[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 250x400, frankensteinbk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613241 No.1613241 [Reply] [Original]

Greetings /lit/!

So I just read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for the first time, and I have to say, shit's pretty messed up. I have to write an essay on it and I decided I am going to talk about the effects of isolation and abandonment on humans. In The Shining, Stephen King says “this inhuman place makes human's monsters”, which I think is a good quote that relates to the theme of the book. I thought the book was fantastic, and was wondering if we could discuss it a bit (inb4 do your own homework)? I was just wondering if there are any key underlying symbolism I might have missed in relation to my topic or any articles on the subject which could shed some more light. Is the creature truly evil or is his revenge on Frankenstein justified? Was Frankenstein wrong in his treatment of the creature, and it was it wrong to deny it the only thing it desired – companionship? Who is to blame for the crimes of the creature – the creator or the created? I have many of my own ideas, but I would love to hear from those who have maybe studied this book in the past and have had more time to examine the intricacies of this complicated story.

>> No.1613245

why do people on this board read the same stuff *around the same time*?

coincidence?

>> No.1613249

>>1613245
to be honest you dont need to add around the same time, /lit/ always reads the same shit

>> No.1613258

Frankenstein's monster was a psychopath who was certainly unjustified in his heinous crimes.

>> No.1613279

http://vocaroo.com/?media=vrh85J7yHLYfKDpi9

>> No.1613280

>>1613258
Yes, with this I do agree. However, I am more interested in the issue of whether or not he was inherently evil or the social conditioning in which he underwent is to blame for the crimes he committed. Was Victor Frankenstein justified in his immediate reaction and abandonment upon seeing the living “monster” for the first time, or could everything had been avoided through a little love and attention in his formative years?

>> No.1613289

>>1613249
thats not the bit im curious about.

>> No.1613291

>>1613241
>>1613241
how old are you OP?
i've studied this novel quite in depth but i need your age range to give you proper stuff

>> No.1613297

>>1613280

I don't know the answer to this, mainly because I haven't studies psychology. Whatever you come up with will only be conjecture unless you look to contemporary psychology to see what it says about the whole nature/nurture issue or whether criminal minds are a product of nature and unavoidable or if they result from upbringing. I tend to believe that criminally-minded individuals are born that way but I could be wrong. Perhaps it could be both?

>> No.1613299

the monster has a sense of morality about as developed as a child or two-bit comic book villain.

>derp 2 - 4 ppl hate and don't understand me fuck humanity

>> No.1613303

>>1613291
I am 20 years old. This is for a university research essay.

>> No.1613308

>>1613291

Could you tell me what parts exactly did Percy Bysshe write?

>> No.1613318

This is one of my favourite stories, actually. I personally feel bad for the creature. Victor basically had a child there and he just ran. Maybe he should've known better not to bring something back to life.
I dunno. I feel that if the monster had been given attention of some kind and not just treated like shit, he might have turned out allright. There are some tribes (albiet very few) that hardly have words for violence because they've never really been exposed to it. If the creature hadn't been cast out, I think he would've been a good guy.
IMO, I feel as though Victor is really to blame for it all.

2cents.png

>> No.1613325
File: 125 KB, 590x320, haters gonna hate ricky gervais.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613325

>>1613303
>>1613303
well you want to be discussing essays then.
try and look at subjectivity, structuralism and feminism.

to asnwer your OP:
>effects of isolation and abandonment on humans
talking about the monster here? the monster is not a human, he is a monster left to fend in the human world
>symbolism within the novel
look at female characters and how they are used. is this book anti-woman? how does it show women being used by the men (taking about the 2nd monster here)
>truly evil
definately not truly evil, he is actually quite nice to Frankenstein and is created by the society around him (look at ideology and how he is not a part of it here, i think pages 70-90 and pages 145-155 contain some stuff on how he's a monster coz he's outside of society)
>wrong in his treatment of the creature
was he in the 'wrong' for abandoning his child into a world he knew nothing about, where it had to fend for itself? does this survival of the creature go back to nature vs science?
>wrong to deny companionship
that depends, he does bargain with a creature he sees as 'sub-human' then strip it of its rights and goes back on the bargain. whether the monster would actually live a docile life with his mate is...iffy.
>who to blame for the crimes
well that's a whole different kettle of fish. is the monster inherently bad for being made by a man who was playing God? does the monsters evil represent the religious values of the times?
i'd love to discuss this more with you and have left my email address (also studying it at uni) but in the mean time i have some essays you may want to look at to help you

http://www.mediafire.com/?cr33wymdyhevu

my email is anonymousbear@hotmail.com and i'd prefer to talk via email as opposed to instant message, sorry

>> No.1613333

>>1613325
> the monster is not a human, he is a monster left to fend in the human world
>the monster is a monster
This is fucking groundbreaking.

>> No.1613332

Nurture much?

>> No.1613337 [DELETED] 

>>1613333
protip; in the novel, Mary Shelley uses language to showcase her idas

>> No.1613341

>>1613333
>>1613333
well he was talking about isolation and abandonment for humans, i was making the clear distinction that the monster is not infact a human, but is rather the creation of a human that is better than the sum of it's parts.

got anything real to contribute?

>> No.1613346

>>1613341
My dick, penis breath.

>that is better than the sum of it's parts.
So what do you think holism has to do with anything, other than being a pretty word?

>> No.1613351

The point is not to be overly literal and scientific in the treatment of the monster. Assume it's psychology is comparative to a human, write about nature/nurture and where nurture went wrong in the monster, Frankenstein's treatment of the monster, the family in the cabins treatment of the monster, the choice of books, etc. maybe this stuff played a role but the monster's amorality and criminality are inexcusable imo.

>> No.1613365

A similar book is Picture of Dorian Gray.

>> No.1613385 [SPOILER] 
File: 152 KB, 258x314, harvey dent pffft.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613385

>>1613346
>>1613346
>what does holism have to do with anything concerning a story about a monster created from the parts of humans
pic related

>> No.1613395

OP:

You remember the bit in the middle of the story that was all narrated by the monstrosity itself? Although it's been a long while since I read Frankenstein, that set of chapters will contribute a substantial amount to your paper.

See, the wretch's own narratives is effectively an allegory for civilization and the human condition. Through this, you can argue that Frankenstein's creation is a caricature of humanity itself. The important question you have to ask when re-reading that portion of the novel is "What is Shelly trying to say about the burdens of being human?"

PROTIP: The literary works Shelly references (PARADISE LOST!) are a huge hint.

>> No.1613408

>>1613325
I e-mailed you bro. Also, thanks for all the contribution guys.

>> No.1613426

>>1613385
You think he's created from parts of humans eh?

There is nothing in the novel to suggest such. If anything, the reasoning as to why the creature is so tall would suggest otherwise.

>> No.1613444

>You think he's created from parts of humans eh?
>
There is nothing in the novel to suggest such

>"I collected bones from charnel-houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame" - Frankenstein, Chapter 4, Google, Page 1, Result 1

>> No.1613449

>>1613444
>and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame
He learnt from body parts, the actual creation of the monster, what it is made out of etc. is left a mystery...

Unlike in the play and movies, where you get a graverobbing scene.

>> No.1613455

>>1613449
You left out the bit where he said he collected bones from charnel houses.

>> No.1613460

>>1613455
Because it's not relevant. There is nothing to say those bones are in the creature.

>> No.1613461
File: 31 KB, 470x400, castro smoking cigars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613461

>>1613426
>>1613426

i don't think you've read the novel have you?
>ollected bones from charnel-houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame.
(google is your friend also the book i have in front of me!)
pages 70-80 also contain a lot of references to his human form (norton critical edition) the bit where he's in france

anon status:
told [ ]
fucking told [ ]
Leo toldstoy [ ]
stone tole steve austin [ ]
no country for told men [ ]
cash4told.com [X]

>> No.1613467

>>1613461
Okay, simple question: How do you make an 8 foot monster out of bones from, at their tallest, 7 foot people?

>> No.1613469

>>1613460
>it's not relevant
Who are you to say what's relevant and what's not

>> No.1613473

>>1613469
The person who was making the point.

>> No.1613476

>>1613473
How does that in any way make you an authority on what's relevant and what's not in the novel

>> No.1613484

>>1613467
>>1613467
that disbelief.
better suspend it bro
this is a novel about a creature being made from body parts and being brought back to life to take revenge on its creator after learning perfect english on his own.

>> No.1613507

i aylweis lieks to has the last werd hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
ppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrwwwwww

>> No.1613518

>>1613507
dont be a /b/itch

>> No.1613549
File: 65 KB, 1125x681, tripping-by-d&e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613549

Anonymous sure got fecking told ITT.

Is this a long or difficult novel? kind of considering dropping it back a while and reading Brave New World first.

>> No.1613558

>>1613549
Long, not difficult.

>> No.1613563

>>1613549
>>1613549

average length ino, not difficult, pretty interesting

>> No.1613577

>>1613558
>>1613563
thanks. well i may as well for some psycho-analysis stuff and a guaranteed good english novel.

>> No.1613578

>>1613518

you suck huge cock
and your father hates you

>> No.1613582

>>1613578
he told me he loves me on the phone the other day

i didnt say it back tho

>> No.1613584

Here's my shiny 2 pennies:

In the book, Frankenstein is depicted as a "creator", the creature is never referred to as a human-being, and it's never hinted that Frankenstein considers bringing the dead back to life. So while formerly-living tissue may have been the base, Frankenstein does not arrange the parts in any natural order, and thus he has truly created something new that has no relation to the original material. It's also suggested he got stuff from the abattoirs. This has little to do with the holism mentioned earlier, though it does have to do with Romantic holism, which is fundamentally different to "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" schpiel.

But we all knew this, right?

>> No.1613594

shelley had like 9 miscarriages before she wrote frankenstein, oh and her husband was cheating on her all the time.

>> No.1613598

>>1613582

"i didnt say it back though", he said though it was only half true, as the intention was there and his nasal bitch voice would have come forth, had it not been for the huge cock shoved deep in his mouth, pressing against eh uvuela, making him gag.

>> No.1613620

>>1613584
>>1613584
actually it is referred to as a human being, both by himself and Frankenstein

>>1613594
>>1613594
it was 2 i believe and then her child after the 1918 edition died and she revised the novel for the 1931 edition.

the differences between the prefaces and the introduction are good points too.

>> No.1613634
File: 7 KB, 251x189, DERRIDA.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1613634

>>1613620

>> No.1613643

>>1613620
You'd have to point out where this is. He's only referred as having a human frame IIRC. There are certainly distinctions drawn between Frankenstein's monster and humanity.

>> No.1613651

>>1613643
>>1613643
i have the norton critical edition so i'll be able to give that page, a general area and the chapters etc
give me a few minutes
(i'm SURE there's a direct reference to his human frame)

>> No.1613679

>>1613651
I found one:
>It was with these feelings that I began the creation of a human being
But he goes on, in the next paragraph when he realises the creature has to be made super sized
>A new species would bless me as its creator and source

So, it's arguable, I guess.