Posts for 9.22.08 (due by 5 pm 9.21.08)
Some ideas you might want to consider/address in your post:
1) Find three words in the reading that you don’t understand. You should be looking these up anyway, of course, for comprehension, but they will be especially important if they are words that the author uses to frame/map his or her discussion. If they are literary terms that are central to the main argument, consider what they add. What special “thing” about the text can you get at using such a word? (These words might be general critical analysis terms such as “paradigm,” “ideology,” “genealogy,” or “metonym,” but they might also be very specific such as “object relations” or “lesbian panic.”
Hint: if you’d like to write about these word, I suggest you make sure they’re important to the argument. Additionally, you might want to consider the words in relation to one another. If “lesbian panic” and “synechdoche” both seem to be important to the author, in what way do they relate to one another?
2) We will do more of this later, but you can begin, already, to think about how the essays in the back of the Bedford relate to some of the discussions in class. Do they meld easily?…do they complicate one another?…Do certain ideas seem incompatible? For example, how do our discussions about language, “otherness,” and/or women relate to the psychoanalytic texts you are reading for monday?
3) Pick a passage that you find difficult in the applied analysis (here by David Collins). Quote one to three sentence, try to parse out what you think it means, and consider how it relates to other pieces of the article or class discussion.
4) As always, you can respond to someone else’s post.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 12 Comments
English 150 Blog 
As I continue reading “Frankenstein” and we continue analyzing the text more and more, the one thing I cannot help but think is why would Shelley not give any depth to the women characters? Not one woman is different than the other. They are there just to please, serve, and obey. Yet, are they content to do so… I brought this up in class and has not left my thoughts. Many times Victor has spoken about Elizabeth as a possession, from the moment his mother “gave him this present” and throughout the novel. “Clerval then put the following letter into my hands. It was from my own Elizabeth.” (pg.65) which leads me to believe that even though the novel may be written with a romantic tone, there really is no actual romantic feelings behind Victor’s own feelings for Elizabeth. She as the other women in the text are seen as possessions. Why would Shelley make these characters so ordinary. One theory I have would be that given the time the novel was written and the fact that Shelley’s name was not on the novel (when published) indicates to me that maybe this would entice the reader. What I mean is that even though we think that there are no regards for woman in this text, makes the characters more complex than they really are (at least to the reader, or myself). Simply because when you think about it why would she create them like this. It goes along with the theme of loneliness. There is a complexity to their characters, they are lonely and cannot express any true feelings except for this “happiness” and well being, the montage they must put on in their routinely day to day lives. Even when Justine is sentenced to die her attitude is like, I guess if that is what is expected of me, if I have to die then let it be “I must be condemned, although I would pledge my salvation on my innocence” (pg81) The fact that it was Justine (a woman) that was accused and had to be “sacrificed” in return for “William” (a man) also plays a part in Shelley’s muted woman theme. Which then reminded me of Shelley’s initial “apology” for writing this novel. It was like, well I’m just a woman I was “challenged” into writing this novel by some men. Men of great stature, as far as the literary world is concerned. As if she knew that this novel would be a masterpiece and had to apologize for it. Not to hurt their egos. Which brings me to another point, Shelley’s apology at the beginning goes hand in hand with her crediting him for the novel. “At first I thought of a few pages- of a short tale; but Shelley urged me to develop the idea at greater length.” (pg.24) “As far as I can recollect, it was entirely written by him.” (pg.25) Is this why the women characters in the story have no voice, because Shelley herself did not. This theme of “woman cannot exist without man” goes further than Elizabeth and Victor. There are patterns that follow the characters. Take for example Victor’s parents, his father had saved his mother from poverty, she then returns the favor by marrying him. Elizabeth is saved from poverty and in return she is Victor’s. Although Justine’s case is quite different, nonetheless, she was meant for William. Felix and Safie, same pattern. Felix helped her and she was to be his possession. “the youth could not help owning his own mind, that the captive possessed a treasure which would fully reward his toil and hazard.” (pg.111) The women are left with this feeling of nothing, their lives have been reduced to paying the men back for the men’s “good deeds”… an unsatisfactory feeling, an emptiness that foretells, in a way, their future. “She thanked him in the most ardent terms for his intended services towards her parent; and at the same time she gently deplored her own fate.” (111)
The story, to me, has become more than just about “creating life” and playing God, now as it unfolds even more there are so may other aspects of this story that are so complex. Aside from the women not possessing any characteristics, yet being possessions themselves, I find Victor incapable of love. I do not think he loves Elizabeth as one would love their soul mate, I find it to be more of a love that derives from fear, the fear of loneliness. I mean the novel itself is very romantic, the way that Shelley describes feelings from one character to another. However, romance does not imply love. And by “romantic” I do not mean only Victor and Elizabeth, I mean the way the characters all kind of have this “romantic” dialect with each other. Ex: Victor and Clerval, Victor and his parents, Walton’s letters to his sister. Even when the “monster” is describing his tale to Victor. A very romantic novel, yet, no love. None of these characters have love in their lives. The women feel an obligation to the men and the men supplement that for love. “Love is a gift, not an obligation” (Anonymous)
MANDATORY
While reading Frankenstein I had many questions. These questions were not whether or not this book symbolized masculinity at its worst and feminism in its most oppressed state, but whether or not Mary Shelley was self aware of what she was putting into her book and laying out on the table. I had belief that radical feminist were just trying to prove some radical theory and use Frankenstein to support their theories. However this following line alone from Feminist Criticism relinquished all of my doubts. “Had she known Hunt would make her remarks public, she told Percy, she would have written with “more print worthy dignity”; instead, the letter was “so femininely [sic] expressed that all men of letters will on reading it acquit me of having a masculine understanding”” (316). Although here she is not talking about her writing of Frankenstein, but instead a letter she wrote to Percy, I clearly can tell that she is very aware of her ability to write in either feminine or masculine ways. I am able to assure myself that she is fully knowledgeable of all the symbolism in her book and that it was written to hold these largely unpublicized characteristics of men and women.
Once I knew that she was aware of her symbolism, I began to feel obliged to put my own idea of what her symbolism was, what it meant to me, and how I feel it should be interpreted.
I believe that the monster is the example of a world that is controlled by men in full. The monster was born with out any female interaction. The monster was made by a man a lone, a man who used the most masculine ideologies to create, and the most masculine form of domestication to raise (or in this case, not to raise).
Even before the monster was created, Victor battled himself in which forms of sciences would be best to create him. His paradigm’s shifted from alchemy to mathematics. “His paradigm shift then begins, as he turns from the “would-be science” of the alchemists to the “secure” science of mathematics” (328). Alchemy symbolizes creation through the female direction. Mathematics symbolizes creation through the male path. Victor chooses the entirely male path and even designates it as the correct and “secure” path to take. Again, before the monster was even created he was chosen to be raised completely in a masculine manner. Once the monster was created he inevitably becomes what he becomes; “he also enacts Victor’s rebellion against domesticity” (326). The monster is completely the example for the world ran by men entirely.
Using the French paradigm of feminist criticism, language and the use of language is studied extremely close. I believe largely the language spoken by the characters, especially the monster, explains a lot.
When the monster is created he is unable to speak. The art of speaking I feel is a domesticated, beautiful quality that is due to a women’s help. The monster could have been born able to speak, but just in a dirty way and then with the interaction of women become much more passionately spoken, but the way Mary Shelley chose to make him incapable of speech at the beginning works more drastically and really shows the contrast better. The monster’s ability to speak, symbolizes a women’s touch. When he is able to speak he rids himself of his completely negative nature; his fully masculine nature. However his inability to adapt with language a lone shows that although the female qualities help, it was impossible to create a sufficient member of the community with an entirely masculine upbringing.
After reading the feminist criticism section I appreciate Mary Shelley’s novel a lot more. I think she was on target with her objectives and was able to accurately symbolize the problems of masculine suppression and feminine subjugation. Once again, the monster is the example of masculine control over the world and the negative effects of such control. The monster fights against this, and shows that even in a world that men believe they control it all, there is always an opposing force to balance out the world; in this case, feminism.
Mandatory 9/21
What are the separate spheres of masculinity and femininity in Frankenstein? It is a “middle class ideology of domesticity”. By definition an ideology is a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. In Frankenstein we clearly see the dominance of the male character over the feminine. The difference between man and woman heavily influences actions throughout the novel. Victor’s “sphere of commerce and activity”, his search for knowledge, and his adventurous persistence lead him to create the monster. On the other hand Elizabeth’s innocence and beauty is related to her “private sphere of home and passivity”. (p.303)
Women were the opposite of adventurous. They stayed tame and at home only to complement the existence of male characters in the novel. Johanna M. Smith acknowledges the two spheres as well as their roles and character traits. Smith found the women in the novel as nurturing (a feminine trait), while the men aggressive (masculine trait). She saw the women’s traits as complementary where the woman’s sphere and attributes were “delimited to the domestic”. (p.313) In other words women had no role outside of the home yet the male characters, mainly Victor, Walton and even the monster were audacious. Victor seeks knowledge and life, Walton seeks to explore the North Pole, and the monster seeks to gain friendship. Therefore the act of “seeking” can also be considered exclusively in the sphere of masculinity.
We had an in class discussion on how the monster viewed Elizabeth as a mother. A mother is normally perceived to be a nurturing figure. In result, Elizabeth dies. Why must a female character filled with beauty and innocence die in this novel? This is yet another consequence of the masculine domesticity. The search for knowledge and adventure are masculine traits that dictate the feminine demise. Elizabeth’s innocence parallels that of Justine’s, who had also died in vain. Justine knew she was innocent but accepted her execution in the end. She didn’t seem to have a strong will to argue and defend herself against the obscure charges she would die for. Along with Elizabeth, she only existed to play a passive role as a woman.
Women are passive throughout the entire novel. They are stuck in the sphere of innocence and death. Even when the monster had demanded Victor create him a woman partner, the woman was destroyed before completion. This further illustrates that woman suffer and cannot have power. However, upon analyzing the concept of creating another woman monster, one may conclude her creation would have been catastrophic to the novel.
Ultimately, her creation would have caused a disruption between the two spheres of masculinity and femininity. If the female monster was created, she would technically be the only woman in the entire novel to have power. Even if she had passive woman characteristics, she would also be made from hand-picked body parts and possibly have similar strength/speed to Frankenstein’s original monster. She would also be a “hideous” monster. “I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself” (p.129) Hideous is not a feminine characteristic, neither is strength. They contrast with the view of woman as beautiful and weak. Inevitably the spheres are controlled and influenced by the male and female characters of Frankenstein but we can only imagine what would have happened if the female monster was actually created. Would she have broken the sphere of innocence and become a murderer like the original monster or would she inevitably blend with her feminine characteristics and domesticate Frankenstein’s original monster?
The readings were based on this idea of “separate spheres” and how they were or were not present in Frankenstein. These separate spheres were defined as, “the man’s public sphere of commerce and activity [being] kept separate from the woman’s private sphere of home and passivity, and as certain traits (such as aggression) were coded as ‘naturally’ masculine while the complementary traits (such as nurturance) were coded as ‘naturally’ feminine, the woman’s sphere and attributes were declined to the domestic” (p. 313). This topic was of great discussion by many women who tried to break this stereotype and expand the image of women. It is even stated by Johanna M. Smith that since the idea of “separate spheres” was so evident in Frankenstein, it may just be a critique of the whole idea.
I happen to agree with Johanna M. Smith that this was a play on the idea of “separate spheres” because Mary Shelley was very aware of what she was writing. By making her characters fit these ideas and making them fail she was able to prove the invalidity of the “separate spheres” idea. This is shown countless times in Victor Frankenstein, “while he may wax eloquent on the domestic ‘lesson of patience, of charity, and self-control’ taught him as a child (p.42), his quest for scientific glory demonstrates that none of this lesson took (p. 314). The novel often states what a wonderful home Victor Frankenstein grew up in. Stating how it was a perfect home, where Caroline was the best of mothers and Alphonse the best of fathers, but even with this Victor Frankenstein did not take these lessons and apply them. The writing of Ross C. Murfin even go into discussing how Victor Frankenstein did not learn from his father the attributes of being a “good father”. Instead of being the “good father” that his father was o him he rejects his creation. Living in a home that seemed so perfect and went along so well with the “separate spheres” idea, Victor Frankenstein comes out no learning anything.
The first piece by Ross C. Murfin, states at one point that Victor Frankenstein, “in addition to doing the bad work of using science to create a monster, he becomes, in turn, the epitome of the ‘bad father,’ demanding rather than deserving gratitude and abandoning rather than supporting his ‘child’(p.320)” (p. 304). This greatly shows how even when Victor Frankenstein grew up in a perfect home based on the “separate spheres”, he still did not urn out to be what was expected. This just further shows how this idea is not always a beneficial way of living life. That even though Victor Frankenstein grew up in a home with solid “separate spheres” ideas, where his mother was a background person in charge of the household and his father was the man of the house, Victor Frankenstein did not turn out with the same morals that the parents attempted to instill in him.
This idea of “separate spheres” seems to emphasize that each person in a couple has a certain duty that they are in charge of. Opposites are what is shown to attract in a way in the many examples of couples in the novel. Johanna M. Smith even says, “Throughout the novel, such gendered differences—here, between feminine passivity and masculine activity—are represented as complementary (p. 318). Just in Victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth, both are completely opposite and they are portrayed as perfect for each other in Victor Frankenstein’s opinion. In reality though Elizabeth only seems to act as a partner for Victor Frankenstein, she really plays no significance. This jus shows how Mary Shelley used the idea of “separate spheres”, but still shows how this idea does not truly work.
In Johanna M. Smith’s “Cooped Up” with “Sad Trash”: Domesticity and the Sciences in Frankenstein, she talks about in the beginning sentence how it is important to note that when Frankenstein was first published, it was done so anonymously, and that no women in the novel speak directly. Perhaps Mary Shelley did this, not because as was suggested by Johanna Smith “Mary Shelley accepted and even approved the concept of separate and gendered spheres…”, but that she was writing for her audience. When Frankenstein was first published most of the novels written and most of the people reading them were men. In order for her work to get the credit it deserved, perhaps she felt that she had to write to that audience. She was writing for the times and during this time, how she wrote the female characters was nothing out of the ordinary for women during that time. In order for people to want to read her novel and understand it she had to write for the times. People don’t always like or are open to new ideas, and perhaps feeling that if she didn’t write to the target audience her novel wouldn’t get the respect it deserved she wrote the female characters in a way that people during that time could understand.
Johanna Smith talks about how the Frankenstein family and how they constantly feel an obligation to themselves and each other. This is first evident when Alphonse is going to marry Caroline. “ Although plunged into straw-plaiting poverty by her father’s business failure, Caroline’s lineage and beauty mark her as still deserving the ‘ rank and magnificence’ he once enjoyed; by marrying her, then, Alphonse is restoring the status quo, rescuing Caroline from a working-class milieu and returning her to her proper place.” This to Johanna Smith may seem like a terrible thing. That because of Alphonse, Caroline won’t have to do any work other than taking care of the children and making sure that the house is in order. You must ask yourself, is that really such a terrible thing? What women wouldn’t want to stay at home with her children, if it was feasible? Alphonse is only doing what he feels in right. During this time women thought that staying home was the best and that you only worked because you needed to not because you wanted to. Women during this time would have understood where Alphonse was coming from because what women wouldn’t want a husband who could afford to have her stay home and watch the children.
She criticizes the fact that the Frankenstein family doesn’t like differentness. “Furthermore, as Anca Vlasopolos point out, such ‘aristocratic protectionism… encourages, in fact engineers, incest’ by closing the family off from otherness or difference.” We must not forget when this novel was written. During this period being different wasn’t a good thing. Everyone was the same because it insured your lively hood. To be different had a negative connotation and it is a wonder that, as in the adoption of Elizabeth, the Frankenstein family felt an obligation to save her.
“Because Elizabeth is a nobleman’s daughter, visible ‘of a different stock’ from her rude guardians Caroline rescues her fro the lower order…” How many people would want to feel like an outsider or different from their family? Why shouldn’t Caroline rescue her as she herself was rescued from her poverty? Perhaps she is only repaying a debt she feels she owes. That “unpayable debt” that Johanna Smith talks about in the beginning.
Perhaps she is forgetting the times in which Mary Shelley was writing her novel, when people did things not only out of the goodness of their hearts but because of how it would look to others. Maybe that is why “ in this family what seems freely given in fact requires something in exchange, so that the relation between parents and children is one of ‘unpayable debt’” because they wont their children to remember that everything you do has a price, every action a consequence.
Volunteer
Feminist criticism brakes down any form of literature in different ways. French feminists see literature through the language of the work. The French feminists even states “that the structure of language is phallocentric.” (pg 297) The only reason why the language is consider phallocentric because of its opposite of the words. For example boy and girl, head and heart. Yet if women writers wanted to be taken serious they would have to either think like a man and write about themselves or become the unheard sex. One of the reasons for Mary Shelley not to put her name on the title page, could have been so the readers would not know the author was a woman writer. The critics would have to evaluate this novel not knowing the sex of the author. With them not knowing raises a few questions. Are the critics able to determine which sex wrote the book? What words or phrases that led them to believe that sex wrote it? I think Mary Shelley convey her idea on how women in general was thought to behave and role of a woman in society. For Shelley, this could have been the way she saw woman who did not have enough logic that there more for them. That woman was to support the man in their decision, and to take care of the household and children.
If a women writer was from a different country, the way she perceives a woman could be very different from a woman from another country. Culture and race are other factors that can affect a woman to the way they see the world. Throughout time women was “underemphasis on popular art and culture.” (pg 300) Through Frankenstein the women was somewhat important but not the main character. With men being dominance, why did Shelley let Victor create a man monster? The creation of a man monster with the need of exploration of the world and the need of love exhibits traits of masculine and feminine. Henry also had “conjoined masculine and feminine traits” and he wanted to take on the world with adventures but able to take care of the household. (pg 318) A person can take on both traits and can have best of both worlds. This could be what Shelley wants to show that we are not limited by our gender; we could take care of the household and be educated beyond the view of the window.
With the making of the monster there was some expectation to how the monster was going to turn out. What was a great idea became a horrible nightmare. This could relate to Shelley in the sense that her parents were great writers and she did not want to follow in their footsteps. With the monster traveling the country and willingly to risk his own life to save the child, shows Shelley could be accepted as a man through this book and still do her womanly duties. The women in Frankenstein has a sole goal is to be there for their man. Frankenstein had Elizabeth and Victor “creates and destroys the female monster,” first the monster had hope to have something that represent himself. (pg 322) Just like the three women, they were to represent someone else. The first death was of the mother. There is no need of the mother, because there is another woman who can replace her. In murders of William and Henry both Justine and Victor are given trails. Even though Justine had less evidence held against her, she was put to death. In Victor’s trail he was spotted dumping something into the lake which looks like a body. He had a lot more evidence held against him and he was found not guilty. In the society the women had no voices and men are able to get away from trouble.
I strongly feel Mary Shelley’s personal life has influenced her writing greatly. She actually forms her fright into the book of Frankenstein.
“Separate spheres” , the nineteenth century doctrine really captures my interest. It seems as if the role of a woman is to maintain a good household, raise children, and care a blissful abode for their husbands. In reference to Frankenstein, it seems as if women are treated as some second degree beings. The women in this story are not human beings but an item of possession. It amazes me how Elizabeth was always a gift to victor given by his mother. There is a great deal of emphasis how this woman was gifted to man but no emphasis on the love, caring, nurture required by a woman from her counterpart. Because Elizabeth was adopted by victor’s parents from an orphanage, it became Elizabeth’s moral duty to live a life outlined by victor’s mother. The process started form Elizabeth being adopted as child, cultivating into a woman, and being gifted to Victor as a wife (pg 66). If she was a gift to Victor, then what about love? What about feelings? They also talk about how every relationship felt an obligation towards one another (Smith, pg)
My senses get remorsefully evoked by thinking of Ross C. Murfin portraying concept of treating women as objects without feelings. It is interesting how there is emphasizes on that a how a women are “something else”(pg301), which makes them their problems. For example a women coming from an Asian country, living in United States is supposed to preserve Asian culture. I come from an Asian country and up to this date, the females in mine and the extended family suffer a great deal due to this society’s mental of picture of “women”.
It is ironic how everything in the world has changed so much but times for women still haven’t changed much.! It seems like as if women’s place is still at home. For example many people objected to Hillary Clinton running for president. Even though its women’s liberation that got them out of “home”, they are still expected to cook, address the issues of the household, nurture the children, even after coming from work, as oppose to men who do not have to deal such pressures as mentioned above.
Feminist criticism: a stereotype? How men differ from women. This thinking invokes a feeling in me of why should women be judge upon their language, their origin, and be held responsible for good and bad, mostly the bad. Why a woman should get affected by linguistics as oppose to why everything goes in male’s favor. As Frankenstein portrays the complicated personality of women being lonely, isolated and yet expressing exuberance (their happiness). Again a sacrifice of a woman is shown when Justine, an orphan, living as a maid, being blamed for William’s death, accepting execution. And as Elizabeth pays the price of being murdered on their wedding night because of her husband’s neglecting behavior towards the monster. As also cited by Johanna Smith as the “unpayable debt” in the beginning of the text.
I am very against the idea of women playing second fiddle to men. In my opinion woman is a basis to strength and endurance, nurture which they should be respected for. As Adolph Hitler once said… “Give me a good mother, and I will good nation”.
MANDATORY POSTING
I agree with many of the points Johanna M Smith makes in her perspective ” Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’ Domesticity and the Sciences in Frankenstein”. While I was reading Frankenstein, I was actually wondering about some of the points Smith brought up. Mary Shelley is a woman, yet all the female characters in the book have no real personality of their own. Victor’s mother, Justine, and Elizabeth all have the same boring personality traits (gentle, kind, nurturing). The women in Frankenstein are the opposite of the adventurous and risk taking men. “These women seldom venture far from home, while the narrators and most of the novel’s other men engage in quests and various public occupations (Smith 313)”. Victor and many of the other male characters are going of to school and traveling to other countries, while the women sit at home. Elizabeth waited patiently for years at home while Victor was away. I do not understand why Shelley would create female characters that are so passive when she is a woman and her mother was a feminist.
I found Smith’s perspective on Mary Shelley publishing Frankenstein anonymously very interesting also.”Small wonder that a woman writer, especially a woman writer as visible in the specular and speculative economy of the workplace as Mary Shelley (Mary 493), might attempt to evade a harsh judgment from ‘men of letter’ by publishing anonymously(Smith 316)”. Did Shelley publish “Frankenstein” anonymously just so she would not get criticized? If that was the reason Shelley left her name off of the cover, that would be a cowardly act from Shelley. She should be proud of her work, regardless of what people might say. Many things concerning women in “Frankenstein” surprised me, and what surprised me the most was that a woman actually wrote them.
Smith mentions in her critique that “Frankenstein” has a theme of debt. The female characters in the book often fall victim to this debt. First may I mention that the three important female characters in “Frankenstein” all die! Elizabeth died because of the debt Victor owed to the monster. Instead of the monster attacking Victor personally he goes for what will destroy Victor mentally, killing the woman he loves. The monster does the same thing with Justine. “Justine pays her obligations to the Frankenstein with her life, and furthermore dies all but convinced that she is the ‘monster’ (Smith 322)”. Two of the three main female characters had to die because of Victor selfish desicion to create the monster.The women in the story are suffering for the men. Even the female monster had to die soon after she was created, and once again her death was caused by a man.”The monsterette’s creation and destruction dramatize how women function not in their own right but rather as signs of and conduits for men’s relations with other men (Smith 323)”. The women were used as object by the monster and Victor to infict pain on eachother. There is a theme of debt, but also there is a theme of revenge. I felt like one third of the book was about Victor trying to get revenge on the monster, or Vicor terrified the monster would seek revenge on him. The women were used as a source for revenge.
The whole section about “Sad trash” I found confusing and boring. I reread it many times but could not understand it. i was also unsure what it had to to with feminist criticism. Johanna Smith mad some excellent points in the first two sections of her criticism. i would have enjoyed Frankenstein even more if there would have been a stonger female character in the book.
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley openly explores the opposite spectrums of the gender identity ideology, what Johanna M. Smith calls “separate spheres”, the male sphere and female sphere. According to Smith, the man’s sphere is of commerce and activity while the woman’s sphere is passivity and of the domestic. And with this distinction we have the foundation of modern-day expectations for each sex.
The women of Frankenstein oblige the roles that the female sphere dictates and we can infer that Mary Shelley approves of this. The female characters of the story are almost always either objects of affection for the male characters or are hidden in the background of the narrative while the male characters dominate the foreground. Victor Frankenstein is in love with Elizabeth, who is described as a caricature of the idealized woman; beautiful, compassionate, nurturing and most notably, has nothing to say for herself. She is a lover for the hero, a mother for the children, and has nothing of importance to say. As Johanna Smith pointed out, “no women in the novel speak directly: everything we hear from and about them is filtered through the male narrators.” When I read this, I was taken aback. Not because Smith is right, but because I have read Frankenstein before in high school and again in college and I never picked up on this. What does this say about me? Does my obliviousness to the neglect of female characters illustrate how I am conditioned to focus and appreciate the experiences of the male characters?
One part of the reading from Johanna M. Smith that stood out for me was when she spoke about Victor’s family being the model for gender roles. Smith writes “they are model parents…They are join “agents and creators” of Victor’s childhood joys. Smith illustrates how Victor’s parents nurtured him and gave him a healthy childhood. Modern day conservatives would agree to the suggestion that a child needs a mother and a father to be taught the lessons only each can offer. However, Smith deviates from this by suggesting that Victor’s father, Alphonse and all fathers in general are part of the feminine, domestic sphere in a child’s upbringing. She refers to the fact that Alphonse “relinquished his public functions” and rescued and sheltered Caroline. This is in contrast to what he could’ve become, which is a tyrannical patriarch. However, I would argue that Alphonse rescuing and sheltering Caroline falls right in with the male identity, being the “shining knight” and saving the damsel in distress.
In Smith’s next article “Cooped Up”, she confronts the possibility that the domestic ideology is destructive. The monster is the manifestation of the repressed violence of the domestic setting. I cannot say that I understood this claim. Smith quotes Thomas Dutoit to say “The real monster in this novel is the domestic scene and its discourse on virtue, happiness, and affection- specifically, its fiction of the domestic union of happiness and virtue.” Does he mean that the claim that happiness and virtue are tied with femininity is false? Sarah Goodwin then refers to the fact that the monster targets all the characters that are associated with the domestic: Elizabeth, the servant Justine and the child, William. This infers a victimization of the feminine. So why are Thomas Dutoit’ claims of monster being the domestic and Sarah Goodwin’s claim that the domestic are victims, linked?
The remaining of Shelley’s Frankenstein novel continued to show the author’s intension for marking the tale with meanings of affection, sensibility and passion, which would make the novel have some feminine fingerprints in style. Carrying this feminine spirit or soul may opposes the fact that main activities and events in the novel were carried out by males according to “Cooped Up” with “Sad Trash”, (no women in the novel speak directly: everything we hear from and about them was filtered through three male narrators. P, 313). However, I think that this combination of feminine with masculine properties is an attempt for smooth transition from early writing styles, when masculinity prevailed, to the stage of utter feminine traits, according to “what is Feminist Criticism” (phases during which women first imitated a masculine tradition (1840-80), then protested against its standards and values (1880-1920), and finally advocated their own autonomous, female perspective (1920 to the present). P, 300).
Another point where I would like to shed some light on is the prolonged and detailed description of nature and environment, such as mountains, seas, winds, rain trees and more, how they produced different sensational effects on the characters involved. Despite this prolongation, the author’s intension was to use nature as a tool to express state of mind and spiritual level each character possessed. I believe this a brilliant attempt, especially, when in solitude, it is difficult to reveal emotions unless a character talks to or react to someone.
In my previous blog, I pointed out an important message the novel conveyed, which is the failure consequence of passion-deprived pursuit of knowledge. I mentioned how Victor was arguing that the pursuit of glory and fame should not be based on affection (p. 59), but this selfishness led to his destruction. This point is well affirmed by Johanna M. Smith (The novel shows that the private virtues inculcated in the home by domestic affections cannot arm men against the public sphere unless they emulate these feminine and domestic qualities. P, 314). Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished; Henry combined passion with the eagerness for enterprise, but got murdered. Besides, the monster’s quest for knowledge, sympathy and kindness is faced with human disgust and hatred.
Johanna Smith, in Cooped Up, argues that taking the life of Elizabeth is a reaction to the destruction of the creature’s promised monsterette. In other words, female is a male’s object that could be used to resolve their conflicts (Elizabeth dies not because she is Elizabeth but because she is the object of Victor’s desire. In other words, just as women are interchangeable within the domestic circle, here Elizabeth and the monsterette are simply counters in the struggle between Victor and the monster. P, 322-323). This maybe true, but it is only one part of the reason why Elizabeth was killed this way. Again we look at the feminist driven passion within Shelley’s mind, she is trying to create a romantic and sorrowful near ending, and romance is woman’s ultimate weapon. That is, if you destroy my monsterrette, who would provide me with sympathy and kindness, I will murder your lover, who would bring you out of your misery. From this point of view, it appears that females are not just objects, as Johanna described, but they are necessities, that men need in times of hardship, and heaven for tranquility and happiness. And without women, men will not prevail. With this conclusion I believe that Mary Shelley has indirectly moved to the final and ultimate phase of female writings, which are reflections of their own perspectives.
MANDATORY:
It has never crossed my mind to place myself, analyzing readings through a different approach. Judging from certain repetitiveness and rhythm in a piece of work or through a certain familiar writing style, I now firmly believe that writing does follow some sort case by case format. Particularly in Frankenstein, the women seemed SILENT, not literally, but something a long the lines of being doormats [passive/helpless], not standing up for what they believe in fully and completely neglecting to letting their voice be heard. The women all seem extremely passive and submissive, never getting their way. Also, bringing forth, the main voices the readers hear are of three men. It leaves the mind wondering why, the author being a woman, why did she not give a key role to a woman? The females in this story were definitely excluded and just left in the background.
Johanna Smith wrote that the author of Frankenstein “…remained to some extent private by publishing it anonymously” and the reason so might have been “… cultural pressures, gendered expectations about women’s writings” clearly points out that there was a fear for the author to just come out proudly with the book, without doubting herself or the public eye. This, in all reality reminds me of how the women characters were in the book… passive and “quiet”. The era this book was written was also a time when there was complete male dominance, again Johanna Smith writes “It is important to note that Frankenstein was published anonymously, that its woman author kept her identity hidden.”
This twisted novel could have been perfectly ended when Victor would have created a wife for the monster…. why is it that the author chose to continue making the book so tragically unfortunate? One mishap after another, mistake after mistake of making the wrong choices in life… that [man] made… or was this story intentionally written for women, subconsciously, so that the male readers, when they were to read it, would be rudely awaken to cherish and value women, to not take women for granted and risk the chance of anything that should ever be valued may be taken away from them, with all regrets they may have to live with for the rest of their lives. It was pure genius to end the story in such a bizarre manner. It is totally unexpected and leaves a memorable taste in ones mouth.
As I completed Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” and began reading the essay entitled “Cooped Up” by Johanna M Smith, I began to reflect on our class discussions. It was not to long ago that we discussed out societal traditions of giving and receiving, and the expectations that come along with it. Every individual feels obligations to those who give gifts or favors. This theme is clearly reflected in the entire work of Shelly’s “Frankenstein”. Within page 42, this theory is clearly expressed as Frankenstein passionately reflects on his childhood and explains that he was “their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me” (42). We are immediately overcome with the feeling of obligations. Victor Frankenstein believes that his birth was a gift, and that his parents are indeed automatically in debt to him. What is ironic about this situation is that Victor’s parents did indeed give him all that they could, and had “fulfilled their duties”; yet when Victor created his “son” he neglected him from the moment he came to life. He never felt the obligation to fulfill his duties as a parent.
As I continued to read “Cooped Up”, I was also introduced to the idea of the “domestic icon” which I found most interesting (321). It seems that in the Frankenstein family, a woman was always needed. Though it is true that in the novel a woman never spoke directly or ventured out into the world, she was always a significant part of domestic life. After Victor’s mother dies, Elizabeth immediately assumes the role of the caretaker for both the house chores and the children. Perhaps she did this so willingly because she felt an obligation to the family for taking her in. This fact also divulges another interesting theory of the Oedipus complex. Even though Elizabeth takes her “place” as his (Victor’s) mother, (50) he still falls in love with her. He even has a dream that as he is kissing Elizabeth, she turns into an image of his mother. Yet this idea of the “domestic icon” (321) does not end with Elizabeth. As Justine is brought into the family she tries everything possible to become just like Elizabeth so much, she even “imitates her phraseology and manners”. (67) All of these examples reflect the idea of being indebted to someone. When Elizabeth is taken in, she feels obligated to help and assist with whatever she can. After Caroline dies, she feels an obligation to take over completely. Just as when Justine is brought into the family, she feels obligated to become a small version of Elizabeth by doing everything the same way. This repetitious circle also reflects the idea of the “separate spheres” that we are first introduced to on page 313. The idea of separate spheres states that “the mans public sphere of commerce and activity was kept distinct from the woman’s private sphere of home and passivity” (313). If we go back and examine every part of Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, we will conclude that the women were never engaged in any other activities that did not include the domestic obligations that they held. It was only the men that ventured out in the world. The most interesting point to me was the fact that a woman wrote this novel and no female character was ever expressed directly. The women were only described in ways associating with their relationship to their domestic life, or associated with the male characters of the book.