The critique I chose was from a book called "The Gender Atom" which is not at all about Frankenstein but in the first chapter, it makes some very good points about Mary Shelly's intentions in Frankenstein.
These are the following main points the author makes:
> Frankenstein is traditional because it is a horror story that involves the "frightened female swooning in the monster's arms." However, the story is untraditional because the hero as a scientist is a "new society identity" never touched upon in fiction. The author also points out that this is the "first true science fiction."
>The reading also claims that Mary Shelly placed a warning in her story that warned society about the dangers of science. The author claims that Mary Shelly believed when the power of science is placed in the wrong hands, it can lead to serious danger and harm others.
>The author points out that "Frankenstein" adopts the idea that "scientists have done such a thorough job of portraying themselves as guardians of rationality that many of them may believe they... have no psychology at all." For this reason, the author also believes that readers see the destiny of scientists as one of isolation.
>In the review, a "mad scientist" is defined as a man who is disconnected from his motivations and therefore he becomes emotionally and morally hardened. In fact the author suggests that Mary Shelly observed her "lifelong neurotic" husband in order to form the character of Victor Frankenstein.
>Mary Shelly was possibly trying to unmask the scientists who were seen as perfect. But she also "give[s] psychology some its most fruitful insights." The author claims that Mary Shelly bases her story off of feminist psychology because feminists psychology also contends that "scientists cannot know the whole of nature because scientists are themselves not whole."
It seems that for the most part, this review was a review of Mary Shelly's intentions in creating the character of Victor Frankenstein and his story.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
It's All For You
Are selfless acts a characteristic of human nature? In other words, is it true that humans will often sacrafice their own lives in order to save the lives of someone they love or feel loyal too? In tje 14th century English tale Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the modern day television series Prison Break the human ability to be selfless is evident as the two main characters offer their life and safety for the protection of a loved one. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Sir Gawain is a typical knight who shows loyalty to his lord; who in this case is King Arthur. Gawain embarks on a path towards his death all in the name of King Arthur, while the entire time he carries on modestly. Similarly, Michael Scofield, the protagonist in Prison Break, purposely gets arrested and is placed in prison with his innocent brother who is on death row. The show primarily focuses on the brothers attempting to escape from prison, but Michael gave up everything he had in order to rescue his brother. Both Sir Gawain and Michael Scofield reflect the human ability to selflessly devote ones entire time in effort into saving the life of someone else.
Knighthood is defined by the relationship of a knight and his liege lord; therefore, during this time period it was adequate for Sir Gawain to take up a challenge in order to save King Arthur’s life. The selfless act Sir Gawain performs is apart of his duty as a knight. The lord, King Arthur in this case, has the final say over the knight’s career, marriage, and even death.[i] Gawain is not only a knight of King Arthur’s, but he is also King Arthur’s nephew, which implies that there is more loyalty than just the traditional lord and knight relationship. When the Green Knight enters King Arthur’s Court and presents King Arthur with a dangerous challenge, Sir Gawain is the first and only to step in and take the challenge. At this point Gawain says, “I am the weakest, I wot, and the feeblest of wit, and it will be the less loss of my life if ye seek sooth. For save that ye are mine uncle naught is there in me to praise, no virtue is there in my body save your blood…” In this case, Gawain is implying that he needs to risk his life because losing his life will be the least of loss and because he is bound by blood to King Arthur. This passage implies that humans have an innate duty to protect members of their family under all circumstances.
It is also in a TV show such as Prison Break that one sees the durable force between family members that leads one man to commit a selfless act for that of his brother. Michael Scofield intentionally gets arrested and placed in the gruesome and violent Fox River State Penitentiary purposely in order to rescue his brother Lincoln Burrows. Burrows was framed and innocently put jail for homicide and is now on death row. Scofield left behind a very good life as a successful engineer in order to rescue his innocent brother. While in prison, Scofield gets in fights, battles racism, and even gets part of his foot cut off. Throughout the first season, it is unclear what led Scofield to give up his life in order to rescue his brother’s. There is no indication that the brother’s have an unusually close connection and no background is provided on their relationship. Therefore, it is unclear what is driving Scofield’s selfless deed. It can only be assumed that the family connection is the catalyst in Scofield’s mission. Prison Break demonstrates the characteristic of human nature that drives one to save the life of another family member.
Two entirely different works of art, one being 14th century literature and one being a modern day hit television series, both imply that it is the human duty to protect a family member. In both cases, the justification for these two selfless acts is due to one factor and that is that the hero is related to person he is trying to save.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)