Like all works that have been taught in English classes, Frankenstein has been explicated and analyzed by students and teachers alike for much of the twentieth and all of the twenty-first century. Academia is correct for doing so because Frankenstein can appeal to the interests of students. Students, teachers and experts in the areas of medicine, psychology, and sociology can relevantly analyze Frankenstein in their respective fields. However, Peter Brooks explains in “Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein” that Shelly had presented the problem of “Monsterism” through her language. According to Brooks, Monsterism is explicitly and implicitly addressed in Shelly’s language. While this may be correct, Brooks does it in such a way that requires vast knowledge of subjects that many readers may not be knowledgeable in. After summarizing and analyzing the positive and negative qualities of Brooks’ work, I will explain how the connection of many different fields of study in literature creates a better work.
Brooks attempts to prove his thesis by first explaining how the language in parts of the book relates to how the Creature is monstrous. He alludes to how the descriptions of nature in Frankenstein are more fearful when the Creature is around. For instance, a terrible storm occurs during the Creature’s creation and the “cold gales” in the icy glaciers of Mont Blanc surround Frankenstein when he meets the Creature for the first time after its creation (Shelly 80). Also commenting on the Creature’s story, Brooks finds that his lack of spoken language and attempt to understand these languages allude to the Enlightenment’s noble savage (594). Brooks then associates the Creature with Satan and many top...
... middle of paper ...
...ttempts to relate many fields to his paper so that even if the reader didn’t know some of the scholars that were cited, the reader could glean the basic idea and then truly understand a section that interested you if you knew about the sources he was using.
Works Cited
Brooks, Peter. "Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein." New Literary History 9.3 (1978): 591-605. JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. .
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Walter James Miller, and Harold Bloom. Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus. New York: New American Library, 2000. Print.
Yale Office of Public Affairs. Humanities and Social Sciences. Yale Professor Peter Brooks Wins Prestigious Mellon Award. Yale University News. Yale University, 16 Jan. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2010. .
Tropp, Martin. “The Monster.” Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations: Frankenstein, Updated Edition. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 2007. Print.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, unconsciously adopted a major role in creating a precedent for future monsters. This story has fascinated readers throughout many years. Although now we see Frankenstein as a “classic”, it wasn’t always this way. The novel first introduced the genre of science-fiction to literature. It has been declared as the pioneer of the genre. In modern times, the creature's continued omnipresence is still remarkable.
The individual identified as the monster in Frankenstein demonstrates, through his own problems with understanding and being understood by the world, the importance and power of language on the one hand and of outward appearance on the other. As this essay will show, the novel shows these two factors to have very different functions indeed.
Frankenstein, speaking of himself as a young man in his father’s home, points out that he is unlike Elizabeth, who would rather follow “the aerial creations of the poets”. Instead he pursues knowledge of the “world” though investigation. As the novel progresses, it becomes clear that the meaning of the word “world” is for Frankenstein, very much biased or limited. He thirsts for knowledge of the tangible world and if he perceives an idea to be as yet unrealised in the material world, he then attempts to work on the idea in order to give it, as it were, a worldly existence. Hence, he creates the creature that he rejects because its worldly form did not reflect the glory and magnificence of his original idea. Thrown, unaided and ignorant, into the world, the creature begins his own journey into the discovery of the strange and hidden meanings encoded in human language and society. In this essay, I will discuss how the creature can be regarded as a foil to Frankenstein through an examination of the schooling, formal and informal, that both of them go through. In some ways, the creature’s gain in knowledge can be seen to parallel Frankenstein’s, such as, when the creature begins to learn from books. Yet, in other ways, their experiences differ greatly, and one of the factors that contribute to these differences is a structured and systematic method of learning, based on philosophical tenets, that is available to Frankenstein but not to the creature.
In Lisa Nocks article appropriately titled “Frankenstein, in a better light,” she takes us through a view of the characters in the eyes of the author Mary Shelly. The name Frankenstein conjures up feeling of monsters and horror however, the monster could be a metaphor for the time period of which the book was written according to Nocks. The article implies that the book was geared more towards science because scientific treatises were popular readings among the educated classes, of which Shelley was a member of. Shelley, whose father was wealthy and had an extensive library, was encouraged to self-educate, which gave her knowledge of contemporary science and philosophy, which also influenced Frankenstein as well as circumstances of her life.
Duncan, Greg. "Frankenstein: The Historical Context." WSU.edu. Washington State University. Web. 07 Mar. 2011. .
Works Cited for: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. a. a. a. a. a J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
We are shown that this ‘monster’ is a ‘creature’ and more of a human than we think. It is in the complex structure of the novel that Mary Shelley creates sympathy. We shift from Robert Walton to Victor Frankenstein to the monster and finally back to Walton. With each shift of perspective, the reader gains new information about both the facts of the story and the reliability of the narrator. Each perspective adds pieces of information that only they knows: Walton explains the circumstances of Victor’s last days, Victor explains his creation of the monster, the monster explains his turn to evil.
Firstly, it is significant to observe the initial depiction of the monster and the dialogue with his creator, Victor Frankenstein, to understand Shelley’s comment on the harmful effects of a negative relationship and the significance of the monster’s portrayal. It is understood that the monster’s physical appearance in the novel is created to represent an object of terror, which is an integral element of the gothic genre. Halberstam argues that Frankenstein’s monster causes its audience to rethink its idea of who is the object of fear, instead of what (Halberstam 1995, p28). In this context, the monster suggests that it is in fact, people, or bodies of people...
Brooks begins his argument by analyzing the relationships of the novel and how they build tension between the characters. He speaks to how the narrative frame itself positions the reader to "supplement" the story of the "speaker", which in the case of Frankenstein is both the text itself and the individual narration of the characters. Most importantly, he sets up how Frankenstein's narrative frame, essentially a series of conversations relating one characters unresolved issues to another, begins creating the concept of the monster. Creation of the monstrous, in the idea of Brooks happens solely through language, a medium deemed corrupt and insufficient. This is the source of the monstrous, as Brooks reveals that through the Monster's exposure to the world, he no longer takes part in the imaginary order as he finds that he cannot be accepted on appearance alone, and instead uses language as a tool to express his desires.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment.
Shelley, Mary. "Frankenstein." The Presence of Others. Eds. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997. 230-235.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Many thinkers and writers were first misunderstood by their contemporaries and criticized harshly for their artwork. Mary Shelley, author of “Frankenstein” or the mad scientist was one of them. Many readers couldn’t fully fathom how Mary Shelley’s monster acquired a certain literacy worthy of the great Aristotle, only after watching cottagers’ routine and reading some books. However, in his critique “The Reading Monster”, Patrick Brantlinger points out that this eloquence enabled the monster to challenge Frankenstein’s narrative in the novel, and even win the reader’s affection. But does the monster’s narrative in the novel really challenge that of Frankenstein, or does it simply complement his story? The monster’s