was actually based on his emotions in this moment, rather than the gender.
DeleteI agree that the point Deborah Williams makes does have evidence to support it, however I do not think that is the case in the novel. I believe Frankenstein's fear of making a woman creature came more from the fear of it being a creature, capable of murder, and less the fear of it being a woman with power.
DeleteOne new insight I learned from the article "Frankenstein' Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era" was that real life situations of those that defy nature(science) are described using the "Franken" label as a result of warning of "overreaching science that unleashes forces it cannot control"(Ball) within Frankenstein. Another new idea that was presented to me in the article was how the story of Frankenstein would differ if Victor had nurtured the creature instead of rejecting it. The creature could have had more of a human connection, which could have prevented all the deaths that he caused.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting. If I'm interpreting correctly, the usage of "Franken" is something that has emerged as a result of this novel. This would be yet another example of Frankenstein being a huge influence on culture and the way we view the advancements of science. I wonder if those who use this term in the scientific field have actually read the novel, or are just using the term due to how ubiquitous of a reference it has become in our culture.
DeleteThis makes me, too, wonder how things would have gone if Frankenstein had nurtured his creation instead of abandoning it and condemning it to a fate of solitude. Throughout the entire book, Victor, as well as myself, grappled with the concept of the two hero arcs and even in the end, it is ambiguous whether a person should be rewarded or punished for their ambition. However, this question that you bring up makes me wonder if the true lesson of the book was that the real danger lies in this ambiguity. If one decides to follow their ambition, one should follow it full-heartedly rather than with hesitation and neglect in the way that Victor did.
DeleteThis also has me questioning how the story might of gone in many different directions had only Victor cared for the creature in the first place. In the article it mentioned (and Sydney mentioned) that if Victor had nurtured him then all the deaths would have been avoided. I wonder if this is correct, because most of the deaths were on purpose because the creature wanted to hurt Victor. And if Victor from that first conversation, let the creature in and took care of it, then maybe some of the death in the book could of been avoided, but I doubt all of the death would of been avoided.
DeleteI agree with Mariana, I found this point very interesting as Frankenstein has had an influence on culture to such an extent that the term "Franken" can represent what we see as the limits of nature or science as a whole. I wonder how some people interpret the term who have never read the novel. That would reveal how the term has evolved over time and possibly been altered.
DeleteThe article I read mentioned an interesting parallel between Victor + Creature and Freudian theory of id (instinctual desires) as well as doppelgangers. Humans have this shadow that follows them around, this darker side of their 'personality' if you will, one that is simultaneously a valued and important part of you and one that must be suppressed and hidden from the rest of the world. This darker side of humans, the side that wants destruction and retribution on the world for their suffering expresses an individual's unconscious desires. This vengeful side of Victor is physically manifested in the creature, and according to this article, might have executed actions that in some ways aligned with Victor's subconscious. I think this theory, if true would add an interesting insight to Victor's character, meaning he already harbored some frustrations and unhappiness prior to creating the creature...
ReplyDeleteI really like this perspective of the novel. I think it could definitely explain why Victor and the creature mirror each other so much. If this was the case, It seems as if Victor couldn't handle seeing the parts of himself he has tried to hide, and shunned the creature for that reason. I think this could also be why Victor is so touched by the creature's benevolent motives when they do shine through; his own motives (before being corrupted) are just like the creature's.
DeleteI like how this author analyzed Frankstein through the lens of Freudianism. As Mariana already pointed out, it made me realize why Victor despised the creature despite being so similar, because he represented the worst in him.
DeleteThe article titled "Criticism" by George V. Griffith talked about all the aspects of Frankenstein which were influenced and connected to the many romanticist beliefs of its day. What I found to be Griffith's most interesting point was the romanticist concept of duality in human nature. He talks about the struggle between good and bad within every person and how the creature of "Frankenstein" represented the monster within every one of us. This can be seen in the intimate and unbending connection between Victor and his creation. I completely agree with this because I see how Frankenstein is simply a mirror of the monster and vice-versa. Frankenstein is innocent and good on the surface level and even has a passion for a seemingly good cause, which is to help mankind. However, his practices contain a darker truth than he originally anticipated, and he eventually even refers to them as his "unhallowed arts". Additionally, though he may have good intentions, Griffith makes the point that he is a sinner. He may not have sinned by creating his creature, but the sin lies in his neglect of it. On the other hand, his creature is on the outside, the most evil and ugly looking of specimens, yet he contains an innocent core that yearns for love and connection. The book "Frankenstein" is a tragedy therefore because both characters become consumed by their evilness and by each other, which makes sense considering they are both the inner person of one another and bring out the worst of one another. Being consumed by their evilness and being consumed by each other therefore is practically verbatim.
ReplyDeleteIn The Strange and Twisted Life of "Frankenstein", Jill Lepore outlines many connections between "Frankenstein" and the life of Mary Shelly as well as modern day. Mary Shelley had two children while writing the book. Lepore points out that Mary Shelley did not name either of the babies and also chose not to name the creature in the book. Another connection Lepore makes, is between Victor creating "evil" with the monster and the modern day creation of the atomic bomb. Despite being in different time periods both are results of the evil that science can create. This article highlights the real meanings behind the story of Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteI thought the parallels between the atomic bomb and Victor's creation were very interesting and I never really thought of a modern-day connection like that before. As you said it just goes to show how we as a society can take our scientific ways to dangerous, sometimes evil limits and as a result there can be major consequences to be faced.
DeleteI also read this article, and I agree it is very interesting how many parallels to modern-day or just real life connections to the book such as the atomic bomb or her connection to slavery. I think it shows that lessons and warnings can be taken away from the book.
DeleteI think the Atomic Bomb is a great parallel to Frankenstein's monster. Both show a being with great knowledge pushing the boundaries of science and creating evil. They both also show the devastating effects that these creations can have on mankind, be it a radioactive superweapon or a mankilling, supernatural monster.
DeleteI think there is a lot of ambiguity in the book, which allows for it to fluidly move through time and still have readers make connections to past and present. I agree with Ava, that so many paralels can be drawn and a lot of lessons and warnings can be found in the book. It reminds me of 1984 as it is also a warning.
DeleteI thought that Lepore's take on Frankenstein made a lot of sense. The parallels between Mary Shelley's life and how she wrote the book are very clear when looking at the things she wrote in her diary at the time. This article helped my understanding of the book.
ReplyDeleteI thought Phillip Ball made an interesting point in his Atlantic article titled "'Frankenstein' Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era", and that is, what if Victor had nurtured his creation, rather than neglecting it. As Ball writes, it would've been a pretty different story. What would happen if Victor tried to go about his life with this creature always by his side, like a son, for everyone to see? The creature would have a hard time being accepted by society, raising a new theme to the story, a shift to the "don't judge a book by its cover" idea. Changing the story like that would alter the main "moral and philosophical landscape", as Ball explained. We'd be reading about social prejudice and our preconceptions of nature. I had not really thought of this scenario before, and I think that if Shelley, for whatever reason chose to write this story differently, with less of an action-packed, violent focus, it would have worked well, as it would still get important messages and morals across to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI have also thought many times about the numerous different outcomes this story could've had. As a reader I felt sympathy for the many losses Victor suffered, but I also felt that they were very avoidable. Victor should've considered the responsibility he would have as a creator, and treated it as if he was becoming a father.
DeleteI find this concept very interesting. I also wondered what would have been different if Victor had cared for the creature as his own child rather than leaving it to fend for itself. I wonder how the novel would have gone if the storyline was so drastically different from what it is now.
DeleteI read the article "Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein" by Deborah Lindsay Williams. This article discussed how although there many not be many female "role models" in Frankenstein, it can still be taught or looked at through a feministic lense due to the "absence/ presence idea". Williams explains how feminism may not be presented in a traditional way, through a strong female role model, but instead in the absence of one, and the fear that Victor exhibits when contemplating the effects of creating a female monster. Victor worries about that will happen if this female monster has her own thoughts and motivations, that will stray from that of the creatures. This fear that Victor presents towards the ideas of independent thinking, and even the females ability to reproduce more monsters is how Frankenstein can be discussed through a feministic lense. Although I think this author has an interesting perspective on feminism in Frankenstein, I think there are more valuable and beneficial lenses to be looked at when reading the book. For example, I think the theme of constantly pushing the boundaries of what has done before is a more clear and important theme in this book.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that I think the author made a good point about feminism, but I don't think that was really the intention and there are other lessons and themes to be taken away from the story.
DeleteIn the article, "Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein" by Deborah Williams, she discusses how there is an absence of female presence throughout Frankenstein. I thought that it was interesting how she pointed out how Victor was very afraid of the female monster having autonomy, and potentially not liking the situation she was put in. He was afraid of a woman making her own decisions or potentially recreating with the male creature. However, from ,y perspective reading the book I'm not sure that Victor feared female autonomy or a free-thinking female with her own thoughts, I think he was more afraid that he would create worse evil. He already felt responsible for what the creature did, and didn't want more damage to be done on his own hands. I think that William's points are interesting and I never thought about how the female absence played into the story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree. It's pretty insightful of Williams to emphasis the role of the female through their absence and I don't necessarily agree that the fear of autonomy prevented Victor from creating the female creature. Victor views this creature as a possibly destructive being and he does seem more concerned with unleashing more evil into society.
DeleteIn the article, "The Strange and Twisted Life of Frankenstein" by Jill Lepore, I found it very interesting how she connected Frankenstein to slavery and many abolitionists. She pointed out how there are many similarities between Fredrick Douglas's autobiography and the words of the creature, both wishing they were dead. In addition, when Frankenstein began to be preformed as a play, the creature wore blue face paint, but this made the actor appear to be a person of color and less as a monster. People such as Nat Turner and John Brown were called monsters. Frankenstein appeared in political cartoons as a black man signifying slavery. I never thought about this parallel, but I can see how it could serve as a metaphor for America. It also makes me very sad to think about the fact that so many parallels can be drawn between Fredrick Douglas's words and the words of the creature, wishing they did not have to live.
ReplyDeleteI think the ending of the book showed this point very well. I found it unexpected when the monster told Walton that he was going to burn himself alive. The monster suffered from the barbarities of man, which is true also for Fredrick Douglas.
DeleteI agree. I also read the article “The Strange and Twisted Life of Frankenstein”. I like your point about how their are many similarities between the creature and Fredrick Douglas, especially how the Creature and Fredrick both suffered from the de-humanization of society.
DeleteI think it is certainly interesting to juxtapose the creature in Frankenstein with historical oppression of black folks in the US. I wonder what more careful observation of this similarity throughout the reading of the text would reveal in terms of this connection, because I could see it being either insidious, considering there is certainly a long literary and media tradition of using the allusion of monsters to represent people of color and their perceived threat on the sanctity of whiteness.
DeleteI read the article "Monstrosity and Feminism in [italics]Frankenstein". Author Deborah Lindsay Williams describes how the absence of female role models in Frankenstein speaks to the nature of women despite the absence of them in the story. I found it very interesting how Williams perceived Frankenstein as a feminist work about asking questions rather than finding answers. I see how this can be true as Victor Frankenstein questioned the nature of the theoretical female creature that he chose not to create. He was forced to contemplate the actions of it, including its possibility to think for itself, reproduce, or not follow suit that's ideal for Frankenstein. This ties a strong parallel to the story of Adam and Eve as Eve, although depicted as weaker than Adam, chooses for herself and takes the risk of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, showing how stories like Adam and Eve and Frankenstein pose not answers, but questions to the nature of women although not having female role models.
ReplyDeleteI find the point Williams makes interesting. I wonder if there are stories with female role models that break this trend and maybe pose answers rather than questions.
DeleteI also read this article, and found that I kind of disagreed with a lot of the points that she was making, so it was interesting to hear your interpretation on the matter. One argument of Williams's that stood out to me was her point about how the absence of women correlates to the undoing of Frankenstein. I initially considered this as an extreme extrapolation and over-analysis of themes that were simply just absent, but the biblical parallels you point to support more of her analysis and make me consider this from a different angle.
DeleteI read the article "Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein by Deborah Lindsay Williams. When originally reading Frankenstein, I didn't think of this book as a feminist novel. It lacked the typical feminist role model; a strong, independent, and successful female protagonist. This article helped me gain insight on how Mary Shelly used Frankensteins prediction on the effects of making a female creature to express feminism. Frankenstein originally agrees to the request of making a female, because of the dæmons compassionate words, and strive to be loved. In this context the creation of a female is innocent, loving, and pure. Ultimately Frankenstein decides against this and rips apart the almost finished female body after imagining the danger it could cause. The female monster could be dangerous if it develops independent thinking, and if it has the ability to reproduce. As a result of marginalizing and sidelining women, the original monster vows vengeance on Victor, leading to the collapse of his soul.
ReplyDeleteI read the article "'Frankenstein' Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era", and one of the main points brought up in this article is that this author seems to think that Shelly did not actually grasp the Victor character herself. This lead me to wonder on why this author thinks this way. Maybe they think that Victor was made out to be the innocent one in the story when he actually is not. Every character in this book is meant to think, “poor, dear Victor”, when in fact that is not the case. It's just that no one knows about his secret (the creature). This author also thinks that the article would have been more interesting if the book was about, "Victor struggling to have the creature accepted by a society that shunned it as vile and unnatural." This whole entire novel would be about social prejudice. Which this author seems to be interested in.
ReplyDeleteI personally would not of enjoyed the book as much if he took the creature in, yes it is the right thing to do and what he should of done. But I liked the conflict between the creature and Victor, that is what made the novel.
DeletePhilip Balls article gives a good argument for a better more accurate interpretation of the novel, and its relevance in the modern world. He uses sources from a lot of former authors and scientist throughout the books long life to show his audience and the world that this book is a lot more that some critics portrayed to be , and how it has been portrayed in hollywood and pop culture. He argues that the monster and the monsters creation is a representation of humanity and its faults rather than a warning to the achievements in the realms of science. Ball shows that it's more a warning against playing God, or "violating nature." He also tells us that its not the making of them monster that's all bad in the book it's victors reaction to it and actions after the fact, that make the story problematic and relevant.
ReplyDeleteI think that your comment is well written and brings up good points. I definitely think that Frankenstein brings up conversation points on advancements in science and warnings to be cautious.
DeleteI think the article you read brings up an interesting point about the representation of the flaws of humanity. It makes me wonder how the outlook on the book would have changed if the pop culture portrayal was different.
DeleteI read The Monster Reads Milton: Paradise Lost by Wm. Moeck. It’s thought-provoking to discover the various allusions Frankenstein makes to the classics. Amongst these allusions, the connection between God and Satan’s relationship with Victor and his creature is an interesting concept. Victor, like God, creates a creature yet conversely fails to take care of him or even provide him a companion. The monster, like Satan, has become wrecked to where “all Good to me is lost;/Evil be thou my Good”(Paradise Lost) after being abandoned by his creator. I also found the allusion between Satan and the Greek God Prometheus interesting. Both Prometheus and Satan similarly associate with “a creation that destroys the creator and leaves something new”. This “something new” was “fire” in Prometheus for humanity while for Satan it was the consequence of death and sin: the people’s history and salvation.
ReplyDeleteI think that the points here are very interesting. Frankenstein relates the concepts of previous authors in a new and timeless manner.
DeleteI agree that it is very interesting how Mary Shelly alluded to many older texts in connection to Victor and the creature's relationship.
DeleteI read the article written by George Griffith. In the article, Griffith speaks a lot about the dynamic between the monster and Frankenstein, and the psychology surrounding it. I think it is interesting how Griffith stated that perhaps the monster and Frankenstein are two sides of the same person. It highlights the different instincts that are found within most people, and how easily a person can develop certain traits, or become immoral. I also thought it was interesting how Griffith explained how the monster was not really at fault throughout the novel, rather he was pushed to do the things he did by Frankenstein, and the rest of society. I think this brings up the topic of nature vs nurture and how much of our personalities are innate vs formed.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea that the creature and Frankenstein are the same person yet different sides, is very interesting. I think the sides these characters have could potentially make up the real "whole" that the readers were looking for.
DeleteI read the article "Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein" by Deborah Williams. Although I did not agree with a lot of the ideas within this article, I thought it brought up some good points on feminism within the novel. I think the author was definitely correct in stating that the characters and plot points had some heavy misogynistic themes, like how Frankenstein was scared of a woman monster having autonomy. However, I also believe that there are other explanations for this, one being that Frankenstein realized his mistakes from the first monster and was simply fearful of anything else going wrong.
ReplyDeleteI also read the strange and twisted life of "Frankenstein" by Jill Lepore, and what found interesting was the similarities' pointed out between the monster and Fredrick Douglas specifically about how their early lives and treatments, as a slave and "creature" transformed their views of themselves about them both being blots upon the earth. it really shows how far the reach of this story is and how much of a warning it is towards the treatment of others even those you may find distastful or have poor views of, how those feelings can affect that persons views of themself.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting comparison that I had not thought of before. The comparison between the experiences of the monster and Fredrick Douglas does give an fascinating insight into how humans treat each other.
DeleteI read the article the Strange and Twisted Life of "Frankenstein" by Jill Lepore. In the article, Lepore connects the fact that mary shelley kept the creature nameless and lacked a personality of its own to shelley's own loss of identity. she never had a name of her own, one name was her mothers, her fathers, and later her husbands. the article also talks about the many connections and parallels that can be taken from the book. to me, the two most prevelent were the connections to the atomic bomb and slavery. Frankenstein contains a warning about ambition in science, and they connect victors remorse after the creature to remorse after the atomic bomb was created, with a warning and plea for scientists to stay engaged with their creations. Lepore also connects the creature to Frederick Douglas, as they both taught themselves and used whatever resources and books they could find to learn. Both the creature and douglas also considered themselves outcasts when they were young, after having interactions with society.
ReplyDeleteI think the connections made by this author in this article are interesting. There are many modern connections made using Frankenstein for modern scientific advancements, but I don't think there are as many using the creature. I wonder if there are more parallels that can be drawn with the creature.
DeleteI read "Monstrosity and Feminism in Frankenstein" by Deborah Lindsay Williams. I liked her point on the feminist politics of the novel and how the absense of a prominent female character says a lot more than id that had been a strong female lead. Frankenstein when creating the female creature gets scared that once alive, will have it's own autonomy and personal thoughts. He then thonks about the fact that it may want to reproduce and Frankenstein does not want that either. He thinks that those things would be the worst possible thing ever and immediately destroys his work. Frankenstein destroying the female creature leads to many negative events towards the end of the novel that show the reader how the absense of the female character says a lot.
ReplyDeleteWe've mentioned this in class as well, but it's interesting how literature often has this theme of fearing the autonomy of females, and portraying them as beings who exist only to complete men and serve as comforting companions. And while many people have touched on this topic, if you look at the stories alternatively, they seem to say without women, men go too far and end up destroying themselves and those around them... obviously this doesn't hold true for all literature that portrays this fear of 'uncontrollable' females, so this is just a passing thought I'm mentioning, but I do feel that looking at these stories from the lens of "what happens after they lose female companionship, how does the character's mentality develop, and what is the 'ending'" would be an interesting theme to explore.
DeleteIn the article by George V. Griffith, he brings up many interesting parallels featured in the book. The first is Frankenstein being a mirror of Prometheus and how there characters are centered around their ambitions and the consequences that come with that. It also mentions Adam from the book of genesis and his fall from Grace after eating the fruit of knowledge. This is comparable to Victor who in search of knowledge created his own downfall. The article mentions how these characters are, “unhappy with the limits life places on them”. This brings up an interesting idea on if there are limits that we cannot cross, as a society we seem to respect innovators and those that go beyond the limits but these novels show that this will only bring punishment. One other section of the article I found interesting was when it brings up the point about how the monster is the first thing people think of when they hear the word “Frankenstein”. The story focused on Victor and his story as the protagonist but they legacy that this story has created instead focuses on the monster, even adopting its creator’s name.
ReplyDeleteI read the article written by George V. Griffith, where he discusses the relationship between Frankenstein and the Creature. The article bring up the concept of a Doppleganger, "the double who shadows us", which originates from the 1760s. Griffith talks about how the Creature is a copy of Frankenstein, which express Victor's demoniacal passions. Victor wanted to build a human like himself, and although he struggles to except it he actually was successful in making a monster like himself. This explains his fear of the monster, because it embodies Victor's own traits. While reading the novel Frankenstein, I noticed the similarities between the Creature and Victor, but I had never thought of it like a Doppleganger. I agree with the author that Victor creates a copy, or doppleganger of himself.
ReplyDeleteI read '"Frankenstein' Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era" by Philip Ball. This article makes many modern day connections to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. One of which was a connection to the development of IVFs and how all media reports of new technological advancements were labeled under Frankenstein's name. The articles also talks about how nature prevented Victor from creating a 'normal' human since the way he produced it was unnatural. The author wonders what exactly 'unnatural' means, and whether or not IVFs or 'three-parent babies' would fall under that category.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "Frankenstein Reflects the Hopes and Fears of every Scientific Era" the author proposes the question what would have been different if the Creature was nurtured by Frankenstein rather than neglected. I think the Creature would still be corrupted even if he was raised properly by Frankenstein. In Frankenstein's childhood he was raised in a loving environment but he still became the selfish person he was in the book. I think Frankenstein would not be able to care for the monster, even if he tried.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that even if Frankenstein hadn't left the creature to live on his own and learn how to live and interact with people by himself he would have still turned out more or less the same. I think that the creature would have similar intentions no matter what his upbringing was like because throughout the novel we could see that the creature changed his mindset several times which means that even if he did have a proper "childhood" nothing could stop him from creating his own ideas. Frankenstein may have been able to prevent some of the most violent acts such as murdering people, but he most likely would not have been able to create a completely innocent creature.
DeleteI read the article “The strange and twisted life of Frankenstein” by Jill Lepore, where she compares Mary Shelley's life to the novel as well as the French Revolution and Frederick Douglass. The Author explains how Victors politics align with Edmund Burke. Edmund has described the revolution as “a species of political monster, which has always ended by devouring those who have produced it”. I believe that this idea is reflected at the end of the novel where Victor is completely defeated mentally and physically by his own creation. As for the creature his politics align with adversaries such as Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. Their ideals reflect how people “rendered ferocious by misery”, just like how the creature was rendered to be the villain after being treated terribly.
ReplyDeleteI also read this article, and I agree that it was interesting how many connections Jill Lepore pointed out between the novel and Mary Shelley's own life and different events at the time the novel was written. It seemed that even from how the idea for Frankenstein was created (which connects to her personal life), to the idea of the French Revolution being included, a lot of the inspiration from this novel came from "real-life" events, which may be why so many people are able to relate to and understand this novel so deeply.
DeleteI read the article “Frankenstein The Afterlife of Shelleys Circle” by Wm. Moeck. Moeck connects the novel “Paradise Lost” and the Creatures reaction to reading that novel as a key component to his development. In “Paradise Lost” the author uses the genesis as an outline and retrofitted it with trappings of classic narrative about heroic battles and perilous journeys. The use of the genesis perfectly relates to “Frankenstein” as the Creature was often compared to Adam, the Devil or Satan. Satan in particular (one of gods fallen angels to hell) reflect how the Creature was at first innocent but corrupted by an unforgiving society and terrible treatment from his creator and fell into a cycle of pain and revenge.
ReplyDeleteIn the article "The Strange and Twisted Life of 'Frankenstein'", one of the ideas that was brought up that I found interesting was that Mary Shelley wanted the readers to find sympathy within both Frankenstein and the creature. She did not want people to only feel sympathy for Frankenstein for creating this creature who was killing the people who he loved most, but also for the creature himself who was left alone and was helpless and therefore resorted to revenge as a way to handle his confusion. The author of the article, Jill Lepore, described how with every line Mary Shelley was attempting to develop the reader's sympathies for both characters even throughout the toughest times in the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn the article by George Griffith, he makes the connection between Mary Shelley's age when she wrote Frankenstein and the character of Frankenstein within the novel. Being so young while writing Frankenstein, George Griffith stated that she was at an age "in which heart triumphed over head" meaning decisions were made more based on emotion than logic, which can definitely be seen in the character of Frankenstein. He did not take responsibility for creating the creature for the majority of the novel due to reasons such as the creature's destruction, his own guilt, and his own fear. Frankenstein left the creature on his own because he was scared of what he created which shows how he made decisions based on emotions, and not on what was the best logical decision. The results of these decisions can be seen in the destruction caused by the monster. The connection between how Frankenstein acts and Mary Shelley's age is an interesting factor to consider when looking at how the creature acted in the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Frankenstein The Afterlife of Shelley's Circle” Wm. Moeck, you learn about the literary allusions Mary Shelley makes in "Frankenstein" connecting it to "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. Moeck's main linkage is the similarity between Shelley's creature and Milton's Lucifer. The creature is the fallen angel turned devil, and he refers to himself in that way very often throughout the book. My favorite allusion was the mention of Victor Frankenstein's power over life and death being compared to Prometheus's fire. Moeck described these as a "paradoxical idea of creation that destroys the creator and leaves something new." I like the connection between the theme of how trying to surpass the limits set by God will result in consequences.
ReplyDelete