I really dislike the word "criticism" because of its negative connotations. So in this blog, you will discuss your understanding of a school of literary theory and teach this theory to the class. Remember, these are, for the most part, exdtremely complex philosophies, and we are novices; therefore, don't be afraid to admit that something confuses you, and feel free to invite discussion of a particular point or topic.
Happy Blogging!
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.
Postmodernism started as early as the 18th century, but the literary theory did not come to light until the late 19th century with Friedrich Nietzsche’s, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral Sense. Postmodern criticism highlights the relationship between the writer, the work, and the reader. It does not heavily focus on the author, but rather the language in a piece of literature and how the text influences the thoughts of the reader. Friedrich Nietzsche, the first philosopher behind postmodern criticism, believes that every word in literature contributes to one of many concepts the reader draws from the text. Nietzsche proclaims every strategy behind a work lies inside the text and the specific language of the author. This constant evaluation of the text and its impact on the reader often causes postmodern theorists to question literature. Theorists wonder how the overall message of a piece would change if a new point of view was given or what the author possibly left out of his work that may have drastically changed the theme. Jean-François Lyotard, a French philosopher on postmodern criticism, wrote his idea on the theory in, The Postmodern Condition. Lyotard argues that there is no definite concept in a piece, instead, there is a definite way the text interprets any idea by the reader. In other words, all readers form their own unique perspective on a subject, but there is a singular reason for this: the text. The text influences the reader, whether it is by language or the ideologies the literature promotes, and postmodern critics analyze how these factors are successful or unsuccessful in a piece. Postmodern criticism also examines the work to its genre and its relationship to general truths. Critics compare the differences of the work to other conventional pieces of the same genre to see what was done differently and if it was effective or not. Aspects of a work are also looked at to see if an idea contradicts a generally accepted truth. For example, in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly’s Frankenstein, the monster is described to be indeed, a monster, although the reader later comes to the conclusion that the monster is innocent and does not know any better. In this piece, the idea of a monster is contradicted and postmodern critics evaluate how these contradictions affect the reader. Even though there are a few scholars and theorists behind postmodern criticism, there is a similar tie on the belief that the main purpose of a work is centered on the text. Every author and every piece of literature are in fact, different and it is accepted that there is no right or wrong understanding of a work. Postmodern criticism states that to some extent, writers omit parts of their work such as the viewpoints of certain characters so that the overall theme of the piece is not obfuscated and there is a consistent message throughout the text. Literature can be an onerous task to analyze, but postmodern criticism reveals the secret to comprehending a work is in the text itself.
ReplyDeleteBrizee, 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. 20 Feb. 2011.
De Beaugrande, Robert. Critical Discourse: A Survey of Literary Theorists. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988. Print.
Hawthorn, Jeremey. A Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory. New York, NY: Arnold, 1998. Print.
Montinari, Mazzino, and Ernst Behler. Nietzsche Studien. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Print.
Marxism, the brainchild of German political philosophers Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, is defined as "an economic and socio-political worldview that contains within it a political ideology for how to change and improve society by implementing socialism" (Credo Reference Home: Marxism). While its role in shaping political history since the publication of Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto in 1848 has been well documented, Marxism is not exclusively a matter of political ideology, but also embodies a particular moral and cultural worldview. Hence, Marxist literary critics explore several themes and characteristics as they pertain to a piece of a literature.
ReplyDeleteThe essence of Marxism is the belief that Capitalism, born out of man's materialistic tendencies, enriches the ruling class (bourgeoisie), at the expense of the working class (proletariat), the latter of which constitute the majority of the population. This dichotomy, Marxists contend, is the driving force behind nearly all revolutions and social upheaval in the history of man. As Marx wrote, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle" (Engel and Marx 3). Thus, Marxist literary critics examine if, and if so, how, the plot and characters in a novel illustrate this phenomenon.
For instance, the central conflict in a "Marxist-friendly" story will often simply involve pitting the desires of an altruistic, honest person(s), against the selfish interests of some powerful, oppressive force. Emphasis is placed on the plight, often economic, of the protagonist. The antagonist meanwhile will often display certain bourgeoisie caricatures propagated by proponents of Marxism: wealth, arrogance, close-mindedness (often manifested as racism or sexism), lack of compassion, etc. This reflects the comparatively polarizing attitude Marxists tend to display toward Capitalist partisans. Classic liberals, and other like-minded ideologues, tend to regard Marxists viewpoints—their diametric opposite—as generally well-intentioned, albeit significantly flawed; whereas Marxists are more inclined to believe conservative ideology stems from sinister motives. From the Marxists perspective, Capitalism vs. Socialism is not merely a matter of efficiency, but a battle between good and evil. As the former Premier of the Communist party in the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, said, "All they [capitalists] wanted from me was the most work for the least money that kept me alive. So I became a communist" (Brainy Quote).
Marxist literary critics also peruse a literary work for more subtle characteristics. For example, they examine whether the government, if present in a story, is truly representative of the people, or, as Marxists are disposed to thinking, naturally corrupt, catering to the interests of the powerful. The characters’ attitudes regarding religion can also be very revealing. Marxists have a propensity to view religion with suspicion, as Marx believed the ruling class utilized religion as a means of distraction, and thus, religious leaders often colluded with the government. As he wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" (Brainy Quote). Further, adherence to God, particularly during the era of the Soviet Union, or any other higher power, undermines loyalty toward the state. In addition, how the characters spend their free time can also be very indicative. Marxists maintain that people in a Communist society, free from the demanding toil that profit-driven Capitalism depends on, would, if left to their own devices, pursue far more noble, productive endeavors, despite the lack of economic incentive.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
ReplyDelete"Introduction to Modern Literary Theory." Homepage - Dr. Kristi Siegel. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
.
"Karl Marx Quotes - Page 2 - BrainyQuote." Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, A. J. P. Taylor, and Samuel Moore. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin, 1985. Print.
"Marxism - Credo Reference Topic." Credo Reference Home. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
"Marxist Literary Criticism: Brief Guide." Assumption College: A Catholic College Founded by the Augustinians of the Assumption. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Murfin, Ross C., and Supryia M. Ray. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. Boston: Bedford, 1998. Print.
"Nikita Khrushchev Quotes - BrainyQuote." Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Marxism is a political ideology based on the bettering of society through implementing socialism. Marxism was originally developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the early 19th century. Evidently, Marxist criticism is a form of criticism based on the political ideas found in Marxism and Karl Marx's greater theory of history. This theory is the staple of Marxist criticism. Karl Marx viewed society and human history materialistically. This lead him to believe that human history is a history based on the economy. Marxist Critics think that human thought is based off of material needs and human survival.
ReplyDeleteMarxist criticism examines literature as a reflection of the community or society it arises from. According to these critics, even the literature itself arises from its own social institution and has specific ideology based on the background of the author. Generally speaking, Marxists do not believe literary works come from religious or divine intervention. They believe that each piece of literature is written based off of economic and ideological circumstances. Marxist critics are always looking for whom does the work benefit. They are also generally interested in how the lower or working classes are oppressed, whether it is in literature or in daily life.
For these Marxist critics, the works they study are viewed as reflections of the author's place in society. They interpret texts in relation to the class based struggles of that time period or society. Marx did not write much about literature and socialism, but in a few of his pieces he connected economic issues and social structures.
Marxists follow a thinking called material dialectic. They believe that the historical changes in a society are the results of the material or economic needs, not the ideal structure of politics, law, philosophy, religion, or art. These are built based upon the economic needs, not the other way around. Marx believed that there will always be a conflict between the upper, middle, and lower working classes and this conflict would be reflected in literature.
In 1859, Marx wrote Zur Kritik der Politischen Okonomie and states, “The mode of production of material life determines altogether the social, political, and intellectual life process. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being that determines their consciousness.” In this quote, Marx links economic issues and social structure, although not in extensive details. There are some discrepancies about this; however, most Marxist critics believe the relationship between literary works and the economic center of a society are extremely dependent to each other.
Works Cited
-------
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBrizee, Allen, and J. Case Tompkins. "Marxist Criticism (1930s-present)."
ReplyDeletePurdue Online Writing. Owl, 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Voloshinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Hardvard: Seminar
Press, 1986. Print.
Biddle, Arthur W., and Toby Fulwiler. Reading, Writing, and the Study of Literature. NY: Random House, 1989.
Lynn, Steven. Texts and Contexts: Writing About Literature with Critical Theory. 2nd ed. NY: Longman, 1998.
Simplifying Deconstruction as Much as We Possibly Can
ReplyDeleteMarta Pelka and Marisa Patti
Deconstruction can most simply be defined as the relationship between the mind, language and reality depicted through nature. It is a theory of reading and writing. Jaques Derrida, in an attempt to expose the metaphysics of presence is renowned for his work in beginning the ideas, comparisons, and trends that classify as deconstructionism. His approach pursues the meaning of a text is not a discrete whole but contains several unalike views and contradictory meanings. Thus proving that a text has more than one meaning. His major works of this nature were produced between 1967 and 1972 making deconstruction a fairly young and new idea. Deconstruction finds its foundation in the triangle of mind, language and nature. The complex relationships between them builds an inner voice, conscious, that all humans posses. Mind can be considered the peak of the triangle. Through personal experiences the mind is capable of reflecting nature. The mind can depict reality for what it truly is because it has a natural representative relation to it. In simpler terms, mind represents nature, which is reality. Language is brought into the picture via mind. Language, also including any form of written communication, is a representation of the mind. The connection that ties all three points of the triangle together is that mind represents reality and language represents mind, therefore language is a product of nature.
Some ideas of Aristotle can be connected to Derrida’s ideas of deconstruction. Aristotle suggests a double relationship between nature and the mind, as well as the mind and the language it produces. A series of comparison that reflect deconstruction is presence, self, truth, reason, and reality are more important than language, written or spoke. Language or any other sine system mimics thought, and will hurt the mind in the long run. If reality from the mind is written down in language, the mind loses its purpose for memory. The mind will be incapable of functioning to its fullest potential if it does not use its memory and simply relies on language. The balance between the three ideas of deconstruction is delicate. Reality is completely controlled by the mind. Mind is the most powerful of language and reality. If the mind allows language to become more powerful by reducing memory to writing then the balance of the triangle will be thrown off. The mind will deteriorate if it lets language become too powerful.
In today’s society, even some music that we listen to portrays the concepts of deconstructionism as in her “Breathe (2 AM)” Anna Nalick sings, “2 AM and I’m still awake writing this song, if I get it all down on paper its no longer inside of you, threatening the life it belongs to”. This phrase correctly depicts the ideas of Aristotle in a contemporary song, thus providing an example of the theory of deconstructionism.
Deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited:
Crowley, Sharon. A Teacher's Introduction to Deconstruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989. Print.
Lawlor, Leonard. "Jacques Derrida." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 22 Nov. 2006. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Sollers, Susan. "Presidential Lectures: Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction." Welcome! Stanford Presidential Lectures and Symposia. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
The Progression of Feminism and One of its Leading Ladies
ReplyDeleteDespite the key role women play in the family and society overall, as a whole women were oppressed by their male counterpart without being able to stand up for themselves. As the twentieth century came about a movement began to end this injustice; this movement would eventually be known as Feminism. Feminism is the belief that women should have economic, political, and social equality with men (Gustafson). Beginning in the 1920’s this movement began to expand, then decline, and then once again expand as the 1960’s progressed. This era became known as the “second wave” of Feminism; it captured the elements which were not, or could not be handled by the first wave of reformists. In both informal and miniscule organizations, as well as well-developed political machines, the Feminist movement took root in America and challenged traditional gender roles. Female political involvement increased substantially with more women wanting to integrate into society outside of the home. Meanwhile, in the workplace women were calling for equal employment rights and opportunities.
Feminist theory and criticism revolves around gender studies and a women’s place in society. Concerning itself with both masculine and feminine perspectives, feminist theory challenges the stereotypes of women in respect to men. The traditional role of a woman as a housewife is viewed as outdated and unjust by feminist advocates. Feminists thereby alter the status of the female half of society, while attempting to make it appeal to the male portion of society as well. Major themes of Feminist theory are discrimination, stereotyping, objectification, and oppression of women in society. Critics examine texts for gender and sex roles, ideals of masculinity and femininity, and rebellion against or acceptance of these ideals or roles.
At the peak of the second wave of Feminism a key activist surfaced with her writing of The Feminist Mystique in 1963. Betty Friedan was a premier women’s advocate who encouraged women to seek careers outside of the home rather than be just a homemaker. Inspired by her mother who had been forced to leave her job to pursue a life as a housewife, Friedan moved to New York from California in order to pursue a career in journalism. Originally an article citing information from a survey which she had completed at her high school reunion, the piece progressed from being denied by newspapers and magazines to a best seller sold in more than thirteen languages. Betty Friedan became a celebrity at the forefront of gender oppression. Unsatisfied with the state of women’s affairs, she became a founder of the largest women’s rights organization in the U.S., the National Organization for Women (NOW). This ground breaking organization fights for women’s rights, interests, and issues in legislation as well as in public demonstrations. Still expanding today, the organization is involved in several controversial topics including: the legalization of abortion, the use of birth control, better prenatal care, racial equality, ending sexual orientation discrimination, and disability discrimination. Friedan served as the organization’s president from 1966 to 1970.
As her life continued on Betty Friedan continued to fight for the betterment of society. She participated in the 1970 Women’s Strike for Equality which marked the fiftieth anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States. Also, she initialized a political caucus for NOW in 1971, encouraging women to run for political office. Despite her death in February of 2006, her spirit lives on in the hearts and minds of Feminists abroad and in the organization which she gave birth to.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteGiele, Janet Zollinger. "Women's movement." World Book Advanced. World Book, 2011. Web.
23 Feb. 2011.
Gustafson, Melanie S. "Feminism." World Book Advanced. World Book, 2011. Web. 21 Feb.
2011.
Gustafson, Melanie S. "Friedan, Betty." World Book Advanced. World Book, 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.
Mezey, Susan Gluck. "National Organization for Women (NOW)." World Book Advanced. World Book, 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2011.
Freudian Psychoanalysis Literary Criticism
ReplyDeleteMatt Schiek and Brittany Rossi
Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist who founded the school of psychoanalysis, and is best known for his study of the unconscious mind and the defense mechanism of repression, as well as the clinical treatment of psychoanalysis. He believed that interpreting dreams could help stumble upon a person's problems, and possibly even discover a way to solve it.
Freud theorized that 70% of our mind is made up of the unconscious, while the conscious takes up a mere 15%, called the Iceberg Effect. He believed the unconscious was made up of repressed memories throughout one's life. This backs up his theories on repressed memories and negative events in the past having an effect on a person's thoughts, decisions and actions later on in life. However, Freud did take a sexual approach to his thought process, creating the reality versus pleasure principle. By these principles he meant that dreams, fantasies and personality disorders arose when instinctual drives were constrained by exterior reality. For example, a fantasy would arise out of something which seemed taboo, such as incest.
He also referred to dreams as being a wish fulfillment of sorts, or being capable of something that has no chance of happening in reality. When it came to art and literature, he believed that desire was the driving force behind successful works. A psychoanalytical-approach critic would view a work of literature as a dream, and try to interpret it through tiny details, subliminal messages, repeating themes and symbols throughout. The critic would look deeper into the artist's work, and try to uncover the artist's unconscious motives and desires based on subtle details, generally looking for phallic symbols representing the male or female sex organs. Freud believed that the unconscious desired the phallus, male or female. The male's mind fears losing his masculinity, or phallus, to another male, while the female mind constantly desires to have a phallus, which is an unfulfillable desire. This is why boys resent their father over the fear of castration, while girls desire theirs. Although phallic symbols were important while Freud applied his psychoanalytical literary criticism, a more modern approach looks more closely to clues of past events in the artist's childhood, or anything seeming to be repressed or relating to an already known problem.
One can take a deeper look at the psycho-biographic approach which looks into one's childhood events for an explanation to his works. Major events which occurred in a child's life can often prove to be detrimental in the future, whether it is a divorce, abuse or neglect. Freud would often assume that a woman's apparent memory of sexual abuse of a family member was simply a fantasy or desire to be sexually active with the abuser. This proved to be controversial, seeing that many of the women Freud talked to in a clinical manner actually were sexual abused in the past. Another popular theme is the desire to recreate a deceased loved one or a childhood the artist missed out on, seen most obviously in Frankenstein, as Mary Shelley lost her mother very early in her life.
Brody High and Nicholas Craig
ReplyDeletePhenomenological Criticism
2/19/11
Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. It has been practiced for many centuries without name, for example when Hindu and Buddhist philosophers reflected on states of consciousness achieved in a variety of meditative states, they were practicing phenomenology without even knowing it.
The term “phenomenology” was coined by a 19th and 20th century philisopher named Edmund Husserl. He began his studies as a mathematician, but then shifted his interest more towards psychology and philosophy when he discovered Brentano, a philosopher who classified varieties of natural mental phenomena. Husserl attempted to shift the focus of philosophy away from large scale theorization, towards a more magnified study of phenomena, ideas and simple events. Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher who developed existential phenomenology, discussed in his most famous work Being and Time. Heidegger is concerned with the question of what kind of "being" human beings have. He said that human beings are, “thrown into a world that they have not made but that consists of potentially useful things, including cultural as well as natural objects.”
Now Phenomenological Criticism is a method of Literary Criticism which inspects the text without presuppositions about ontology or epistemology, ontology being the theory of the nature of being, epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Phenomenological criticism sees the work of art as an aesthetic work, existing only in the mind of the perceiver. People who believe in it tend to have little interest in the ontology of the object and instead value the affective aspects of the work.
Works Cited
"Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)." EarthLink. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, and John R. Willingham. "Phenomenology." Literary Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Piers, 1992. 286-90. Print.
Habib, Rafey. A History of Literary Criticism and Theory: from Plato to the Present. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print.
"Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
Matt Schiek and Brittany Rossi
ReplyDeleteFreud, Sigmund. "On Dreams." Excerpts. Art in Theory 1900-1990. Ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. Cambridge: Blackwell Pub., Inc., 1993. 26-34.
Delahoyde, Michael. "Psychoanalytic Criticism." Washington State University - Pullman, Washington. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Murfin, Ross. "Critical Approaches: Psychoanalytic Criticism." VirtuaLit. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Jakub Frankowicz and James Schott
ReplyDelete1/22/11
A Brief Explanation of Moral Criticism
Moral criticism is one of the oldest types of literary criticisms, dating back to circa 360BC. It is also one of the most common types of literary criticisms. Based on the ideas of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, moral criticism is based on the thought that a piece of literature needs to get across some sort of benefit to the life of its audience.
Moral criticism can be applied to a wide range of literature, ranging from the simplest of children's books to deep and lengthy novels. Moral criticism covers any and all things that teaches the audience of a piece a lesson or benefits the audience in any way. The story is critiqued on what moral or theme it gets across and how well the author gets that point across so that the reader of the piece may get something from the literature. The author of the critique must be careful not to judge the moral on his or her particular view of it, but instead judge it on if it is something that can perhaps change a individual's life for the better. Moral criticism can also range based on what the author of the critique feels a reader should gain from a book. Plato believed that a reader should learn morals or ethics from a story, while Aristotle believed a reader should experience a catharsis or some kind of great emotional effect. Others believe that simply the reader's enjoyment has enough of an effect on the reader's life to critique.
Moral criticism can therefore cover the ethics of a particular moment in a story. It can judge whether a character's actions in a certain circumstance was the right or wrong thing to do. This can often be the most difficult part of a moral criticism as a person's beliefs on what is right or wrong can be very different from another's view. Therefore, someone looking to make a moral critique of right and wrong must be careful not to delve too much into personal beliefs and instead leave it to the reader of their critique to decide for themselves how certain events define a character.
But to restate the main point, moral criticisms serve to find something the author does to improve the life of the reader, mainly the teaching of a theme or moral. They then analyze these morals or themes, see how they are applied in the story, and see how a character may or may not adhere to these themes and show the consequences of doing so.
Brizee, Allen, and J. C. Tompkins. "Moral Criticism and Dramatic Construction (~360BC-present)." Owl.english.purdue.edu. Purdue University. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
"Literary Criticism: Map." wwww.ksu.edu.sa. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
"Moral/Intellectual Critical Appr." The University of West Georgia. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Michelle Milchuk, Rahi Patel
ReplyDeleteJungian Philosophy for Dummies
Carl Gustav Jung was the founder of Jungian psychology. Born in Switzerland, Jung grew up in a very educated family. After studying under Freud, a noted psychologist, for some time Jung decided that he wanted to pursue his own line of theories and broke from the guidance of his mentor to achieve this. Following this break, Jung went into a state of confusion and disorientation where he spent his time trying to “find himself” and analyze his own unconscious. When Jung returned from his chaotic state, he developed his own system of psychoanalysis, and published these new theories and concepts. (Hall 15-29).
When a reader views literature through the eyes of Jungian psychology or criticism, there are major points that should be focused on. One of the first things to identify is that the main character of the novel is real, while some of the other characters and occurrences in the novel are considered symbolic of the main character’s conscious or unconscious mind. More acknowledged is the individual’s consciousness mind, which is “the part of the mind that is known directly by the individual,” (Hall 33). Here the individual is actively aware of, and acknowledges all of his or her feelings and thoughts. The unconscious then serves as somewhat of a database which retains every emotion and thought the individual has ever felt. Here, acknowledged as well as repressed thoughts can be found stored away and attributing to the individual’s desires and general outlook on everything. Thus Jungian Literary Critics believe that through other occurrences and characters, the main character’s true conscious and unconscious desires and opinions are manifested.
Additionally, Jungian Literary Critics often look to archetypes as a way of labeling and analyzing the symbolic characters and occurrences that surround the main character. Jungian Psychology sees archetypes as universal models or groups that everyone inherits. Archetypes are present in a person’s unconscious, and act as a sort of “organizing principle,” (Boeree). There is an infinite number of archetypes used to classify feelings projected by the main character. One woman in a story may be called as a mother, whore, destroying crone, or lover archetype depending on how the main character’s unconscious feels about her. Other archetypes include the father, the child, the family, the hero, the persona, the trickster, the wise old man, and the anima and animus. (Boeree).
Michelle Milchuk and Rahi Patel continued
ReplyDeleteThough there are many archetypes, some play a more important role in shaping an individual’s personality and behavior. The shadow is a very important archetype in Jungian psychology and a major point to focus on in Jungian criticism because of its power and inclination towards danger. It represents man’s more primitive and animalistic traits, and is located deep within the unconscious. When an individual is confronted with a negative situation, generally he or she acknowledges and comes to terms with the associated negative feelings, resulting in these feelings being remembered but no longer felt or stored. However, if that individual denies the existence of these feeling or represses them, Jungian philosophers believe that these feelings become built up deep in the shadow of the individual’s unconscious. The shadow will grow with these unresolved emotions and influence the individual’s perception, although the individual will not realize this change. An understandable example of shadows in literature is Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings:
The character of Frodo is clearly pitted against his shadow figure, Gollum. Gollum represents all the things in Frodo’s unconscious self that Frodo has not psychologically recognized. As the novel progresses, Frodo becomes more like Gollum, and ultimately acts as Gollum would, claiming the ring for himself. (Ellis-Christensen).
The shadow’s influence over the main character’s actions is seen as far superior to any of the other archetypes.
Through Jungian Literary Criticism, readers can see past the factual plot of the story, and delve into the inner workings of the main character’s mind. After viewing surrounding characters and events as symbolic projections of the main character’s conscious and unconscious, readers can categorize these symbols into familiar archetypes, and increase their comprehension of both the main character’s motivations and thought processes. It is then, by understanding these inner feelings, readers can better understand their own mental workings,
Works Cited:
Boeree, Dr. C. George. “Carl Jung.” webspace.ship.edu. n.p., 1997. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
Ellis-Christensen, Tricia, and O. Wallace. “What Is Jungian Literary Criticism?” wisegeek.com. n.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
Hall, Calvin S., and Vernon J. Nordby. A Primer of Jungian Psychology. New York: Taplinger Pub., 1973. Print.
Justine Longa, Jen Abdul-Malak, Meghan Leahey
ReplyDeleteStylistics
There are many schools of literary criticism, all in which are used to analyze pieces of writing. Each theory takes a different approach to understanding literature. Stylistics is the study of the way the author uses words and grammar, as well as other elements, in the sentence and within the text as a whole. It emphasizes the analysis of different elements of style. Stylistics explores various parts of a writing that contribute to the overall product. Stylistics can also be defined as the study of linguistic style.
While there is no specific person who created this school of literary criticism, many people have contributed their ideas to the theory. The earliest form of stylistics can be found in I.A Richard’s Practical Criticism. In 1929, stylistics was originally seen as a correction tool for work that needed to be refined. In the 1960’s, stylistics became what it is today with people such as Michael Halliday and Roger Fowler in the forefront. Fowler’s book, Linguistic Criticism, shows the reader how to apply analytical techniques to a wide range of poems, short stories, etc. Halliday’s theory, The Systematic Functional Linguistics Theory, applies his work with language development to apply it to language in children and how the development of language works. In 1975 the book Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature by Widdowson greatly contributed to the theory of stylistics. His book also showed that this theory could be integrated into everyday teachings. Thanks to these people, we can now understand that stylistics should have the effect of being able to communicate a deeper meaning of the work, communicate attitude, and communicate emotion.
Gothic style is one type of stylistic writing. In literary criticism, the gothic style is characterized by a taste for the medieval or morbid. The gothic style aims to evoke terror by exploiting mystery and variety of horrors. Authors utilize Gothicism to captivate their audience with feelings of suspense and fear. This style is portrayed through different elements such as bad weather, castles, dark and eerie places, supernatural events, and remote locations. The individual responsible for the utilization of this writing style is Horace Walpole. His book, The Castle of Otranto, in 1764, is regarded as the first gothic novel, which dominated the literary world with the new genre. Other writers that followed in his footsteps were Edgar Allan Poe, Mary Shelley, and Elizabeth Gaskell. Edgar Allan Poe’s poems and short stories were the epitome of Gothicism, with features such as death, revenge, torture, and insanity. In the Tell Tale Heart, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Fall of the House of Usher, madness is a prominent element in each story that provokes fear upon the reader. Poe's Ligeia deals with the elements of death and the supernatural. He successfully wrote in a gothic style, frightening his readers while arousing their curiosity. Similarly, Elizabeth Gaskell wrote some of the most popular ghost stories of her time, specifically The Old Nurse's Story. The various elements of literature that gothic writers utilize in their work contributes to the fear the reader endures. Writers of gothic style continue to scare and intrigue their audiences today due to innovators of stylistic writing.
Works Cited
Fabb, Nigel. "The Teaching of Stylistics." Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Lad, Kashmira. "Gothic Literature." Buzzle.com. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Harris, Robert. Elements of the Gothic Novel. Virtual Salt, 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Smith, Nicole. "Gothic Qualities in the Works of Edgar Allan Poe." Article Myriad, 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Shannon Smith & Brandon Stefanowitz
ReplyDeleteFormalism
Formalism rose in the early twentieth century in the Soviet Union. Formalism was created to put a science to literature through the analysis of motifs, devices, techniques, and other functions that form the literary work. In other words, this type of criticism focuses on the form of the text, not its content. In Formalism each literary work is treated as an individual piece, free of the author, environment and time period.
Prominent figures in Formalism include Victor Shkolvsky, Boris Eichenbaum, Vladimir Propp, Yuri Tynianov, and Roman Jakobson. Schkolvsky displays his notion of defamiliarization, taking art that is familiar and making it foreign to the reader, in his famous essay "Art as Technique." This technique changes the reader's way of seeing the world. Shklovsky suggests that "a work using the same device repeatedly is given a stale taste." Eichenbaum "says that Russian Formalism is not dogmatic but it is a historical summation." Propp used the Formalistic approach to analyze Russian folktales. After breaking the tales up into their smallest units, Propp concluded the tales follow the same sequence. Tynianov and Jakobson worked together to publish Theses on Language. In summary, this famous work provided guidelines to the Formalism approach. Jakobson also is known for his famous essay "Thee Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances," which is based on the bipolar function of language.
Certain questions should be answered when taking the Formalistic approach. The first question be how the work uses imagery to develop its own symbols. For example, the author may make a tree stand for hope by constant association. Second, does each part of the work produce an inseparable whole? Next you must question the parts of the works by asking how is each part of the work connected, as well as how do the parts of the work contribute to the quality of the whole? Last but not least, what does the structure of the work say about its content? These questions help analyze literary work through the Formalism lens.
This movement influenced others such as Structuralism and New Criticism. However, it is no longer used in the academy.
Works Cited
Brewton, Vince. "Literary Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 27 June 2002. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
"Formalism (1930s-present)." Purdue Owl Online Writing Lab. 1995. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
"Glossary of Terms: Formalism." Department of English, UW Oshkosh. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
"Introduction to Vladimir Propp." MURAL - Student Homepages at University of Valencia. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
"The Metaphor and Metonymic Poles." The Most Popular Online Literature Library. Web. 20 Feb. 2011. .
Rachel Rizzo and Jess Volpe
ReplyDeleteGender and Queer Studies
Gender and queer studies explore issues of sexuality, power, and marginalized populations in literature and culture. It comes from the post-structural interest in defragmented knowledge building, language and psychoanalysis. It rejects the idea of having a traditional image that people have when they think of something as feminine or masculine. It represents a deconstruction of hegemonic conceptions of sexual and gender categories within straight, gay and lesbian communities. "...the distinction between "masculine" and "feminine" activities and behavior is constantly changing, so that women who wear baseball caps and fatigues...can be perceived as more piquantly sexy by some heterosexual men than those women who wear white frocks and gloves and look down demurely" (Richter 1437).
One important scholar for gender and queer theory was Eve Kosofky Sedgwick, who argued the hidden sexual subtext in famous pieces of literature. Some examples include Dickens, and Jane Austin’s works. Sedgwick believed that “It’s about how you can’t understand relations between men and women unless you understand the relationship between people of the same gender, including the possibility of a sexual relationship between them.” (Sedgwick) She believed this comprehension could come from literature, and as scholars it’s their job to ferret through texts to find the subtle subtext. In doing this she wanted to prove that through understanding western civilizations attitudes toward heterosexuality and homosexuality - an understanding of society as a whole could be reached. Not focusing on what homosexuality itself was, but rather what in society causes it and what the perceptions of these tendencies are. Even though a lot of her work focuses on defining the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, Sedgwick stresses upon the fact that queer means across and to categorize human sexuality into such black and white terms in contradictory. Heterosexuality and homosexuality, and also the idea of masculine and feminine are fluid things ever changing and evolving that can not fit into neat little labels. The more that is learned and understood through gender and queer theory the more the lines blur.
Important questions to consider when looking at literature through the queer lens
• What elements of the text can be perceived as being masculine (active, powerful) and feminine (passive, marginalized) and how do the characters support these traditional roles?
• What sort of support (if any) is given to elements or characters who question the masculine/feminine binary? What happens to those elements/characters?
• What elements in the text exist in the middle, between the perceived masculine/feminine binary? In other words, what elements exhibit traits of both (bisexual)?
• How does the author present the text? Is it a traditional narrative? Is it secure and forceful? Or is it more hesitant or even collaborative?
• What are the politics (ideological agendas) of specific gay, lesbian, or queer works, and how are those politics revealed in...the work's thematic content or portrayals of its characters?
• What are the poetics (literary devices and strategies) of a specific lesbian, gay, or queer works?
• What does the work contribute to our knowledge of queer, gay, or lesbian experience and history, including literary history?
• How is queer, gay, or lesbian experience coded in texts that are by writers who are apparently homosexual?
• What does the work reveal about the operations (socially, politically, psychologically) homophobic?
• How does the literary text illustrate the problematics of sexuality and sexual "identity," that is the ways in which human sexuality does not fall neatly into the separate categories defined by the words homosexual and heterosexual?
Dylan Coles
ReplyDeleteThe school of Mythological Literary Theory is focused mainly on the concept that literature and art can cause deep emotional responses in readers no matter their age or culture. Mythological Theory utilizes a literary work as a source of revelations about human fears, expectations, desires, and how people, whether as a culture or an individual, view themselves and their place in the world. Some of the earliest Mythologists, Greek philosophers Plato and Herodotus among them, date back to the fifth century BCE. These individuals searched for insight into the mind of the human being within the basic concepts of their own cultures myths. Over time more mythologists continued to emerge. Their searches for insight into the human mind lead them to collect and gather many traditional Scandinavian and European myths. These individuals then used these myths as a basis for study of the emotions and feelings of individuals within the various cultures within which the myths originated.
Sigmund Freud, born in 1865, is one such individual. Freud studied the idea of repression of human emotions through myths and came to the conclusion that it was not society that made people repressed, but that repression of emotion was a basic part of the human mind. Freud and his many followers attempted to understand human thinking through the lens of Classical myths. Freud has since been criticized for looking at myths through too narrow of a scope. While Freud is accepted as being correct in supposing that the study of myths can help one to understand the way humans think, he is criticized for not taking a wide enough approach in his studies.
Carl Jung, one of Freud’s many followers, also utilized myths as a lens for studying the thought process and emotions of human kind. Jung searched for understanding of the idea of “sacred meanings” common to almost all people of any given culture. Jung not only studied the verbal language of a myth, but focused more heavily on the imagery contained within works and the insight into the human mind provided by these images. Jung’s concept of myths not as “primitive”, but as a large achievement of a culture is regarded as being more inclusive and successful than his predecessor and mentor Freud. Jung is also credited with the creation of archetypes, or categories within which the subconscious beliefs of every person within a culture falls.
Through the studies of these individuals and their followers, Mythological Literary Theory has been able to continue and support its main belief that all myths provide insight into the inner workings of the human mind.
Works Cited:
"Foamy Custard: an Overview of Mythological Theory." Indigogroup Home Page. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
"Literary Theory." Gavilan College - Faculty / Staff Web Pages. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Nikhil Porecha
ReplyDeleteChris Chinn
Biographical Criticism
• Biographical theory is the relation of the text to the author’s personal life. Aspects such as social class, family history, religious beliefs, and education are key points in connecting the author life in context to the meaning of the text. (i.e. Mary Shelley’s personal grief of her mother’s passing is reflected into the text in Victor Frankenstein’s mother passing away as well)
• Literary theory was infused with biographical criticism by the first known biographical theorist, Samuel Johnson, during the Renaissance period in the 19th century. His book, Lives of the Most Imminent English Poets is a criticism of various authors in which he analyzes the text from a historical perspective. This type of criticism was at first claimed to be a fallacy on the basis of the fact that criticism up to the 19th century had concentrated on analyzing the text for its meaning within the words rather than in relation to the context of the time period.
• This biographical theory illuminates the reader through the connection of the text with the author’s intention as well the audience itself.
• Closely intertwined with biographical criticism is the theory of historicism in which the theorist explores the meaning of the text in reference to the context of the time period in which the content was written in contrast for examining the text in itself. This allows the theorist to depict economic and political events through examining the text for evidence of the time period in which the text was written.
• These two schools of literary theory are similar in that they both examine the world in relation to the text rather than the meaning of the words in relation to the text itself. To approach these theories properly, the critic must ask questions such as what biographical facts and insight does the author display in the text and how do these facts increase the reader’s insight into the author’s life as a result of the text. In a historical context, the critic must ask what historical events were occurring when the author wrote the text as well as how their diction and syntax is altered by the historical events of the period.
• These questions allow the critic to fully analyze the work through a broad lens where the author’s plot and character usage reflect the authors personal life which in turn is affected from the historical setting in which the author was writing in.
• Biographical criticism has potential to be hazardous to the credibility of a work as it can make the work appear to be almost an autobiography in which the author is describing events around them in a historian-like fashion. Also, biographical theorists stray from relating the authors directly to the characters where there is really no resemblance. (i.e. the connection between Shelley and Victor Frankenstein is faulty at most due to other contributing factors in the novel.)
Works Cited
"Historical Criticism." Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Holman, C. Hugh, William Harmon, and William Flint Thrall. "Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus." A Handbook to Literature. New York: Macmillan, 1986. 138-42. Print.
"Literary Theory." Gavilan College - Faculty / Staff Web Pages. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
"Purdue OWL: Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism." Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL). Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Mary Shelley Biography." UNet Users' Home Pages. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Amberlee and Lindsay
ReplyDeleteReader Response Criticism
Although literary theory has long paid some attention to the reader's role in creating the meaning and experience of a literary work, even as far back as Plato and Aristotle, modern reader-response criticism began in the 1960s and '70s. Reader’s response criticism is a school of literary theory that concentrates on the reader, and his or her experience of a literary work in contrast to other schools that focus primarily on the author’s form of the work. Reader response critics see meaning as a function, either of each reader’s experience or of the norms that pertain to a particular interpretive community. Reader response criticism is unique in that the critics recognize that text is not always read in the same way; instead, they vary with the purpose, needs, experiences, and concerns of the reader. However, this school of criticism covers such a wide variety of concerns from critics that sometimes the term reader response seems to refer to a jumble of theories. Most critics do agree on a few basic principles, the most important being that interpretation or creation of a text is assumed to be an act of reading, thereby making the authority not the writer or the text, but the reader. Reader response criticism suggests that the text does not exist without a reader, similar to the question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it. This approach gives the reader himself freedom for open analysis. As a result of this, it is evident that one single piece of literature can take on countless meanings and morals depending on what the reader extracts to be valid, each unique and individual.
These are just the very basics of reader response criticism. As a result of the term covering such broad topics there are numerous critics and therefore varying theories that apply to this school of criticism. Some of the major critics include Norman Holland and Stanley Fish. Norman Holland, an individualist reader response critic, believes readers’ responses to be subjective. The reader brings numerous qualities, specific to that reader, to their response: prejudices, age, gender, expectations, values, beliefs, thoughts, etc. According to Holland, all of these components make the reader’s response to the work highly personal and play a major part in creating the work’s meaning for the reader. He states that when we read, “we re-create the text in our own image” (Jauchen). He even goes on to explain that whatever is offered as an “objective” analysis has roots in personal response.
Although Stanley Fish is another reader response critic, he has a very different theory than Holland’s. Fish describes the reader’s interpretation of the text as the product of interpretive communities. Fish believes that the individual or subjective response does not exist because every reader is influenced by “institutions and cultural groups” (Jauchen). The reader’s response is the result of a wider community of readers who share certain assumptions about how a text is read.
No matter what theory is applied, when readers realize there is no one correct interpretation, they discover a myriad of possibilities. “When the reader realizes that the text can become intertwined with their own lives, the text becomes alive” (Jauchen).
Works Cited:
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. 21 Feb. 2011.
Habib, Rafey. A History of Literary Criticism and Theory: from Plato to the Present. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print.
Jauchen, Micheal. “Historical Background.” Reader Response Criticism. 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 21 Feb. 2011.
McManus, Barbara. “How Readers Interpret Texts.” Reader Response Criticism. 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011
Rachel Rizzo and Jess Volpe
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Brizee, Allen, and J. Case Tompkins. “Gender Studies and Queer Theory (1970s-present).” Owl Purdue Online Writing Lab. Purdue University, 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Cohen, Patrica. “Lit Critics Who Peer Under the Covers.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 18 Apr. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
Grimes, William. “Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, a Pioneer of Gay Studies and a Literary Theorist, Dies at 58.” Editorial. New York Times. The New York Times Company, 16 Apr. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
“Queer Studies - Program for the Study of Women and Gender.” Smith College. Smith College, 2006. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
“Queer Theory - Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick.” Science JRank. Net Industries, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAleks Masumov
ReplyDeletePost-Structuralism
“What is the definition of an idea which by its own nature is indefinable?” That must be the thought brooding in the background of the mind when contemplating the idea of post-structuralism. Think of post-structuralism though as the “America” of literary criticism, in that it is a congregation of philosophies and ideas which disagreed with other literary theories. Disregarding the inevitability of over-simplification and over-generalization of the theory, there are three main beliefs that inhabit post-structuralism. The first is the belief that language is a flawed means of conveying ideas, there is no stability in language, no definite meaning. The second is that the human “self”, or individuality, does not exist but is in essence a middleman for the transfer of cultural ideals and transformations. The third is that there is no singular truth.
Let us expand on why there is a perception that language is a flawed system. To begin with, Jacques Derrida is credited as being the founder of the belief that our language system is flawed. The basis of this belief is that when any combination of words- be it a sentence, paragraph, poem, or novel- is analyzed, there are numerous, sometimes infinite, interpretations of the work. This expanse of interpretations naturally leads to the understanding that none of the interpretations represent the “true” meaning of the work. If we are not able to reveal the singular truth of a work to society, and instead we each see a different meaning in a work, then language is not able to convey a singular idea to the whole of the human race. This leads to the determination that language cannot represent or hold a definite meaning. With no definite meaning though, there can not be stability in the language. In order to be stable, language must be able to hold a singular idea without multiple interpretations. Language cannot be ambiguous, otherwise there is no “center” and no order. Take for example the statement “Time flies like an arrow”, this statement exemplifies the instability of language because it can have three meanings, depending on where the noun, verb, adverb, and object are. This instability and lack of definite meaning forms irrefutable evidence that language is flawed. This instability and lack of definite meaning in language also brings forth the idea that humans must seek there own individual truth, and that in turn there must be multiple truths, and so there can not be any singular truths in the universe.
The second main belief of post-structuralism is that there is no true individuality in humans. Michel Foucault developed this theory in his analysis of knowledge. He was able to show that knowledge was grown from society and culture and that we in turn do not develop our own concepts or ideas. If we were to grow up in a different environment or setting then our behavior, character, and knowledge would be different, so we are not in fact individuals but just a creation of our environment. When applied to authors or any conveyor of ideology or narrative, the lack of individualism leads to the idea that the conveyed thoughts are only formations of social and cultural ideas and not unique creations of the author. The belief is that the authors use concepts that they inherited and that they only transform them to a slight degree before releasing them upon the world. This lessens the importance of the author, or in other words destabilizes him. This in turn lessens the importance of the author’s ideas and focuses on the response of the reader and the reader’s ideas. This focus on the reader response is one of the fundamental ideas that sprout from the lack of individuality in post-structuralism. The focus on reader response displays the rejection of a single meaning in a work of literature. This allows readers to have their own interpretation of a work of literature and have it be just as valid as any other interpretation, which again brings forth the notion that there is no singular truth in the universe.
We can see from the first two beliefs why there is a notion that there is no singular truth in the universe. These three beliefs do not constitute the whole or even a quarter of post-structuralism though. To define post-structuralism would in fact forgo the idea of post-structuralism. There are thousands of philosophies that branch off these three beliefs in post-structuralism, and all of them are equally significant in composing post-structuralism.
ReplyDeleteBush, Harold K. "Poststructuralism as Theory and Practice in the English Classroom." Indiana University. June 1995. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Brizee, Allen, and Case Thompkins. "Purdue OWL: Literary Theory and Schools of Criticism." Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL). 21 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Blunden, Andy. "Post-structuralism." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. .
Marshall, James. "Post-Structuralism." Introduction. Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004. XV-XVI. Print.
Jones, Roger. "Post Structuralism by Roger Jones." Philosophy since the Enlightenment, by Roger Jones. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. .
Literary criticism contains a wide array of schools and theories. Reader-response criticism is a school in which the reader of a literary work constitutes the primary focus of literary meaning. The theory of reader response believes meaning does not come from the structure of a literary piece, but rather from the interactions between the text and the audience. (Tompkins) Although reader response criticism was pioneered in the 1920s and 30s, the theory gained more critical followers and movements in the mid 20h century. Pioneers of the theory include I.A Richards and Louise Rosenblatt, and mid century reader response leaders consist of Wolfgang Iser and Norman Holland. Each theorist has added his or her own distinct mark on the school. A direct opposition to formalist critique, 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. (Guerin) The theory focuses on how a particular work affects the reader and the literary strategies and devices used to produce those effects.
ReplyDeleteI.A Richards and Louise Rosenblatt were the pioneers of the reader-response movement. These theorists did not formally create the school of criticism, but rather commented on the strict, singular approach to meaning within critiques of literature of that time period. Richards and Rosenblatt wished to branch out, as opposed to just focusing on the text; they preferred to look at both the text’s structure and the reader. Within the mid 20th century, the movement gained speed, and principle leaders of the movement, such as Wolfgang Iser and Norman Holland voiced their opinions and added their ideas to the school. Norman Holland theorized that readers interpret a literary work as an extension of their own personalities and because of personal interpretation, meaning was individual to the reader. (Guerin) Iser believed critics should explain and analyze
literary works based on their effect on the reader rather than the text as an object. Iser proposed that critics should try and interpret the text in various ways, instead of trying to tailor their interpretation to one singular critique that everyone will try to agree on. (Guerin) Iser greatly expanded the reader response theory with these ideas, while also acknowledging the early pioneer ideals of the movement. Iser also suggested that the individual experiences of the reader will control what effects the text will have on them. With this idea, Iser began to put the importance of the structure of the literary text being the importance of the audience. Before this, reader response theorists strived to see how the text affected the reader; now the focus was shifted to see how the reader affected the text. (Guerin) Iser proposed that gaps and blanks in the text were supposed to be filled by the reader of a work, allowing them to establish their own meanings and interpretations. The gaps left in literary works are filled by readers’ minds, and because of the readers’ past experiences and biases, meaning of the text is purely subjective and prone to alteration by each reader as an individual. Another striking difference between reader response theorists and formalist theorists is the fact that these people shared their ideals with everyone, not just psychologists or linguists or other professional critics, as the formalists did. (Guerin)
ReplyDeleteBecause these gaps are left open to interpretation, and because every reader has potential to add meaning or interpret meaning differently, reader response is a completely subjective theory which parallels the fact that Literature is always subjective. This creates a kind of “trickle down effect”, where a reader can reach a gap in the text and take a certain approach as to the meaning of a work. That same reader could reach a different gap and completely change his or her idea of the text. By the end of a work, a single
reader can add countless meanings to a work. This makes analyzing and criticizing the effects a text has on a reader and the effects a reader has on the text extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteFormer schools of criticism looked at pieces of literature objectively, factually, and mainly through the eyes of the author. (Guerin) The audience of the work was thought to be insignificant. Reader-response changed all that by putting the audience on an equal, if not higher, platform with literary structure. Reader response theorists changed the game, and stood up to the stringent formalist approach. The theory creates a much wider focus into literature than any other school has, and adds so much more meaning to countless numbers of literary works. A prime example of reader response theory is this essay. Someone else can read and interpret the same information we have, and form a completely different opinion and interpretation. That is reader response at its finest.
Works Cited
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.
Cultural criticism is the study of the culture’s historical, social, political and economical standpoints. This school of criticism did not become well known until the mid-1900s. It derived ideas from Marxism and capitalistic practices. Marxist theorists chose to focus on exploring the social working class. The first center of cultural studies was in England, which is not surprising. Although the United States contributes an abundance of culture-filled media, Europe leads the way in cultural criticism. It is believed that cultural criticism examines more than television and media presents. Cultural criticism understands cultural products by examining their moral, social, historical, and political issues. Cultural criticism combines the ideologies of feminism, political, historical, social, literary, media, and philosophical theories.
ReplyDeleteCultural criticism’s purpose is to understand the culture in the modern world. Cultural critics do not ignore the events that go unacknowledged by media. Cultural criticism concentrates on how a event relates to ideology, nationality, gender, or race. For example, a cultural literary critic, such as Ziauddin Sadar, approaches literary criticism by comparing a subject matter in terms of power and their cultural practices. He completely understands their cultural practices before analyzing. It is important to relate the object of study and the location of action. Cultural criticism takes into account all aspects of the world: countries, human beings, and natural environment. As a cultural critic, they must focus on a system as a whole opposed to in parts.
French-American Jacques Barzun is a noted essayist, cultural historian, and critic. In his lifetime he wrote over thirty books with the education, music, and art as the central focus. In his book "The Culture We Deserve" he defines culture as "the enduring contributions a society passes on to posterity, made possible through the free exercise of ideas within a disciplined atmosphere". In 1934, Barzun coined the term "cultural criticism".
Richard Johnson also played a major role in establishing the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies alongside Richard Hoggart. The centre was established in the mid 1960's, which was when the cultural criticism movement began to gain momentum. Stemming from the ideas of previously founded Marxist criticism, Hoggart felt that it was imperative to have a criticism dedicated to culture and cultural studies. The centre is located in Europe where the majority of contributions to this school originate from.
Helpful websites: 1.) http://www.usask.ca/english/frank/cultint.htm
2.) http://www.philipwander.com/files/PhilipWander-CulturalCrit.pdf
3.) http://www.adb.org/Documents/Information/Knowledge-Solutions/Culture-Theory.pdf
4.) http://www.usask.ca/english/frank/cultint.htm
5.) http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-literary-criticism/barzun-jacques
Danny Regad & Jack McCabe
ReplyDeleteMs. Lounsbury
AP English III
3/4/11
On the cusp of an era of good feeling and good will, the alleviation of social injustice was at the forefront of many agendas. Among the many issues which needed to be handled, women's rights was in the spotlight. This was the birth of the Feminist Movement which people are familiar with today. Inspiration for this movement took root even earlier, though. A woman by the name of Mary Wollstonecraft is highly regarded as the "mother of Feminism", being one of the premier activists of the movement. Wollstonecraft gave birth to and implanted these ideals in her daughter, Mary Shelley, the author of the novel Frankenstein. For this reason many Feminist theories and ideals are dispersed throughout the novel, including killing off the negative female characters, the portrayal of women's weaknesses, and the necessity of women to a man's existence.
A pattern which continues throughout Frankenstein is the killing off of negative characters, which all happen to be females. After being accused of killing Victor's brother, William, Justine is sentenced to death by hanging. Truly, she was innocent of the crime, as it was the monster who murdered William. Yet, being a woman she had no opportunity to defend herself and felt that it was her responsibility to take the blame for the crime. She felt that it would gain her salvation by admitting to the crime even though she was not the culprit. Justine's demise furthers her role in the story as a passive female character, as compared to the male characters who are active and have key roles. Like Justine, Elizabeth is subject to becoming part of the background, a possession of Victor's. She also partakes in a passive role when it is decided that she will marry Victor. Just as with most of her decisions, Elizabeth is told what to do by her male counterparts. Further examples are created after the marriage of Victor and Elizabeth. While waiting for her new husband to arrive, Elizabeth is approached and attacked by the monster. Without her husband there to defend her, Elizabeth is easily exterminated by the monster. These two women, like the few others in the novel, take an inactive or static role and play a minimal part in the overall plot. Shelley emphasizes this negative female role by killing off the characters who fit this image.
The stereotyping of a woman's weaknesses is another characteristic of the female role in Frankenstein. Shelley stereotypes in order to change the position of a woman in society, to make it apparent that there is inequality running rampant in society. She demonstrates the necessity for change through portraying woman as weak, feeble, and generally incompetent. Justine and Elizabeth are defenseless against the oppressors in their lives. When faced with troubling situations, both women could not save themselves from attack, which eventually led to their deaths. Justine could not overcome the accusations brought up against her because there was no male voice to prove her innocence. She was helpless and lacked an ability to defend her story without a man backing her. Elizabeth could not fight for herself without the presence of her husband, Victor. She also became a defenseless female due to the action of the monster. The presence of a male-male conflict led to the death of two women who were merely pawns in a man's game. So, through this stereotype, Mary Shelley suggests the only way a woman can survive is by gaining a strong voice and firm fist within society.
Pure feminism is portrayed through the necessity of woman to man. After bypassing the natural process of insemination and birth, Victor Frankenstein attempts to create life and provide for the wellbeing of it, without the use of a woman. As was easily predicted, the experiment to create life, without a woman, fails miserably. While the creation of life was completed, there was no way to continue on as just a man and child. First, not having a motherly instinct, Victor flirts with the idea of abandoning or destroying his new creation. Without the ability to love his creation there was no hope. While Victor could not see past the monsters ugly persona, a woman would have the ability to extend love and compassion towards a being of her own making. Victor refused to create a female companion for his monster; this leads to the monster running off in a search for such an existence, one of a family with love and compassion in a home, one with a female figure. Overall, the project is missing a key part of the equation: a woman. A man cannot do it by himself; he cannot be a singular creator; he cannot take the ability for a woman to procreate away from her.
ReplyDeleteAs portrayed by this analysis, Mary Shelley incorporates Feminist ideals in the course of her novel Frankenstein by killing off the negative female characters, by portraying women's weaknesses, and by demonstrating the necessity of women to a man's existence. Despite the presence of a heavy male dominance in the story, Feminism shined brightly as a beacon of hope to carry the ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft to later generations.
Works Cited
Allingham, Philip V. "Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' (1818) — A Summary of Modern Criticism." The Victorian Web. N.p., 24 Jan. 2003. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. .
Bloom, Harold, ed. Mary Shelly's Frankenstein - Modern Critical Interpretation. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. Print.
Fischer, Jerilyn, ed. Women in Literature: Reading Through the Lens of Gender. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2003. Print.
Hinding, Andrea. Feminism: Opposing Viewpoints. St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1986. Print.
Silber, Ellen S., ed. Analyzing the Different Voice: Feminist Psychological Theory and Literary
Texts. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. , 1998. Print.
Marta Pelka and Marisa Patti
ReplyDeleteDeconstructing Frankenstein as Much as We Possibly Can
The different interpretations and many meanings of a text is a signature of deconstructionism. The basics of this theory were started and constructed by Derrida. He believed that there was a triangular balance between nature, mind and symbolic speech. In a stable balance, the mind remains the most powerful, thus controlling the other two aspects. According to Aristotle, when the other elements become more powerful than the mind, the balance is ruined and the triangle will deconstruct. This causes the mind will deteriorate because it is no longer being used to its fullest potential. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor begins the novel following this basic balance. His mind is the most powerful aspect over nature and speech. “I read and studied the wild fancies of these writers with delight; they appeared to me treasurer known to few besides myself” (Shelley, 25). Being an educated man, Frankenstein’s mind is all-powerful to nature and symbolic speech. His mind was so powerful here that he was able to think about creating another human being. He proved his mind more powerful than nature. He used the power of his mind over nature and mind over symbolism to create the monster. “I collected the instrument of life around me, that I might infuse a park of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet” (Shelley, 42). In his project, Frankenstein goes against nature and conquers it as he uses a dead body to bring a monster to life. Symbolic speech is an extension of one’s self that has been put into physical form. His mind once again, overpowers nature and symbolic speech. The triangle is stable with his mind being so much more powerful. The monster is the physical extension, or product, of Victor’s mind. It is what he created, and thus because the monster is under Victor’s control and his mind which over powers this element as well. This fragile balance; however, is broken once the monster escapes.
When the monster is not present, Victor is not able to control it, and so it gains independence and becomes more powerful. The monster’s abilities to escape, stay hidden, and kill make him slowly more and more powerful. Additionally the monster is conquering the elements of nature and symbolic speech from its point of view. Its own mind is becoming powerful enough to create its own stable triangle of mind, nature, and symbolic speech. The creation forms its own triangle in which its mind is the most powerful. It becomes so powerful that it begins to overpower Victor’s mind. As the story progresses the monster becomes more and more distant from the original monster of Victors’ mind. Victor is slowly becoming paranoid and fearful as the monster becomes stronger and more intimidating. Victor’s balance is truly broken when the monster manages to control him. “My companion must be of the same defects. This being you must create” (Shelley, 129). Although Victor did not comply to the monster’s demands the monster had power over Victor. Victor had spent almost a year in solitude working to complete a creature to appease his creation. During that period Victors condition became increasingly worse. It was not before long when Victor had no control over the object he created. The monster became stronger than Victor’s mind and the deconstruction of Victor’s mind begins. “My spirits became unequal and I grew which I was engaged, my spirits became unequal and I grew restless and nervous” (Shelley 149). Victor is slowly beginning to go crazy with his isolation from society, paranoia, and sickly look. His mind is deconstructing as well as his body as he becomes much weaker both physically and mentally. The deconstruction of Victor’s mind eventually ends with his death. He allowed his creation to become too powerful and lost control that he could not get back. The effects on his mind became irreversible as the monster continues to out smart and out run him. Victor dies a failure, losing to his creation on both a physical and mental level. The creation, who has formed his own stable triangle, lives. He obtained the power and strength to out run his creator. He is rewarded with life at the end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteInescapable anxiety is another Gothic element that is evident in Frankenstein. The monster and Frankenstein are the two characters that experience this most throughout the book. The monster cannot escape Frankenstein. He is always after him because he was created by him. The monster’s actions are driven by how Victor will react to what he has done. On the night of Elizabeth’s death “The wind…rose with great violence…a heavy storm of rain descended” (Shelley 178). The monster kills Elizabeth to get to Victor and show him that now he is all he has. The monster tells William, “You belong then to my enemy-to him towards whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim” (Shelley 127). After killing William, the monster exclaims, “I too can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him” (Shelley 127). The monster also kills William as revenge for Victor abandoning him and making him separated from society. Victor Frankenstein cannot escape the anxiety he has no matter how hard he tries. Everywhere he goes he fears the monster is going to kill him. Victor comes to the realization on his wedding night “…the demon employ every art…to consummate his crimes by my death” (Shelley 172). This fear consumes Victor so much that he leaves Elizabeth alone and open to the monsters desire to kill her.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
"GOTHIC GENRE." Web. 28 Feb. 2011. http://www.facebook.com/l/aaef004z9_r1N2erekoCx-yjrIg/shs.westport.k12.ct.us/palca/romantic_and_gothic_genre.htm.
"LECTURE 1: Frankenstein and Gothic Literature." Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. < http://www.facebook.com/l/aaef0eZ8oZiMGvEweH3nxiay6PA/www.jessicatiffin.org/teaching/frlect.htm>.
Michelle Milchuk and Rahi Patel
ReplyDeleteMs. Lounsbury
AP English III
March 3, 2011
Mary Shelley’s Inception
To view a novel through the lens of Jungian Literary Criticism is to accept that the main character is real while using the events and characters surrounding the main character to analyze the inner workings of his or hers mind. Therefore, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Robert Walton, the seafarer, is considered the real character. Walton addresses all of his letters to his sister, the only female in Walton’s life that the reader is aware of, and concludes each letter with a sentence of his deep undying love for her. He proclaims, “Farewell, my dear excellent Margaret. Heaven shower down blessings on you, and save me, that I may again and again testify my gratitude for all of your love and kindness” (Shelley 4). Thanks to this adoration, Margaret Saville takes on the mother archetype for Walton, providing him with a warm and impartial solace in which he can share his inner most thoughts and dreams. Despite this mother archetype, Walton frequently expresses feelings of isolation, and confides in Margaret his want for a true friend. He is exasperated to find that he can find no cultivated mind in his shipmates but is too uneducated to seek a more learned companion. Although he acknowledges these feelings they are never resolved and become repressed into his unconscious, too painful to exist at the forefront of his mind. Adding to his woes, Walton is plagued by the passion for adventure and the prestige of discovery, leading him to spend all of his resources and efforts on putting together a voyage to the North Pole in attempt to satiate these overwhelming desires. Like his loneliness, Walton again addresses these dangerous and consuming passions, but refrains from solving them. As he prepares for his mad voyage he pushes the gravity of his desires for adventure deep into his unconscious where they fester with urgency and warning behind a black curtain. Being estranged from his motherly sister and harboring the unresolved tensions of his loneliness and dangerous passions, Walton’s unconscious can hold no more when he and his vessel are enclosed in a seemingly endless landscape of ice, and to cope, he creates a manifestation for the shadow growing deep within his mind.
This manifestation takes the form of a man starving and stranded on the ice, whom Walton later discovers is named Victor Frankenstein. Victor, being emaciated and close to death, is the physical representation of the shadow, or unease, in Walton’s mind. Walton’s mind creates Frankenstein because his shadow has grown too large and must find an escape to preserve its master, and subsequently, will serve as a tool used to correct Walton’s unbalanced emotions. All of this is shown through the parallel lives Walton and Frankenstein lead.
Jen, Meg and Justine
ReplyDeleteStylistics studies how authors communicate their own feelings through parts of a text. They accomplish this through diction, sentence structure, pathos, logos and other elements of writing. Though there are different types of Stylistic theories, the most prominent style used by Mary Shelley in Frankenstein is Gothicism. This theory of literary criticism studies the elements of Gothicism and how each aspect contributes to the overall product.
There are many characteristics of Gothicism. Some of the fundamentals are: melodrama, alienation, transgression, and exoticism. Melodrama is an exaggerated work that makes the plot and characters more emotionally appealing. This applies to Frankenstein in the way Shelley describes her characters. In chapter 9, Victor expresses feelings of deep depression. He says, “Thus not the tenderness of friendship, nor the beauty of earth, nor of heaven, could redeem my soul from woe; the very accents of love were ineffectual” (Shelley 77). Alienation refers to the lack of a characters identity and how they are shunned from the rest of the society. The monster that Victor Frankenstein created was completely alienated by his society due to his appearance. When the monster is curious about his surroundings and enters a cottage, he finds an old man sitting near the fire. The monster proclaims, “He turned on hearing a noise, and perceiving me, shrieked loudly, and quitting the hut, ran across the fields with a speed of which is debilitated form hardly appeared capable” (Shelley 90). Transgression deals with how human characters can expel their passions to the point of barbarism. After Victor finished his creation, he realized that he had created a monster-“I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 42). Victor transgresses into a “monster” himself because his passion for creating new life exploded into a barbaric creation. Exoticism makes references to wild or remote locations and cultures. Frankenstein takes place in a remote part of the Arctic and in Geneva. In the letters to his sister, Walton explains his situation at sea- “…my men are bold and apparently firm of purpose, nor do the floating sheets of ice that continually pass us, indicating the dangers of the region towards which we are advancing, appear to dismay them” (Shelley 8). Walton is traveling on the high seas in a new, foreign, remote place that can be treacherous and dangerous. All of these fundamentals are characteristics of Gothicism and they are represented throughout the text.
A major indication that a piece of work is Gothic is bad weather. In Frankenstein, bad weather seems to occur with the intention of contributing to the overall theme of horror. This is the basic definition for metonymy, which is a subtype of metaphor. Basically, elements of the weather are replacements for emotions, horror, and gloom. Victor finished his creation during a dreary and bleak night of November. In fact, when the monster first opens his eyes “…the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out…” (Shelley 42). The morning after his creation had disappeared; Victor awoke to a dismal and wet morning. He says, “I did not dare return to the apartment which I inhabited, but felt impelled to hurry on, although drenched by the rain which poured from a black and comfortless sky” (Shelley 44). Bad weather is also evident when Frankenstein realizes that the monster he created has killed his beloved, innocent brother William. “The thunder ceased, but the rain still continued, and the scene was enveloped in an impenetrable darkness” (Shelley 61). The monster evokes horror and terror, which is why the weather is always bad when he is around.
Inescapable anxiety is another Gothic element that is evident in Frankenstein. The monster and Frankenstein are the two characters that experience this most throughout the book. The monster cannot escape Frankenstein. He is always after him because he was created by him. The monster’s actions are driven by how Victor will react to what he has done. On the night of Elizabeth’s death “The wind…rose with great violence…a heavy storm of rain descended” (Shelley 178). The monster kills Elizabeth to get to Victor and show him that now he is all he has. The monster tells William, “You belong then to my enemy-to him towards whom I have sworn eternal revenge; you shall be my first victim” (Shelley 127). After killing William, the monster exclaims, “I too can create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair to him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him” (Shelley 127). The monster also kills William as revenge for Victor abandoning him and making him separated from society. Victor Frankenstein cannot escape the anxiety he has no matter how hard he tries. Everywhere he goes he fears the monster is going to kill him. Victor comes to the realization on his wedding night “…the demon employ every art…to consummate his crimes by my death” (Shelley 172). This fear consumes Victor so much that he leaves Elizabeth alone and open to the monsters desire to kill her.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
"GOTHIC GENRE." Web. 28 Feb. 2011. http://www.facebook.com/l/aaef004z9_r1N2erekoCx-yjrIg/shs.westport.k12.ct.us/palca/romantic_and_gothic_genre.htm.
"LECTURE 1: Frankenstein and Gothic Literature." Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. < http://www.facebook.com/l/aaef0eZ8oZiMGvEweH3nxiay6PA/www.jessicatiffin.org/teaching/frlect.htm>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne key to understanding cultural criticism is to first examine the stories genre. Frankenstein is the epitome of the gothic genre. The gothic genre encompasses dark elements such as rain, the dead, and the supernatural. Gothic fiction in the 18th century was known to reflect the evident vulnerabilities of the audience. Frankenstein was written during a time when Gothic fiction was slowly starting to fade in popularity and Romanticism was becoming more popularly used.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelley refers to Paradise Lost many times. The epigram of Frankenstein (Cave ab homine unius libri) is a quotation from Paradise Lost where Adam curses God for creating him, and in Frankenstein where the monster curses Victor for creating him. Paradise Lost is an epic poem by John Milton that is written in free verse. This epic poem is about the Christian story of the Fall of Man, which is about Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden by Satan. It involves a conflict between God’s free will and foresight. Frankenstein reads this book in Shelley’s novel. There is a connection between the expulsion of Adam and Eve and the monster; they are both unwanted by people and face the feelings of loneliness and unwantedness.
The cultural aspects of Shelley’s novel concern the limits of human nature and morality.The 18th century was known as the Age of Enlightenment and during this era the focus was on sciences, intelligence, creation, and culture. Shelley was surrounded by a philosophical and intellectual revolution, which probably lead her to question the limits of human life. In Frankenstein Victor is a scientist that tests creation. This is one way that Shelley was influenced by the culture to write Frankenstein.
Cultural criticism also explores whether or not personality is created, and whether or not it can be controlled by an individual. This concept was also explored in the famous Locke essay “Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. Locke stated in this essay "of all the Men we meet with nine parts of ten are what they are, Good or Evil, useful or not, by their education." which translates over well to Frankenstein where we see a man, Victor, with an enviable education and access to it. Even with the resources at hand, Victor desires to go one step further than the books to create life itself. Using Frankenstein, one could find a possible retaliation to Locke’s statement. Victor creates a monster with no personality or bias, and subsequently a personality for the monster develops on its own. Also, the monster is regarded as evil and useless and is uneducated. This could fit Locke’s theory that education is what creates goodness.
Cultures are very different from one another and hold different customs and values. In many cultures, however, responsibility is honored. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein, creator of the monster, does not take responsibility for creation of a potentially dangerous life form. Rather than accept the consequences of his actions, he ignores the problem, willing it to subside. If looking at Frankenstein through a cultural lens, one might say that in certain cultures, Victor would be looked down upon for never taking responsibility during such a crucial time.
ReplyDeleteAnother way a cultural critic would approach a novel would to be examine the media of the time period and how it might affect the author or the audience. It is similar to a historical or biographical criticism because it would also look at the author’s life and surroundings to determine what aspects of the culture affected the writing. For example, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein while on a trip with such high-minded and creative individuals. When challenged to write a ghost story, Frankenstein emerged. The culture of the 18th century was centered around books and stories because it was the people’s main source of entertainment and enlightenment. Due to these cultural surroundings and the challenge, Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Her cultural surroundings inevitably had an impact on the finished product.
Work Cited:
"Frankenstein: Background Info." Literary Charts. 08 Mar. 2011. 2008 .
Heller, Lee E.. "A Cultural Perspective on Frankenstein." 08 Mar. 2011. .
"PARADISE LOST ~ A BRIEF OVERVIEW." 08 Mar. 2011. .
Smith, Johanna M.. "What is Cultural Criticism?." 08 Mar. 2011. .
Schiek, Rossi pt 2
ReplyDeleteHowever, one detail in particular which relates exceptionally well to Shelley's life is Victor's loss of his mother. Instead of perhaps replacing his mother with a wife like her, such as Elizabeth, he rejects the woman who physically resembles her, and had a similar history. He instead decides to recreate life, viewing it as somehow recreating his mother. Victor ends up creating a creature made up of repressed elements of Victor: his aggression, need for revenge; basically childish thoughts unfit for a man of his age. It is questionable if the traits of the monster were indeed traits Victor wished he possessed, or possibly did possess, but just suppressed. Shelley, along with many other famous authors, managed to summon all her emotional trauma into one novel; purging all the feelings and lamentations existing in her life. Her creation of a story may have been her way of recreating her deceased mother's life, putting time, love and life into her work, and filling a missing piece in her life.
Much like Finny and Gene in A Separate Peace, Victor and his creation each had elements the other wished to possess. In this light, Victor and the monster could be seen as one half of the whole. The monster desires to be accepted in the social world, to have a wife, a family, and someone to talk to. On the other hand, Victor wished to be free and rid of the ties to the social world. When Frankenstein finally refuses to create a mate for the monster, destroying the nearly complete one he had been working on for quite some time, he unknowingly caused the downfall of the monster and himself. However, while the monster may carelessly been labeled the evil side and Victor labeled good, the reader must not forget how the monster managed to become the way he did. Frankenstein's creation was not inherently monstrous, but society made him this way. One could argue that Frankenstein actually condemned himself; as he created his enemy and managed to probe him into hating himself and his family enough to commit manslaughter. Mary Shelley may have subconsciously blamed herself for her mothers death, since she died of birth complications. It was because of her mothers death that she was forced to live with her hate-filled stepmother, despising her life enough to run away and elope with a mysterious man who was married and expecting children. Shelley may have created Frankenstein to be somewhat of a mirror of her life: she ultimately caused her own downfall, as well as the pain and death of many others in her life. The monster and Frankenstein possessed many characteristics Shelley desired – greatness, success, a family and to be accepted into society as who she truly was.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Hulley and Matt Holsten (part 1)
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
3/9/11
To criticize Frankenstein morally, one must look at the underlying themes that are portrayed in the novel. A main conflict in the tale that sticks out is the struggle between life and death. The author writes not only of life created but of lives taken, sometimes from the innocent. The debate of the right to create or destroy life is one that demands close attention and analysis to better understand it. In the tale, the presence of this conflict highlights the opinions and morals of Victor Frankenstein and the monster based on their actions.
To begin with, the main protagonist in the novel, Victor Frankenstein, takes it upon himself to create life. Right away, the reader may wonder what gives this person the right to give life to someone else. What is so special or extraordinary about this person that they should have the ability to do what nobody else can do? It is clear to see that Victor thinks himself superior to everyone else and abuses the power he has. It is his absence of morals that cause him to believe that making life in this way is acceptable. A person with morals would be able to see that there is a reason people are not running around creating other people, and recognize that they are no exception to the rule.
Another moral issue is the way this new life is created. The fact that it is brewed up in a laboratory is another reason for controversy. Some people believe that you cannot use science to create life because it is too artificial. They believe the one and only way to make a life is naturally through a man and a woman. For this reason, the growing advance in technology in our world today that can open up new doors can also easily make waves. For example, some people feel genetically altering your baby to customize a child is a great idea. They believe there is nothing wrong with selecting the hair or eye color of your offspring. Others feel it is in fact wrong and should not be something we are capable of. In the novel, Victor strives to create a perfect man, and makes him a towering eight feet tall so he is a superior breed. Here, we see another fault in Victor’s morals. He thinks it is okay for him to decide and create what defines perfection. Although, unfortunately for Victor the appearance of the life turns out to be so hideous and shocking that he is referred to as a monster. Even his own creator is horrified and cannot bear to look at him. Therefore, the reader understands that a pursuit of perfection ends up in the exact opposite. This lesson proves that perfection cannot be created in such a way. Even deeper, the consequence of trying to create perfection will result in something that is ten times worse than what it would have been if left alone.
Matt Holsten and Courtney Hulley (part 2)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the monster’s morals are in need of analysis as well. First, the reader learns that he kills Victor’s little brother, William. The monster saw the boy one day and attempted to befriend him, but the boy was frightened and yelled to leave him alone or he would have to deal with Frankenstein. It is not until after he discovers the boy is related to Victor that he chooses to kill him. Next, the monster frames Justine, who was adopted into the Frankenstein family, for the murder and causes her to be executed. Lastly, the monster kills Victor’s best friend, Clerval, and then his wife Elizabeth on the night of their wedding. With Justine’s murder, the monster had no alternative motive. She was a random and innocent victim. Thus, the reader gets the idea that the monster must be pure evil to cause someone’s death for no reason. Furthermore, they sense that the monster had no sense of right or wrong. However, the murders of William, Clerval and Elizabeth are not as black and white. The monster took their lives out of spite and for revenge against his creator. In these three instances, he has a reason to kill. He blames his actions on the miserable experiences he suffered through after being brought into a world where he did not belong. He felt he had no purpose living and that even though Victor did not kill anyone he cared about, creating him in this way was just as bad. The important question the reader thus comes across is what does his reasoning for murder say about his morals? He knows murder is wrong because he does it to cause pain for Victor, but he only wants to cause pain because he feels what Victor did to him was worthy of punishment. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the monster does have some sense of morals, but they were certainly not the only criteria he used in making his decision. Certain readers of this novel will sympathize with the monster and might be able to understand why he did what he did. Others will only feel bad for the Frankenstein family, and determine that what the monster did was one hundred percent wrong without thinking twice about it. However, the reader must remember that on Victor’s deathbed, he still tries to get revenge on the monster by telling Robert Walton to kill the monster if he gets the chance. This again calls Victor’s morals into question as he passes his burdens onto others.
Rossi, Schiek pt 1
ReplyDeleteWhen looking into a successful author or artist's life, an overwhelming amount of depressing events seem to fill up their biography. Many psychologists believe people with mood disorders or a hard childhood write in order to purge emotions, and many events or characters in their works of art often relate back to their life. Mary Shelley is a prime example of this.
Mary Shelley was married to Percy Shelley and was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, a feminist and free thinker who was the author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Her father, William Goodwin, was a political philosopher and novelist. Ten days after Mary was born, her mother died from birth complications leaving her father William being the only one to take care of her, and her step-ster Fanny. Four years later, Godwin remarried giving Mary Shelley a stepmother, however “the new Mrs. Godwin, whom contemporaries described as petty and disagreeable,” (19th Century CLC 245) strongly favored her own daughters rather than Shelley and her sister, leaving Shelley alone and unhappy. She did not receive a proper education, but however she did absorb a great deal of knowledge from her father and his associates, as well as from reading a variety of her mother’s books, who she looked up to. While spending much time visiting her mother’s grave, she met her future husband Percy Shelley, and two years later they fell in love. Although Percy was already married and expecting more children, he and Shelley eloped, traveling throughout Europe. In 1816 Mary Shelley’s sister Fanny committed suicide, and merely weeks later Percy’s ex-wife drowned herself as well. Failing to gain possession of Percy’s old children, Mary Shelley fell into a deep depression after her three children died in infancy. Her situation slightly improved when her only surviving child Percy Florence was born in 1819. In addition to the deaths of their children, the Shelleys’ marriage suffered as well due to Percy pursuing the interests of other women. They made it through the tough times however, and maintained their studies in literature. It was during this time period that Mary Shelley completed her novels Valperga, and Frankenstein.
Throughout Frankenstein there is a reoccurring theme of reproduction. With creating a living being of his own, Victor has spit on the face of not god, but women. Because of this the novel has tampered with the laws of nature and social organization. The novel also manages to touch upon the subject of family relationships: something also relating to Shelley's life. The mother to childbirth, mother to daughter and daughter to father relationships are explored. Instead of conventionally reproducing with Elizabeth and going against the social norm, Victor reproduces without a mate of his own and takes on a god-like figure in the novel. Shelley lost her mother very early in her life, and lived with her father and step-sister for quite some time. This relation suggests Shelley repressing the events in her childhood, and subconsciously weaving her past into the novel. There seems to be a mother figure lacking in many relationships in Frankenstein: Victor's mother dies, Victor creates life without a mate, and Elizabeth is murdered by the monster.
Tom and Zach
ReplyDeleteTo attempt to look at literature through the lens of a Marxist Critic, Frankenstein can be analyzed and broken down through class systems. As Marxist Critics believe that social unrest is the main source of revolutions throughout history, the characters in Frankenstein can be placed into certain classes demonstrating the Marxist beliefs.
Victor Frankenstein, as viewed through a Marxist lens, can be seen as the upper class. In all actually, he is part of the upper class. Victor regards himself as advanced intellectually, specifically in science, which eventually leads him to create his monster. He also comes from a wealthy family. With these three main traits of Victor, being educated, coming from a good family, and being wealthy, he takes on the role of an upper class oppressor. When Victor begins to think of creating a monster that he believes he will benefit all mankind, he does not consider the negative effects or consequences of creating the monster. Even while creating the monster, he refuses to view the monster negatively until it comes to life. He clearly is viewing the monster if he is putting the monster together to come to life, yet until he brings the monster to life, he views nothing wrong with the monster. As a Marxist Critic, one would look at Victor being the upper class, ignoring any issues the social class may have, for personal gain. Marxists criticize the upper class for placing their personal gains over the needs of the working class. Clearly, Victor is displaying the qualities of the ruling class. He ignores any sort of consequences or issues bringing this monster to life in search of his own person gain, whether it is through his pride as the creator of a monster that benefits all mankind or his own intellectual satisfaction of creating such a monster.
The Frankenstein Monster, as viewed through the lens of a Marxist Critic, could be considered the lower working class being oppressed by Victor. Victor creates the monster, and when he realizes he is going to have to assist the monster as it is not exactly what he had expected, he runs from the monster and abandoning the monster. Similarly, it can be seen how the upper, ruling class could be seen as the creators of the working class. As a Marxist Critic, there is a direct link between the way ruling classes in societies create the working class and use them for their own benefit unless the relationship somehow becomes parasitical for the upper class.
The social revolution aspect of Marxist theories can be seen through the plotline of the story. The higher ruling class, Victor Frankenstein, oppresses the lower working class, his monster, which brings about social change, or the confrontation between the monster and Victor. The monster eventually becomes educated and learned in literature and culture yet Victor is still unable to accept the monster due to his overpowering physical size and disgusting features. As a Marxist, it appears as if the working class, even while working to be educated and well learned, just is unable to be accepted by the upper ruling class due to the social differences. This is what brings about the social revolution. The monster grows more powerful than Victor to seek out change, just like the working class would in society to overthrow the oppressing ruling class.
Nikhil Porecha
ReplyDeleteChris Chinn
Biographical Criticism within Frankenstein
Literary theory until Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, had been mainly focused upon analyzing the text in comparison to itself. When Frankenstein was first published, theorists immediately began to uncover and question details within the text, such as the time period the novel was written between as well as the reason why this monster bore such repulsive features. Although these features are indelibly eminent in respect to her life as a whole, the increased appreciation for other theories such as psychoanalytic theory have shed a negative light on biographical theory, as it is claimed to depreciate the creativity of an author, and in this case, Shelley.
When Shelley opens the novel, she begins with a frame narrative with a character by the name of Robert Walton who is writing to his sister Margaret Walton Seville, who interestingly has the same initials in relationship to the author Mary Shelley. The time period, in which the first letter and last letter are sent, December 11th to September 12th, correlate roughly to the period of time in which Shelley was engulfed in her third pregnancy. Shelley throughout this pregnancy was overwhelmed with a persisting fear of her child being born with defects or rather unhealthily. Through her fears, she may have formulated an idea of what her baby would have looked like had it been victim to severe birth defects. In this thought process, she projected this idea upon the monster which Frankenstein refers to as essentially a hideous combination of nature’s worst attributes. This attitude displayed by Victor Frankenstein is symbolic of Shelley’s fear that she could not conjure a baby that would be accepted into society much less accepted through its own eyes. As the monster journeyed throughout the novel, encountering much hostility due to its appearance, it represented the epitome of Shelley’s fear in that she did not want her child to become an outcast of society as did the monster.
Another parallel between Shelley’s life and the novel is Mary Shelley’s personal life, in particular, the passing of her mother when she was very young. Shocked and devastated by the sudden loss, Shelley ventured in and out of depression for most of her adulthood. In comparison to the book, Victor Frankenstein’s mother also past away very early in his life thus propelling him into a state of isolation, seen when he surrounds himself with his studies of the human anatomy, similar to what Shelley experienced as a result of this depression.
In addition to the fact that they are both highly troubled figures, Victor Frankenstein and Mary Shelley also share a common quest in that they both strive to answer the unanswerable. Shelley, in a philosophical light, attempted to answer questions related to the meaning of life through Frankenstein such as: “Why are we here?” and “What is our purpose?” This quest or goal to present answers to ideals that have never been contemplated before is relative to Victor Frankenstein’s quest to create a human being capable of normal bodily structures seen in the monster. This quest is achieved through the creation of the monster just as Mary Shelley’s quest is accomplished through the completion of the novel through the representation of the characters and the plot of the book.
ReplyDeleteClosely related to biographical criticism is the theory of historicism which is the relation of the text to historical events which may have affected the author’s intentions for the novel. During Mary Shelley’s early years, the French Revolution was taking place in Europe. This alteration of American politics due to increasing turbulence, eventually culminating in Maximilian Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” was due to increased infatuation by American politicians with the developments in France. In other words, the politicians very existence was based the French political energy which directly affected American policy. The need for a mate, or an attraction bears similar resemblance to the monster’s yearning for a concrete being that was just as hideous as it was.
From analyzing the novel Frankenstein through a biographical perspective, the false assumption can be made that this novel was written in an auto biographical form when in reality only certain aspects are moderately related to her personal life. Shelley’s life in relation to the novel is quite obscure with exception to the few details biographical theorist have picked up on and analyzed for further meaning. Since biographical theory encompasses many facets of literary theory, its relation to the text is branched off into different categories such a psychoanalytic criticism which discusses Mary Shelley’s thought process behind Frankenstein.
"Connections." Hail Mary Shelley for Her Frankenstein Exercise of Mind. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
"Frankenstein: Mary Shelley Biography." Duluth Public Library Homepage. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
Shelley, Percy Bysshe. "Mary Shelley Biography." UNet Users' Home Pages. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
Feminism in Frankenstein
ReplyDeleteAs the Daughter of one of the first openly feminist authors, Mary Wollstonecraft, it would be expected that Mary Shelley would write in a feminist point of view. Surprisingly enough, she does quite the opposite. More often than not, Shelley exemplifies women being oppressed, judged unfairly, treated like possessions, etc.. by analyzing the female characters in the story, the almost anti-feminist writing becomes clear. It is obvious that Shelley sees this treatment of women as an average, every day occurrence.
1. Frankenstein’s mother
Caroline Frankenstein is only briefly present in the novel, yet she exemplifies both feminist and anti-feminist views. She marries her husband Alphonse because she relies upon him after her father’s death. “He [Alphonse] came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care; and after the internment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva and placed her under the protection of a relation” (18). Caroline was like a damsel in distress and needed a man to save her from her situation for both survival and emotional reasons.
On the other hand Caroline was a very caring and strong character. She raised her children how she wanted to and always fulfilled her wishes to help the poor. She didn’t feel she needed Alphonse’s permission to bring home Elizabeth, which displays how she is independent in her choices. In her last days, Caroline tends to her sick daughter. Even though it leads to her death, she chooses to assist Elizabeth, proving her tendency to make her own decisions as a woman.
2. Justine
Justine Moritz the young caretaker in the Frankenstein family is unjustly treated as a woman. In her early days with the family she is accepted as more than a servant, and is trusted by each member. Her image changes when she is falsely accused for the murder of William. “On being charged with the fact, the poor girl confirmed the suspicion in a great measure by her extreme confusion of manner” (63). Justine became the victim of a crime that was not hers, and furthermore was not given the right as a woman to defend herself against it.
The only person who could save Justine from punishment was Victor, a man. If he were to explain the truth, the court would believe him and Justine would be set free. Instead Victor selfishly keeps quiet, and she suffers from the limits women were subjected to. Neither Elizabeth’s nor Justine’s pleads could save her because they are not held at the same respect as men. The inequality between the sexes in the courtroom ultimately cause Justine’s death, and express anti-feminist examples in the novel.
3. Saffie
ReplyDeleteSaffie’s life like many of the female characters has been degrading and inferior to the male characters. She grew up in a Turkish society with a very strict father. He viewed her as possession and his ticket to get out of jail. By offering her to Felix as a wife, Saffie is treated as a possession instead of a person. “He [the Turk] revolved a thousand plans by which he should be enabled to prolong the deceit until it might be no longer necessary, and secretly to take his daughter with him when he departed” (109-10). Saffie’s father is an antifeminist character, and proves so through his restrictions of his daughter and even over his wife, who was briefly mentioned.
Although Saffie lives with the inequality of women, she does not believe nor accept it. Her mother taught her the feminist views which were not permitted in her religion. “…she taught her to aspire to higher powers of intellect and an independence of spirit forbidden to the female followers of Muhammad” (108). When her mother died the views of a higher life for women stuck with Saffie, causing her to embody a feminist character as well.
The morals her mother instilled in her are what ultimately caused her to escape from her Turkish father. She found the strength to search for her lover and become an independent woman. It would be common for a man in the time of the novel to stand up for their beliefs, but Saffie proves that she is just as capable as any man through her rebellion.
4. Agatha
Agatha De Lacey is only briefly a part of the story. Agatha was the daughter of the old man and sister to Felix. She may seem to be a minor character but she may be a part of the reason that all went wrong for the monster. While the monster hid away in the hovel, he was able to see through into the house. As he did this, he saw Agatha and recognized her beauty.
The monster’s first real perception of human beauty is of Agatha as he explains, “The young girl was occupied in arranging the cottage; but presently she took something out of a drawer, which employed her hands, and she sat down beside the old man, who, taking up an instrument, began to play, and to produce sounds, sweeter than the voice of the thrush or the nightingale. It was a lovely sight, even to me, poor wretch! Who had never beheld aught beautiful before.” (92-93) Agatha does nothing wrong to the monster aside from make him realize how ugly he is. While she may never have done anything to hurt him, the monster then compares Agatha’s beauty to his own features. These types of comparisons are what spark the monster’s self hatred later leading to the hatred of mankind.
A feminist critic would see this and recognize the injustice of the situation. The fact that so much may be linked back to Agatha, when in fact she did nothing but faint when she saw him, shows that it is unfair that she could be seen to receive any blame.
Gender-Queer Studies and Frankenstein
ReplyDeleteVictor’s reaction to his best friend Henry’s death is much stronger than his reaction to his wife Elizabeth’s death. The amount of emphasis put upon Henry’s death as opposed to Elizabeth shows how much stronger of a bond the two men shared. After Henry’s death, “[Victor] was absorbed by a gloomy and black melancholy that nothing could dissipate. The image of Clerval was forever before me, ghastly and murdered" (Shelley 165). Throughout Chapter 21, it is mentioned countless times that Victor spends two months in a broken state over the death of his best friend. This reaction is more akin to the mourning the loss of a spouse than a dear friend. One would assume that because of his strong reaction to Henry’s death, Victor’s reaction to Elizabeth’s would be even more intense, but that is not at all the case. His reaction to Elizabeth’s passing is minimal compared to the one Henry’s received. "For a moment only did I lose recollection; I fell senseless on the ground" (Shelley 179). Victor only allows himself to overcome by depression for a moment before gathering people to help him fight off his monster. He is not tormented because Elizabeth died but rather the realization that his monster will continue killing people like he’s been doing. Right afterwards he lists off all the people who have died “The death of William, the execution of Justine, the murder of Clerval, and lastly of my wife” (Shelley 180). He does not refer to Elizabeth by name, only by the detached title of my wife not even like giving it a positive adjective like beloved. Also note how he only refers to Henry’s death as a murder, but none of the others as such. Murder has a much stronger, negative connotation than death further showing the greater impact Henry’s death had over the rest. Even later Victor is being haunted once again by visions of those who have died; he hears the voice of Elizabeth but can fully picture his best friend’s face. To reiterate his depressed mind spends more of its time recreating the likeness of his friend than of his wife.
Victor is a very intricate character with traits and actions that could put him under both the masculine and feminine labels. Victor exemplifies his more masculine side in his fervor for scientifically creating a new life: An accomplishment that gives him a sense of power and authority over his studies and his creation. On the other hand, Victor also portrays many feminine qualities. Victor faints when he finds out that the monster has murdered Clerval and when the sailors carry him onto the ship. He throws fits when he thinks about the damage the monster has done and destroys his female monster and when Henry dies. When Victor hears that the monster has killed his family, he has a mental breakdown similar to the one he had when he first created his monster. These faints, fits and mental breakdowns show a weaker and more vulnerable side of him that is usually associated with a more feminine role. He is constantly reminded of Henry’s death and the fact that he no longer has his greatest companion with him. He even mentioned to Captain Walton his “desire of finding a friend, of [his] thirst for a more intimate sympathy with a fellow mind than had ever fallen to [his] lot” (Shelley 14). Independence is a very distinctly masculine trait, so Victor’s longing for a new, male companion emphasizes his feminine side or could also be interpreted as an underlying gay connotation. Victor also seems to lack the ability or motivation to confront his responsibilities like a man. He doesn’t marry Elizabeth, he abandons his family for his studies and he lets his monster loose. The male’s drive for dominance is what pushes man to face and overcome responsibilities, but Victor ignores and rejects them.
Brandon Stefanowitz & Shannon Smith
ReplyDeleteTo criticize Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein through formalism, the reader must look at the structure and composition of her work. In the formalist perspective, we ask ourselves, why did the author write in this specific style? Shelly develops her work through a frame styled structure. This structure, also known as a frame story, is a story within a story, which is promptly displayed at the beginning of her work. The novel begins with letters written by Robert Walton to his sister Margaret. After his fourth letter and bringing a stranger back to health, later known as Victor, his framing narrative ends and Victor’s begins. Shelly begins chapter one with Victor narrating the story, discussing his birthplace and his life, and then goes into the story within the story. By developing her work through a frame structure it allows the reader to get both of the character’s perspectives. I believe Shelly may have thought it would be too confusing to constantly switch between the narrators, therefore she started and ended the novel with Walton and used Victor throughout the remainder of the storyline.
The frame structure also works well because it helps Shelly build suspense for the reader from the beginning of the novel. By being able to see Victor’s first approach after his attempt to create the monster, it makes the reader want to know more why he is creating such a creature. By using Walton as the narrator, Shelly begins by building suspense, then flashes back to the point to where he met Victor. The use of suspense in structuring the text provides evidence to prove that Shelly is a successful writer, leaving her readers curious about the outcome and striving to know the conclusion.
Victor and Walton can be easily seen as mirror characters. Walton longs for more knowledge and recognition with his scientific discoveries, but Victor already knows the danger of having an unhealthy obsession with science, which was evident with the monster Frankenstein. Although Victor had lost so much through his violent creation, if he could persuade Walton to not become like him all of his losses would not be in vain.
The description and imagery used within the text gives the reader a sense of reality. Beginning with Walton’s letters Shelly is able to create a more realistic feel to the reader. If the reader buys into the reality of Walton, it becomes easier to buy into the strange and unknown story of Victor. The many detailed descriptions and uses of imagery gives the reader the opportunity to visualize every detail that is going on within the object being described. “His limbs were nearly froze, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering. I never saw a man in so wretched a condition.” (7,Shelly) In a letter Walton is writing to his sister, the strong portrayal of imagery gives the reader a mental image of a helpless, frozen man, who is withering away, in a weak, feeble condition. Adding such realistic aspects to the text transports the readers into the story, through the perspective of the character, and they are able to fully visualize everything that is occurring.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmberlee and Lindsay
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
Alles, Melissa. "Frankenstein Commentary." Frankenstein. 16 Sept. 2001. Web. 8 Mar. 2011.
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. 21 Feb. 2011
Griffith, Kelly. "Writing Essays about Literature: A Guide and Style Sheet." New York: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
McManus, Barbara. “How Readers Interpret Texts.” Reader Response Criticism. 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2011
Millhauser, Milton. "The Noble Savage in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." Detroit: Gale Research, 1997. Print.
Dylan Coles
ReplyDeleteMythological Literary Criticism and Frankenstein
3/9/11
The connections between Mythological Literary Criticism and Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein are extremely evident because Frankenstein is, in essence, a creation myth. The novel’s subtitle, “The Modern Prometheus”, suggests strong connections between Shelly’s text and the myths of ancient Greeks and Romans. In its original form, the Prometheus myth is centered on a Titan, Prometheus, who creates mankind in the image of the Gods. Prometheus then steals fire from the Gods of Olympus and bestows it upon his creations, but, when Zeus becomes aware of his actions, Prometheus is forced to suffer unending torment as punishment. The titan is chained to Mount Cauasus, where an eagle descends upon him and eats his liver, which then grows back, everyday for the rest of eternity. Victor, like Prometheus, is doomed because he attempts to become more powerful than the God’s. Frankenstein creates the monster in an attempt to help mankind overcome death, but upon abandoning the creature after witnessing its true hideousness, he is placed under relentless mental anguish and forced to witness the evil deeds that his creation, and indirectly himself, becomes responsible for.
When viewing Frankenstein through the lens of Mythological Literary Theory, the archetypes created by Northrop Frye in his Myth studies must be taken into careful consideration. Frye created four archetypes, spring, summer, autumn, and winter, and used the criteria associated with each to study and categorize different sections of various myths. Frankenstein fits best into the autumn and winter categories, which represent tragedy and irony respectively.