Matt Holsten and Courtney Hulley Moral Criticism 2/17/11
Moral criticism started around 360 BC and continues today. Moral criticism is a school of literary criticism that focuses on the moral aspects of the work. It specifically criticizes the work and its relation to human life and is often combined with dramatic construction. Plato believed that if art (literature) does not teach morality and ethics, then it serves no purpose and therefore can even damage its audience. Moral criticism is useful when the critic wants to analyze the themes of the work. Moral critics realize that while the work itself is important, the message of the work itself is equally important. Matthew Arnold argued that literary works should have a “high seriousness”. Horace felt that literature should be “delightful and instructive”. The ethics and morals of the critic are represented through their criticism of the work. The views of the author may very well be influenced onto the reader. Therefore, the critic must try to keep the criticism objective and use the ethics and moralities of humanity as a whole instead of the individual critic’s beliefs. However the moral views of different cultures may vary and may change in time. Therefore there can be very different moral criticisms on the same piece of literature. Finally, moral criticism should not tell the reader how to believe about a certain subject, they should tell the reader about the views of their society, and leave the reader to formulate his or her own beliefs. To study literature through the lens of moral criticism, you must ask yourself a few questions. First, can the work help the reader live a better life and improve his or her understanding of the world? Next, what does the work contain? Also, how strongly does the work bring forth its ideas and how many of those ideas can be evaluated morally and intellectually? Then, what part of the work can be applied to modern culture and its views? Those are some of the questions that a moral critic must ask himself or herself about the work in order to analyze it. However, there are some disadvantages to a moral criticism. For example, some say that moral criticism can be way too judgmental, and that works should be judged based on their artistic merit. Also, moral criticism can be very biased. For example, an atheist will have very different moral views than a Catholic person, because an atheist has no religion. This is inevitably a result of the different views that every person in our world has.
Brizee, Allen, and J. Case Tompkins. "Purdue OWL: Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism." Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL). 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. . Burris, Skylar H. "Literary Criticism Study Guide." Skylar Burris, Author and Editor: Freelance Editing, Freelance Writing, AncientPaths Literary Magazine, Poetry. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. . "Lit Crit & Theory." Internet Nebraska User Listing. 30 June 1999. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. . "Moral/Intellectual Critical Appr." The University of West Georgia. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Holman, C. Hugh, and William Flint Thrall. A Handbook to Literature,. Indianapolis: Odyssey, 1972. Print.
Feminism has always been existent but gained recognition coming out of the revolutionary period of the 18th century. Feminism can be described, according to the dictionary, as “the principle that women should have equal political, social, and economic rights equal to those of men” (Guralnik 514). This belief is the direct result of women fighting back against the sexism of their surroundings whether it is in the 18th century or in present times. Before feminism integrated into literature, it was accepted that “the text’s author is a father” (Gilbert 7). Very few women attempted to write and it is believed that the reason behind their absence in literature was that they had to write to a man’s standard. They viewed themselves as men viewed them, which did not include being authors. Rebellious females grew sick of this accepted rule in society and started to break away from it. According to Virginia Woolf, a prominent Feminist author, “Before we women can write… we must kill the angel in the house” (Gilbert 17). The “angel” Woolf is referring to is the image, created by men, of women in the 18th century. Women must first become independent and to write equally to men, thus making the introduction of feminist writing an empowering and enlightening feat.
Qualities common in this style of writing are: 1. Roles or the expected normality of a female can be reversed or changed, emphasizing the equalities of women to men. Feminist authors do this in order to “differentiate sex from gender and view the latter as a socially and culturally constructed category.” This is also done to stress the theory that “gender is learned and preformed” (McManus 58). 2. Questioning the expected roles of leading men “but also attempting to examine beliefs and practices [of] treating women and other marginalized groups as subjects, not merely objects.” (McManus 58) meaning that gender superiority isn’t a birthright, people simply needed to break away from what was taught to them as the social norm. 3. “Any inequalities between men and women can and should be removed.” (McManus 58) Therefore this style of writing almost serves as a moralizing opportunity to enlighten those who are blinded with the ignorance of believing one gender should dominate over another. The ‘mother of Feminism’ is argued by many to be Mary Wollstonecraft. She applied a new aspect of feminism to literature and “her approach is primarily concerned with the individual woman and about rights” (Lewis 3). Her main belief was that women should not be measured by a man’s standard which is the basic belief of feminism today. Wollstonecraft’s family life also took a part in her feminist views. Her husband was the philosopher William Godwin, and was mother to the novelist Mary Shelley. Her home life however, was a contrast to her ideal views of women. She experienced abuse and little legal action enforced for the victims. Women who did not have husbands had to support themselves and equality was barely possible. Her first work, The Vindication of the Rights of Women, is “a classic of feminist thought” (Lewis 1). It compared the rights of man with the realities of the life of women in her time. The themes in her essay were “part of the general intellectual discussion in England and France before, during, and after the French Revolution” (Lewis 6). Vindication exemplified the empowerment of women and set the way for future feminist literature, criticism and theory.
"Feminism in Literature." Modern Poetry: Its Writing and Appreciation. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
Gilbert, Sandra M, and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979. Print.
Lewis, Jone J. “Mary Wollstonecraft Legacy: Overview of Mary Wollstoncraft’s Life and Work.” About.com. n.p. n.d. web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
McManus, Barbara F. "Characteristics of a Feminist Approach." Classics and Feminism: Gendering the Classics. New York: Twayne, 1997. 58-60. Characteristics of a Feminist Approach. Oct. 1998. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
Webster's Dictionary of the American Language. Ed. David B. Guralnik. Second College Edition ed. William Collins World, 1978. 514. Print.
The landscape of world history is littered with social and cultural unrest. Karl Marx, the 19th Century German philosopher, and other Marxists claim that it is the struggle between social classes that is at the root of all unrest and ultimately all revolutions. From a literary perspective, Marxists analyze works from this context—that is, they look at how society and the social structure are portrayed in the text. Marxist literary critics also examine the attitudes and actions of different types of characters with very distinct class structure. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, is an example of a text which can be viewed through the lens of Marxist literary theory.
From the outset of the novel, it is evident that Victor Frankenstein represents the ruling class—the bourgeoisie. Frankenstein is wealthy, educated, and from a fine family. In her novel, Shelley writes that Frankenstein refers to himself as follows: “I am by birth a Genovese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic” (17). Frankenstein is filled with pride not just as it relates to his wealthy and privileged heritage, but also in regard to his intellectual capacity, especially as it pertains to science. He sets out to create a being that he believes will benefit all of mankind. To a Marxist literary critic, this hubris is an entirely authentic trait of the ruling class. In the novel, Frankenstein recklessly pursues his invention to bring animation to death without thinking of the consequences. It is as if he truly believes he can control what would become of his morbid experiment.
Similarly, Marxists condemn the ruling class as behaving recklessly toward humanity and in particular the working class—the proletariat. The ruling class, from a Marxist point of view, does more than mistreat the working class, they oppress them as well. In Frankenstein, the monster represents the oppressed working class. He is created by the ruling class (Frankenstein) and abandoned just when he needs its help. Shelley describes Frankenstein’s reaction when he first lays eyes on his creation: “I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (43). Frankenstein’s description of his creation is compared to a creature one might encounter in the pit of Hell. He does not hide his disgust at the sight of the being he has brought to life. To a Marxist literary critic, Frankenstein’s description and behavior toward his monster is indicative of the way in which the ruling class creates the working class and then abandons it. To a Marxist, the ruling class and bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production. Just like Frankenstein, the bourgeoisie exploits those that it views as beneath them, and throws them away when it does not need them anymore.
When Frankenstein abandons his creation, he leaves it to fend for itself in a world in which it is ill-prepared to live in. Frankenstein is both materially and intellectually prepared to live in the world thanks to his privileged birth and life. On the other hand, the monster enjoys neither benefit, much like the working class. To Marxists, it is this class struggle and oppression of the working class that creates a class of people who oppose everything the ruling class stands for. When the working class has finally had enough and outnumbers the ruling class, unrest or revolution is inevitable. In Frankenstein, the monster leads his own revolution just like the oppressed working class. When he realizes that Frankenstein is not going to make a mate for him, the monster revolts and goes on a killing spree in order to punish his creator.
Ultimately, the monster represents all the different classes of people that make up the larger working class. Frankenstein made his monster from many different parts: bones from charnel-houses, specimens from the dissecting room, and body parts from slaughter houses (Shelley 39). Society’s reaction to him is an example of the prejudice and discrimination that Marxists say the diverse working class suffers at the hands of the ruling class. Despite the fact that the monster becomes quite educated and well-spoken, those in the ruling class cannot overlook his gigantic stature and disgusting features. As a result, the monster is not only kept from enjoying fellowship with the ruling class, but he cannot even show his face in public. It doesn’t matter how hard he works to help De Lacey’s family. When the blind man’s children take one look at him, they react violently toward him. The monster once again is abandoned because of the way he looks. This lack of upward mobility is characteristic of the Marxist point of view—mainly that the working class will always remain oppressed by the ruling class, and not be able enjoy the fruits of their labors. When the working class grows tired of their treatment, they revolt, just like the monster. In the same way that the working class often becomes more powerful than the ruling class, Frankenstein’s monster becomes stronger than his creator.
Often like the proletariat’s view of the ruling class, the monster did not always view mankind as an oppressor. The monster pleads with Frankenstein, “Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone? You my creator abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing?” (Shelley 84). This complete abandonment by Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, is the last Marxist characteristic evident in the novel. Adherence to God, man’s creator, is viewed by Marxists as foolishness. Frankenstein’s treatment of the monster is evidence to the Marxist view that men cannot rely on God, and that men must take matters into their own hands.
Work Cited: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1981. Print.
Moral criticism dates back to the days of Ancient Greece as early as 360 BC, but has continued to appear in literature throughout history. It has found its way into many current-day novels, including Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Throughout the novel, many different events occur where someone makes a bad moral decision, and later in the novel the decision comes back later to hurt them. In one instance, Victor Frankenstein creates his monster, and goes against the morality of leaving nature alone. The monster then goes on to wreak havoc on Frankenstein and his family. Had Frankenstein simply not attempted to mess with nature and not created a monster from dead body parts, none of his trouble in the novel would have occurred. Shortly after he brought the monster to life, Frankenstein realizes how wrong a decision he has made, “The beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 42).
Victor Frankenstein also makes the possibly immoral decision of attempting to kill the monster to prevent possible future killings. As a result of this, Frankenstein ends up dying in his chase to find and kill the monster. Like his previous decision towards his monster, Frankenstein’s decision end up costing him much trouble, and causes the deaths of others.
Victor Frankenstein also does not think of the negative consequences of his decisions before he makes them. He is often blinded by his desires, and not the morality of the decision. He neither thinks of the worst possible scenarios, or the immorality of his decisions. When he creates his monster, his only thoughts are how he could create an entire species who would call him their creator, and he only wanted to play God, never thinking of the consequences of what he is doing. In Chapter 4, he thinks, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 51). Again, when he decides to attempt to kill the monster, he does not think of what the monster is capable of, and he doesn’t think to try and solve his problems in any other way. He again shows the ignorance to consequences which has sent him into his current downward spiral.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1981. Print.
Conor Ahern & Joe Zientek Ms. Lounsbury AP English 3 3/3/11 Reader Response Theory & Frankenstein The theory of Reader response criticism focuses on the effects, relationship and interactions between a reader and a literary work. The theory places the reader as the main focus of the criticism, while relegating the text to a secondary importance. The theory focuses on how a particular work affects the reader and the literary strategies and devices used to produce those effects. Reader Response theory is much more inclusive and subjective, preferring to find meaning in the perception of a work, as opposed to the work itself. To look at Shelley’s “Frankenstein” through the broadened scope of reader response is to automatically accept the fact that there may be more than one meaning in the story, and the fact that different audiences may be affected in different ways. That being said, “Frankenstein” in and of itself welcomes these different interpretations from different audiences, because it lends itself to them. It is a story which can literally be interpreted thousands of ways. The story leaves many corners unturned and many gaps unfilled- they exist because the reader is meant to fill in the blanks. The style of writing also affects Shelley’s audience in a variety of ways, permitting yet another aspect of reader response to be critically analyzed within the work. The first, and probably most prominent gap left in the novel, which reader response analysis can focus on is the description of Frankenstein’s monster. First and foremost, the monster remains anonymous- an unnamed being. Why has Shelley let her
main antagonist (or is it protagonist?) go forth unnamed? Certain interpretations of different audiences can reveal the motif behind this puzzling fact. One reader may be inclined to regard this namelessness as a statement of the monster’s inhumanity, and his grotesque hatred of human beings. Another audience may come to believe that the namelessness affirms the tragic narrative of the monster, a lost identity struggling to find his place in a world which he cannot belong. Each of these radically different interpretations stem from a tiny strategy employed by Shelley, and can lead different readers on completely different routes of understanding her work. The monsters description at the time of his birth is also another vast gap left by Shelley which can be analyzed and interpreted in a variety of ways. The reader is introduced to the monster through the eyes of Victor, who at first beholds his creation as “Beautiful!”, but then seemingly realizes that “the beauty of the dream had vanished” and Victor was “unable to escape the aspect of the being…” (Shelley 42) When the monster tries to reach out to Victor after his birth, his creator finally “beheld the wretch- the miserable monster which I had created.” (Shelley 43) Because the reader gets their first look at the monster through his horrified creator, they can be pushed, by the text, to regard the creation as a monster in itself. They may look at the monster’s first visit to his creator as an attack-something only that which is so horrible can do. Other audience members may look at the monster’s description merely as the byproduct of Victor’s difficulty to acquire dead tissue. They may feel Victor’s description of his creation and his first encounter with it does not do his creation justice. This reader may believe the encounter was merely the creation getting to know Victor. The sinister “grin” the monster gives his creator may just have been a kind smile. Again, the stories gaps are open to very different analyses by different readers, which is where meaning can be found. However it is also important that it is noted how the text can seemingly have a great effect on the reader’s interpretations, and how the readers interact with the text they are given.
Finally, a major gap exists in Frankenstein which many people and reader s may fail to notice, but the fact of the matter is, the novel really has no clear protagonist and antagonist, at least from the text itself. Although the work seemingly leads the reader to side with Victor and cast the creation as his “miserable wretch he had created,” (Shelley 43), the audience may be inclined to side with the creation and instead look to Victor as the true monster of the story. The beauty of this is that Shelley has left this open to interpretation, merely giving Victor a chance to let his point of view be told, and scarcely allowing the monster to do so. She never formally states herself whether or not the monster is a “demoniacal” being. Some readers may be inclined to regard the creation as the hero of the story, and some may look to Victor as the protagonist. However, others may disregard the good vs. evil concept entirely and may look at both characters as lost souls, “polluted by crimes and torn by the bitterest remorse…” (Shelley 205) They will view both the creator and his creation as beings constantly “in the agony of the torturing flames…” (Shelley 205) The central conflict, if there is any at all, is left completely open to an audience’s interpretation, confirming the fact that “Frankenstein” is a book very open to subjective meanings, one which truly needs a reader and an audience to catalyze its meaning- it is a fine example of a work in which reader response theory can be applied so brilliantly.
Works Cited Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print. Guerin, Wilfred L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford UP, 1992. Print. Tompkins, Jane P. Reader-response Criticism: from Formalism to Post-structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. Print.
Brody High and Nick Craig Phenomenological Criticism in Frankenstein March 1, 2011
Phenomenological Criticism in brief is a method of criticism based on the idea that reality is perceived in the conscience of the reader and is not affected by anything independent of human conscience. In other words, it means that the occurrences in a book only mean what the reader perceives it as. Phenomenology is present in the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley because each reader interprets the style in a different way. Some of the more popular interpretations of the genre are Romanticism and Horror. A reader can comprehend it any way they see it, however Romanticism and Horror seem to be the most appropriate genres. From a Phenomenological approach, one can perceive the novel as a Romantic piece. Romanticism is the movement validated strong emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on beauty and art. This particular genre has been around since the second half of the 18th century. In Frankenstein the monster created by Victor Frankenstein, begins to feel the need for a woman. In the story Shelley writes, “You must create a female for me with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being,” (Shelley 130). At this point in the story is yearning for a female to have as a companion. The monster explained that he was causing all these acts of horror only because he was lonely and had no one to love. A person may or may not intepret this as romantic piece because of their perception of reality from a phenomenlogical approach. This may because the monster reflects emotions of a Romantic genre. Another way that the novel could be interpreted is as horror story. The genre of Horror in literature is intended to, or has the capacity to frighten its readers, inducing feelings of terror. Horror can be either supernatural or non-supernatural. Shelley explains that her purpose in writing the novel was to create a ghost story that brought as much fear to the reader as it brought to herself. In the introduction, Shelley writes, “I have found it! What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the spectre which had hauted my midnight pillow.” (Shelley xxv) This example could show that Shelley’s reason for writing Frankenstein was to inflict terror upon the reader. From a phenomenoligcal standpoint based on this example, a reader may view the story as a horror piece. From a phenomenological standpoint the book Frankenstein can be intepreted in infinite styles and genres according to the readers perception of reality. When Husserl wrote the first book on phenomenology, he explained that phenomenology was a way for readers to interpret a work based on what they read and their thoughts on reality, not from outside opinions or ideas. Each individual has their own conscience which they individually comprehend the story without other variables affecting their point of view. Two of the more accepted genres applied to Frankenstein are Romanticism and Horror. These genres are the most popular because of the evidence within the story that reflect those views. Although they are popular, according to the phenomenological prosprective the book can be interpreted in any way the reader believes is true.
Matt Holsten and Courtney Hulley
ReplyDeleteMoral Criticism
2/17/11
Moral criticism started around 360 BC and continues today. Moral criticism is a school of literary criticism that focuses on the moral aspects of the work. It specifically criticizes the work and its relation to human life and is often combined with dramatic construction. Plato believed that if art (literature) does not teach morality and ethics, then it serves no purpose and therefore can even damage its audience. Moral criticism is useful when the critic wants to analyze the themes of the work. Moral critics realize that while the work itself is important, the message of the work itself is equally important.
Matthew Arnold argued that literary works should have a “high seriousness”. Horace felt that literature should be “delightful and instructive”. The ethics and morals of the critic are represented through their criticism of the work. The views of the author may very well be influenced onto the reader. Therefore, the critic must try to keep the criticism objective and use the ethics and moralities of humanity as a whole instead of the individual critic’s beliefs. However the moral views of different cultures may vary and may change in time. Therefore there can be very different moral criticisms on the same piece of literature. Finally, moral criticism should not tell the reader how to believe about a certain subject, they should tell the reader about the views of their society, and leave the reader to formulate his or her own beliefs.
To study literature through the lens of moral criticism, you must ask yourself a few questions. First, can the work help the reader live a better life and improve his or her understanding of the world? Next, what does the work contain? Also, how strongly does the work bring forth its ideas and how many of those ideas can be evaluated morally and intellectually? Then, what part of the work can be applied to modern culture and its views? Those are some of the questions that a moral critic must ask himself or herself about the work in order to analyze it.
However, there are some disadvantages to a moral criticism. For example, some say that moral criticism can be way too judgmental, and that works should be judged based on their artistic merit. Also, moral criticism can be very biased. For example, an atheist will have very different moral views than a Catholic person, because an atheist has no religion. This is inevitably a result of the different views that every person in our world has.
Brizee, Allen, and J. Case Tompkins. "Purdue OWL: Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism." Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL). 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Burris, Skylar H. "Literary Criticism Study Guide." Skylar Burris, Author and Editor: Freelance Editing, Freelance Writing, AncientPaths Literary Magazine, Poetry. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
"Lit Crit & Theory." Internet Nebraska User Listing. 30 June 1999. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
"Moral/Intellectual Critical Appr." The University of West Georgia. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Holman, C. Hugh, and William Flint Thrall. A Handbook to Literature,. Indianapolis: Odyssey, 1972. Print.
Brooke Wilson & Rachel Carnie
ReplyDeleteFeminist Theory
Feminism has always been existent but gained recognition coming out of the revolutionary period of the 18th century. Feminism can be described, according to the dictionary, as “the principle that women should have equal political, social, and economic rights equal to those of men” (Guralnik 514). This belief is the direct result of women fighting back against the sexism of their surroundings whether it is in the 18th century or in present times.
Before feminism integrated into literature, it was accepted that “the text’s author is a father” (Gilbert 7). Very few women attempted to write and it is believed that the reason behind their absence in literature was that they had to write to a man’s standard. They viewed themselves as men viewed them, which did not include being authors.
Rebellious females grew sick of this accepted rule in society and started to break away from it. According to Virginia Woolf, a prominent Feminist author, “Before we women can write… we must kill the angel in the house” (Gilbert 17). The “angel” Woolf is referring to is the image, created by men, of women in the 18th century. Women must first become independent and to write equally to men, thus making the introduction of feminist writing an empowering and enlightening feat.
Qualities common in this style of writing are:
1. Roles or the expected normality of a female can be reversed or changed, emphasizing the equalities of women to men. Feminist authors do this in order to “differentiate sex from gender and view the latter as a socially and culturally constructed category.” This is also done to stress the theory that “gender is learned and preformed” (McManus 58).
2. Questioning the expected roles of leading men “but also attempting to examine beliefs and practices [of] treating women and other marginalized groups as subjects, not merely objects.” (McManus 58) meaning that gender superiority isn’t a birthright, people simply needed to break away from what was taught to them as the social norm.
3. “Any inequalities between men and women can and should be removed.” (McManus 58) Therefore this style of writing almost serves as a moralizing opportunity to enlighten those who are blinded with the ignorance of believing one gender should dominate over another.
The ‘mother of Feminism’ is argued by many to be Mary Wollstonecraft. She applied a new aspect of feminism to literature and “her approach is primarily concerned with the individual woman and about rights” (Lewis 3). Her main belief was that women should not be measured by a man’s standard which is the basic belief of feminism today.
Wollstonecraft’s family life also took a part in her feminist views. Her husband was the philosopher William Godwin, and was mother to the novelist Mary Shelley. Her home life however, was a contrast to her ideal views of women. She experienced abuse and little legal action enforced for the victims. Women who did not have husbands had to support themselves and equality was barely possible.
Her first work, The Vindication of the Rights of Women, is “a classic of feminist thought” (Lewis 1). It compared the rights of man with the realities of the life of women in her time. The themes in her essay were “part of the general intellectual discussion in England and France before, during, and after the French Revolution” (Lewis 6). Vindication exemplified the empowerment of women and set the way for future feminist literature, criticism and theory.
Brooke Wilson & Rachel Carnie
ReplyDeleteSources:
"Feminism in Literature." Modern Poetry: Its Writing and Appreciation. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
Gilbert, Sandra M, and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979. Print.
Lewis, Jone J. “Mary Wollstonecraft Legacy: Overview of Mary Wollstoncraft’s Life and Work.” About.com. n.p. n.d. web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
McManus, Barbara F. "Characteristics of a Feminist Approach." Classics and Feminism: Gendering the Classics. New York: Twayne, 1997. 58-60. Characteristics of a Feminist Approach. Oct. 1998. Web. 21 Feb. 2011. .
Webster's Dictionary of the American Language. Ed. David B. Guralnik. Second College Edition ed. William Collins World, 1978. 514. Print.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe landscape of world history is littered with social and cultural unrest. Karl Marx, the 19th Century German philosopher, and other Marxists claim that it is the struggle between social classes that is at the root of all unrest and ultimately all revolutions. From a literary perspective, Marxists analyze works from this context—that is, they look at how society and the social structure are portrayed in the text. Marxist literary critics also examine the attitudes and actions of different types of characters with very distinct class structure. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, is an example of a text which can be viewed through the lens of Marxist literary theory.
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset of the novel, it is evident that Victor Frankenstein represents the ruling class—the bourgeoisie. Frankenstein is wealthy, educated, and from a fine family. In her novel, Shelley writes that Frankenstein refers to himself as follows: “I am by birth a Genovese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic” (17). Frankenstein is filled with pride not just as it relates to his wealthy and privileged heritage, but also in regard to his intellectual capacity, especially as it pertains to science. He sets out to create a being that he believes will benefit all of mankind. To a Marxist literary critic, this hubris is an entirely authentic trait of the ruling class. In the novel, Frankenstein recklessly pursues his invention to bring animation to death without thinking of the consequences. It is as if he truly believes he can control what would become of his morbid experiment.
Similarly, Marxists condemn the ruling class as behaving recklessly toward humanity and in particular the working class—the proletariat. The ruling class, from a Marxist point of view, does more than mistreat the working class, they oppress them as well. In Frankenstein, the monster represents the oppressed working class. He is created by the ruling class (Frankenstein) and abandoned just when he needs its help. Shelley describes Frankenstein’s reaction when he first lays eyes on his creation: “I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (43). Frankenstein’s description of his creation is compared to a creature one might encounter in the pit of Hell. He does not hide his disgust at the sight of the being he has brought to life. To a Marxist literary critic, Frankenstein’s description and behavior toward his monster is indicative of the way in which the ruling class creates the working class and then abandons it. To a Marxist, the ruling class and bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production. Just like Frankenstein, the bourgeoisie exploits those that it views as beneath them, and throws them away when it does not need them anymore.
When Frankenstein abandons his creation, he leaves it to fend for itself in a world in which it is ill-prepared to live in. Frankenstein is both materially and intellectually prepared to live in the world thanks to his privileged birth and life. On the other hand, the monster enjoys neither benefit, much like the working class. To Marxists, it is this class struggle and oppression of the working class that creates a class of people who oppose everything the ruling class stands for. When the working class has finally had enough and outnumbers the ruling class, unrest or revolution is inevitable. In Frankenstein, the monster leads his own revolution just like the oppressed working class. When he realizes that Frankenstein is not going to make a mate for him, the monster revolts and goes on a killing spree in order to punish his creator.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the monster represents all the different classes of people that make up the larger working class. Frankenstein made his monster from many different parts: bones from charnel-houses, specimens from the dissecting room, and body parts from slaughter houses (Shelley 39). Society’s reaction to him is an example of the prejudice and discrimination that Marxists say the diverse working class suffers at the hands of the ruling class. Despite the fact that the monster becomes quite educated and well-spoken, those in the ruling class cannot overlook his gigantic stature and disgusting features. As a result, the monster is not only kept from enjoying fellowship with the ruling class, but he cannot even show his face in public. It doesn’t matter how hard he works to help De Lacey’s family. When the blind man’s children take one look at him, they react violently toward him. The monster once again is abandoned because of the way he looks. This lack of upward mobility is characteristic of the Marxist point of view—mainly that the working class will always remain oppressed by the ruling class, and not be able enjoy the fruits of their labors. When the working class grows tired of their treatment, they revolt, just like the monster. In the same way that the working class often becomes more powerful than the ruling class, Frankenstein’s monster becomes stronger than his creator.
Often like the proletariat’s view of the ruling class, the monster did not always view mankind as an oppressor. The monster pleads with Frankenstein, “Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone? You my creator abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing?” (Shelley 84). This complete abandonment by Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, is the last Marxist characteristic evident in the novel. Adherence to God, man’s creator, is viewed by Marxists as foolishness. Frankenstein’s treatment of the monster is evidence to the Marxist view that men cannot rely on God, and that men must take matters into their own hands.
Work Cited:
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1981. Print.
James Schott and Jakub Frankowicz
ReplyDeleteMoral Criticism in Frankenstein
Moral criticism dates back to the days of Ancient Greece as early as 360 BC, but has continued to appear in literature throughout history. It has found its way into many current-day novels, including Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Throughout the novel, many different events occur where someone makes a bad moral decision, and later in the novel the decision comes back later to hurt them. In one instance, Victor Frankenstein creates his monster, and goes against the morality of leaving nature alone. The monster then goes on to wreak havoc on Frankenstein and his family. Had Frankenstein simply not attempted to mess with nature and not created a monster from dead body parts, none of his trouble in the novel would have occurred. Shortly after he brought the monster to life, Frankenstein realizes how wrong a decision he has made, “The beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 42).
Victor Frankenstein also makes the possibly immoral decision of attempting to kill the monster to prevent possible future killings. As a result of this, Frankenstein ends up dying in his chase to find and kill the monster. Like his previous decision towards his monster, Frankenstein’s decision end up costing him much trouble, and causes the deaths of others.
Victor Frankenstein also does not think of the negative consequences of his decisions before he makes them. He is often blinded by his desires, and not the morality of the decision. He neither thinks of the worst possible scenarios, or the immorality of his decisions. When he creates his monster, his only thoughts are how he could create an entire species who would call him their creator, and he only wanted to play God, never thinking of the consequences of what he is doing. In Chapter 4, he thinks, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 51). Again, when he decides to attempt to kill the monster, he does not think of what the monster is capable of, and he doesn’t think to try and solve his problems in any other way. He again shows the ignorance to consequences which has sent him into his current downward spiral.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1981. Print.
Conor Ahern & Joe Zientek
ReplyDeleteMs. Lounsbury
AP English 3
3/3/11
Reader Response Theory & Frankenstein
The theory of Reader response criticism focuses on the effects, relationship and interactions between a reader and a literary work. The theory places the reader as the main focus of the criticism, while relegating the text to a secondary importance. The theory focuses on how a particular work affects the reader and the literary strategies and devices used to produce those effects. Reader Response theory is much more inclusive and subjective, preferring to find meaning in the perception of a work, as opposed to the work itself. To look at Shelley’s “Frankenstein” through the broadened scope of reader response is to automatically accept the fact that there may be more than one meaning in the story, and the fact that different audiences may be affected in different ways. That being said, “Frankenstein” in and of itself welcomes these different interpretations from different audiences, because it lends itself to them. It is a story which can literally be interpreted thousands of ways. The story leaves many corners unturned and many gaps unfilled- they exist because the reader is meant to fill in the blanks. The style of writing also affects Shelley’s audience in a variety of ways, permitting yet another aspect of reader response to be critically analyzed within the work.
The first, and probably most prominent gap left in the novel, which reader response analysis can focus on is the description of Frankenstein’s monster. First and foremost, the monster remains anonymous- an unnamed being. Why has Shelley let her
main antagonist (or is it protagonist?) go forth unnamed? Certain interpretations of different audiences can reveal the motif behind this puzzling fact. One reader may be inclined to regard this namelessness as a statement of the monster’s inhumanity, and his grotesque hatred of human beings. Another audience may come to believe that the namelessness affirms the tragic narrative of the monster, a lost identity struggling to find his place in a world which he cannot belong. Each of these radically different interpretations stem from a tiny strategy employed by Shelley, and can lead different readers on completely different routes of understanding her work.
ReplyDeleteThe monsters description at the time of his birth is also another vast gap left by Shelley which can be analyzed and interpreted in a variety of ways. The reader is introduced to the monster through the eyes of Victor, who at first beholds his creation as “Beautiful!”, but then seemingly realizes that “the beauty of the dream had vanished” and Victor was “unable to escape the aspect of the being…” (Shelley 42) When the monster tries to reach out to Victor after his birth, his creator finally “beheld the wretch- the miserable monster which I had created.” (Shelley 43) Because the reader gets their first look at the monster through his horrified creator, they can be pushed, by the text, to regard the creation as a monster in itself. They may look at the monster’s first visit to his creator as an attack-something only that which is so horrible can do. Other audience members may look at the monster’s description merely as the byproduct of Victor’s difficulty to acquire dead tissue. They may feel Victor’s description of his creation and his first encounter with it does not do his creation justice. This reader may believe the encounter was merely the creation getting to know Victor. The sinister “grin” the monster gives his creator may just have been a kind smile. Again, the stories gaps are open to very different analyses by different readers, which is where meaning can be found. However it is also important that it is noted how the text can seemingly have a great effect on the reader’s interpretations, and how the readers interact with the text they are given.
Finally, a major gap exists in Frankenstein which many people and reader s may fail to notice, but the fact of the matter is, the novel really has no clear protagonist and antagonist, at least from the text itself. Although the work seemingly leads the reader to side with Victor and cast the creation as his “miserable wretch he had created,” (Shelley 43), the audience may be inclined to side with the creation and instead look to Victor as the true monster of the story. The beauty of this is that Shelley has left this open to interpretation, merely giving Victor a chance to let his point of view be told, and scarcely allowing the monster to do so. She never formally states herself whether or not the monster is a “demoniacal” being. Some readers may be inclined to regard the creation as the hero of the story, and some may look to Victor as the protagonist. However, others may disregard the good vs. evil concept entirely and may look at both characters as lost souls, “polluted by crimes and torn by the bitterest remorse…” (Shelley 205) They will view both the creator and his creation as beings constantly “in the agony of the torturing flames…” (Shelley 205) The central conflict, if there is any at all, is left completely open to an audience’s interpretation, confirming the fact that “Frankenstein” is a book very open to subjective meanings, one which truly needs a reader and an audience to catalyze its meaning- it is a fine example of a work in which reader response theory can be applied so brilliantly.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
ReplyDeleteShelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print.
Guerin, Wilfred L. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford UP, 1992. Print.
Tompkins, Jane P. Reader-response Criticism: from Formalism to Post-structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. Print.
Brody High and Nick Craig
ReplyDeletePhenomenological Criticism in Frankenstein
March 1, 2011
Phenomenological Criticism in brief is a method of criticism based on the idea that reality is perceived in the conscience of the reader and is not affected by anything independent of human conscience. In other words, it means that the occurrences in a book only mean what the reader perceives it as. Phenomenology is present in the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley because each reader interprets the style in a different way. Some of the more popular interpretations of the genre are Romanticism and Horror. A reader can comprehend it any way they see it, however Romanticism and Horror seem to be the most appropriate genres.
From a Phenomenological approach, one can perceive the novel as a Romantic piece. Romanticism is the movement validated strong emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on beauty and art. This particular genre has been around since the second half of the 18th century. In Frankenstein the monster created by Victor Frankenstein, begins to feel the need for a woman. In the story Shelley writes, “You must create a female for me with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being,” (Shelley 130). At this point in the story is yearning for a female to have as a companion. The monster explained that he was causing all these acts of horror only because he was lonely and had no one to love. A person may or may not intepret this as romantic piece because of their perception of reality from a phenomenlogical approach. This may because the monster reflects emotions of a Romantic genre.
Another way that the novel could be interpreted is as horror story. The genre of Horror in literature is intended to, or has the capacity to frighten its readers, inducing feelings of terror. Horror can be either supernatural or non-supernatural. Shelley explains that her purpose in writing the novel was to create a ghost story that brought as much fear to the reader as it brought to herself. In the introduction, Shelley writes, “I have found it! What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the spectre which had hauted my midnight pillow.” (Shelley xxv) This example could show that Shelley’s reason for writing Frankenstein was to inflict terror upon the reader. From a phenomenoligcal standpoint based on this example, a reader may view the story as a horror piece.
From a phenomenological standpoint the book Frankenstein can be intepreted in infinite styles and genres according to the readers perception of reality. When Husserl wrote the first book on phenomenology, he explained that phenomenology was a way for readers to interpret a work based on what they read and their thoughts on reality, not from outside opinions or ideas. Each individual has their own conscience which they individually comprehend the story without other variables affecting their point of view. Two of the more accepted genres applied to Frankenstein are Romanticism and Horror. These genres are the most popular because of the evidence within the story that reflect those views. Although they are popular, according to the phenomenological prosprective the book can be interpreted in any way the reader believes is true.