Structuralism as a literary movement first emerged in the 1960s in the field of linguistics. It expanded to other areas of studies as well by philosophers such as Louis Althusser in Marxist theory, Roland Barthes in literary studies, Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis, Gerard Genette in narratology, and Claude Levi-Strauss in anthropology. This paper focuses on Strauss’s Structure and Dialectics, Genette’s Five Types of Transtextuality, and Barthes’s The Death of the Author. Also, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) is taken as an example to explain these structuralist methods. Ferdinand de Saussure, founder of structuralist linguistics, defined language as a “system of signs.” He proposed the components signifier and signified which makes a sign. Signifier is the sound-image and signified is the concept or meaning. Levi-Strauss based his study of myth on structural linguistics. In his essay, Structure and Dialectics, he observes the relationship between myth and ritual. Generally, either myth is seen as the “ideological projection of a rite” or ritual as “dramatized illustration of the myth.” However, this homology is not always true. Strauss employs the dialectical relationship between myth and ritual to substantiate his observation. According to him, myth is structured in terms of binary oppositions to produce meaning. Strauss was not concerned with the sequential order of events or content in the plot but the occurrence of binary pairs in the structure of the text. In anthropological study, binary oppositions form the fundamental component of all socio-cultural institutions which include literature, religion, economy, etc. The comparison between myth and ritual should not be restricted... ... middle of paper ... ...Web. 26 Oct. 2013. Genette, Gerard. “Voice.” Narrative Discourse. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. New York: Cornell University Press, 1983.n.pag. Google Book Search. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. “Infection in the Sentence: The Woman Writer and the Anxiety of Authorship.” The Madwoman in the Attic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.45-92. Print. Levi-Strauss, Claude. “Structure and Dialectics.” Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Schoepf. New York: Basic Books, Inc, n.d. 232-241. 4shared. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. Saussure de, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, n.d.n.pag. 4shared. Web. 26 Oct.2013. Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein, or Modern Prometheus. Ed. Maya Joshi. Delhi. Worldview, 2008. Print.
While reading through any piece of literature, understanding why the author chose the words they use is very important. Through different techniques the author will choose words that have an underlying meaning to them. While it is imperative that you read and understand the words straight from the page, it is equally as important to analyze and understand exactly what they mean. Using external sources to understand the setting and culture in which the author lived, as well as contextual clues in the reading is necessary to get a full understanding of any piece of literature. Specifically, this paper will be looking at Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein through different interpretations. Themes and symbolism are two of the most important aspects that authors use to convey deeper meaning, and is vital to the reader’s full understanding of the literature.
Using gothic conventions Frankenstein explores Mary Shelley’s personal views on the scientific developments, moral and economical issues that occurred during the 19th century and Shelley’s personal emotions and questions regarding her life. As an educated person, Mary Shelley had an interest in the development of the world such as political and moral issues and she challenged these issues in the novel.
Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, has captured people’s attention since it was first written. People often wonder how much of Mary Shelley’s life is documented in her novel. From the theme of parental abandonment, to the theme of life and death in the novel, literary scholars have been able to find similarities between Frankenstein and Shelley’s life. The Journal of Religion and Health, the Journal of Analytical Psychology, and the Modern Psychoanalysis discuss the different connections between Shelley’s life and Frankenstein. Badalamenti, the author of “ Why did Mary Shelley Write Frankenstein?” in the Journal of Religion and Health, primarily discusses the connection between Victor
Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979. Print.
Romantic writer Mary Shelley’s gothic novel Frankenstein does indeed do a lot more than simply tell story, and in this case, horrify and frighten the reader. Through her careful and deliberate construction of characters as representations of certain dominant beliefs, Shelley supports a value system and way of life that challenges those that prevailed in the late eighteenth century during the ‘Age of Reason’. Thus the novel can be said to be challenging prevailant ideologies, of which the dominant society was constructed, and endorsing many of the alternative views and thoughts of the society. Shelley can be said to be influenced by her mothers early feminist views, her father’s radical challenges to society’s structure and her own, and indeed her husband’s views as Romantics. By considering these vital influences on the text, we can see that in Shelley’s construction of the meaning in Frankenstein she encourages a life led as a challenge to dominant views.
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a Gothic novel that contains two genres, science fiction and Gothicism. The novel is a first person narrative that uses a framing technique, where a story is told within a story. Shelley gives the book a distinctive gothic mood tone by the use of her chosen setting which is dark and gloomy, by doing this it reflects the hideousness of the creature; the point of views helps towards the realism of the novel; and characterization able the reader to interact with the characters and feel sympathy or hatred towards each one. To entice the readers into her suspenseful novel Shelley uses foreshadowing. The narrative structure shows a wide range of perspectives rather than just one, by doing this it provides the reader with greater insight of the characters personalities. Symbolism and imagery evokes the readers’ emotions where sympathy is concerned. Shelley has entwined these techniques to produce a novel where the readers’ sympathy jumps from character to character and moral judgements are made due to the characters actions.
This paper seeks to address the literacy and stylistic issues presented in two texts. Specifically, an extract from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Wilfred Owens’s Dulce ET Est. Decorum. Initially, the paper will outline the prevailing social and historical contexts associated with the two texts. The principal purpose of this work is to address the themes common to both texts. For this to be achieved, an initial investigation and critique of both authors use of language will also need to be looked at.
The idea of duality permeates the literary world. Certain contradictory commonplace themes exist throughout great works, creation versus destruction, light versus dark, love versus lust, to name a few, and this trend continues in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The pivotal pair in this text however, is monotony versus individuality. The opposing entities of this pairing greatly contrast against each other in Frankenstein, but individuality proves more dominant of the two in this book.
Sometimes trying to conform to society’s expectations becomes extremely overwhelming, especially if you’re a woman. Not until recent years have woman become much more independent and to some extent equalized to men. However going back to the 19th century, women were much more restrained. From the beginning we perceive the narrator as an imaginative woman, in tune with her surroundings. The narrator is undoubtedly a very intellectual woman. Conversely, she lives in a society which views women who demonstrate intellectual potential as eccentric, strange, or as in this situation, ill. She is made to believe by her husband and physician that she has “temporary nervous depression --a slight hysterical tendency” and should restrain herself from any intellectual exercises in order to get well (Gilman 487). The narrator was not allowed to write or in any way freely...
Mary Shelley’s world renowned book, “Frankenstein”, is a narrative of how Victor Frankenstein, a brilliant chemist, succeeds in creating a living being. Although Frankenstein’s creation is benevolent to begin with, he soon turns murderous after being mistreated by humans. His anger turns towards Frankenstein, as he was the one who brought him into the world that shuns him. The Monster then spends the rest of the story trying to make his creator’s life as miserable as his own. This novel is an excellent example of the Gothic Romantic style of literature, as it features some core Gothic Romantic elements such as remote and desolate settings, a metonymy of gloom and horror, and women in distress.
As a reader it is difficult to separate ones analysis of such a commanding piece of work from ones own constructed systems of meaning. Because of this, actual meaning is tricky to assert with certainty as it is subject to change as easily as reality is subject to influence. This may be beside the point, however; for it seems as though what matters in structuralism is the recognition that everyone, and everything everyone creates or does, is in some part connected to a system of meaning which informs and influences varying interpretations of what is real and true of the world and its diverse inhabitants.
6th ed. Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. New York: Harper Collins, 1995. 118-29.
The first theory to be discussed is structuralism, this theory is composed of many different branches. The branches that this paper will be looking into is archetypes. The definition of of archetype is typical images, characters, narrative designs and themes and other literary phenomena. Archetypes have their own form of criticism that is called archetypal criticism. Archetypal criticism means the generic, recurring and conventional elements in literature that cannot be explained through historical influence or tradition.
Richardson, Justin, Peter Parnell, and Henry Cole. And Tango Makes Three. New York: Simon & Schuster for Young Readers, 2005. Print.