“‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’” Analysis
Dr. Johanna M. Smith, the author of the scholarly article “‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’”, is an associate professor of English at the University of Texas at Arlington. In her article “‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad trash’” her approach to the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one that takes a feminist viewpoint. In her article, Smith divides her argument into two sections, one that focuses more on the notion of an unpayable debt of gratitude, and the other that focuses on Victor Frankenstein’s transition from alchemical science to chemistry and how that relates to the “tensions and conflicts of contemporary gendered science” (324). Both articles, although presented as two separate entities, flow together magnificently and
…show more content…
Smith is a feministic one. The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley consist of female characters that tend to be more focused in domestic life, and there is a stressed concept of the need for some sort of maternal figure. In the criticism “‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’”, the notion of an unpayable debt of gratitude, especially within the Frankenstein household. The women, more-so Elizabeth than Justine, takeover the maternal role that had once belonged to Victor’s mother until she passes away. This later serves as a conflict for Victor because it’s almost as if he can’t differentiate between the Elizabeth that is the maternal figure and the Elizabeth that he is supposed to marry. There is also the concept of the balance of masculinity and feminity throughout the novel. Victor, although he is a male character, displays a need to create something and care for it, even if it is to fill some sort of abstract ‘debt’ he feels towards his parents and Elizabeth, and he inevitably ends up abandoning his creation. Victor’s desire to create a living being, despite the way he treated after its birth, is a trait that one typically associates with
This profound statement raises the important question of personal responsibility for both the creator and the created. Victor Frankenstein, the ambitious protagonist of the gothic novel, is ardent with revealing the deepest, darkest mysteries of existence, and is lead by modern science and the occult to discover the methods to create life. By this dramatic discovery, Frankenstein is able to create an engineered man, a proclaimed monstrosity, whose miserable destiny perpetually connects with his creator’s. The novel chillingly dramatizes the dangerous potential of life begotten, and subsequently rejected upon a laboratory table, and shows
Victor was part of a wealthy Swiss family who treated him as ““...an object of their love, not a participant in it; he is "their plaything and their idol.” Victor insists upon remembering "the best of all possible worlds" is the psychological defense of an only child (as he was for a long time) who maintains a love/hate relationship with his parents because he senses that they share an affection that in some way excludes him” (Claridge). This gave Victor the idea that people were somehow objects that you can give love to which he soon does with Elizabeth. “His mother tells him, "I have a pretty present for my Victor -- tomorrow he shall have it.” The child subsequently accepts Elizabeth as his "promised gift" and makes her his own possession.”
When Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was published in 1818, it created a big controversy. The controversy was if this piece of literature should be examined as a well-written, worthy piece of literature. In this two passage, both of the critic’s show their own strong opinion towards Frankenstein. The first passage from The Quarterly review, the anonymous author criticizes Shelley’s work. He uses hyperbole, to evoke emotions from the readers.
In the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the main topic that is conveyed is the topic of the quick advancement of technology and the desire for knowledge. Shelley prepares readers to be aware of the advancement of technology, where technology might overcome those who create it and desire to become too knowledgeable for their own good. The natural advancement of technology, when tampered with and sped up without caution, can prove to be dangerous. The creation of the “monster” in Frankenstein is a good example of this, and Mary Shelley uses this situation to “explore some of the pressing moral questions that surrounded science and scientists at the time Frankenstein was written.”
Kyle Lyon Professor Ed Steck AWR 201 F3 14 April 2015 Annotated Bibliography Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed. Hunter, Paul J. Norton Critical Edition.
Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning, 2011 105-110 Anne K. Mellor. “is a mad scientist who attempts to revise nature.” Science bioethics social issues in literature bioethics: in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Ed. Gary wiener, Detroit: Gary Cengage Learning, 2011 79-85 M.K. Joseph.
Because of this, Elizabeth had to play all feminine roles towards Victor: mother figure, sister, and wife. While Elizabeth becomes like a mother, Victor had already formed a friendly bond with her. Victor describes Elizabeth as “gentile and affectionate” (20), motherly characteristics, but Victor would never be able to see Elizabeth as a mother. Elizabeth and Victor had grown up together since the age of four. She was the only one who could make him forget his troubles, and he was the only one who could console her after the death of William and Justine.
I. Introduction “Had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations?” These words of Victor perfectly explicate the generic views on women during Shelley’s time, which helped in the creation of her novel, Frankenstein, by means of positing questions on female roles and their significance in society then and now. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus is a renowned classic tale of a man-made creature pursuing for its approval in society undeterred by his malformed appearance and bizarre beginnings. By educating himself in the form of scrutinizing normative human behavior, he gradually feels his belonging in society even though the harsh rejection of his unconventional features at the end results
When Victor rejected The Creatures want for a girl companion he replied, “I go; but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding night.” When this was said, Victor knew of the possible danger that Elizabeth was now in but refused to warn her of this danger and this lead to her death. The penalties that Victor faced due to keeping the existence of this creature a secret it what lead to the deaths of the people that he cared for, and the fact that he had the ability to save these lives but chose to not even try says a lot about
Frankenstein 's change in thought from his innocent childhood curiosity in the past alchemists of science becomes a lustful and greedy obsession with a new knowledge of modern chemistry, which knows no bounds. Frankenstein realizes that old science is imperfect in nature, so he abandons his former studies and refers to them as a “deformed and abortive... knowledge” (Shelley, chapter 2, pg. 366). The way the author addresses this shift in thinking parallels how Frankenstein ultimately disowns his creation, for it is this sudden change in mindset that
What’s demonstrably exigent in both Percy and Mary Shelley’s introductions to the latter’s novel is a sort of finite teleological regress; that is to say, a set of creative impetuses that organically, if not inevitably led to the design of Frankenstein as we today know it. On a meta level, the intent here is rather self-evident: these prefaces are meant to help us readers glean some meaningful insight as to the novel’s inception. But brief and relatively non-descript as they are, I find these sorts of exercises – namely, ones which try to plainly enumerate influences and meanings – to be antithetical to the very notion of the artful creative process. And to be clear, I do not blame either of the Shelleys for this, as it’s noted that these intros were written at the behest of publishers. Still, my misgivings abound.
The fictional horror novel of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is driven by the accentuation of humanity’s flaws. Even at the very mention of her work an archetypal monster fills one’s imagination, coupled with visions of a crazed scientist to boot. Opening her novel with Robert Walton, the conduit of the story, he also serves as a character to parallel the protagonist’s in many ways. As the ‘protagonist’ of the story, Victor Frankenstein, takes on the mantle of the deluded scientist, his nameless creation becomes the embodiment of a truly abandoned child – one left to fend for itself against the harsh reality posed by society. On the other hand, Walton also serves as a foil to Victor – he is not compulsive enough to risk what would be almost
In Mary Shelley’s Romantic novel, Frankenstein, an over-ambitious young scientist, infatuated with the creation of life without a female and the source of generation, breaks the limits of science and nature by conjuring life into a lifeless form constructed from stolen body parts. The young experimenter confesses his monstrous tale that defies nature to a captain who shares his desire for glory and the pursuit of knowledge. Though a Romantic novel itself, Frankenstein serves as a critique of part of the philosophy behind Romanticism, that is, the promotion of radical self-involvement that celebrates the individual’s pursuit of glory and knowledge. Both the lone captain and the young scientist seek glory from their quest for knowledge but ultimately their pursuits end disastrously. Throughout the novel, Shelley warns against excessive self-confidence, the ambitious overreaching in the acquirement of scientific knowledge, and the arrogant pursuit of glory, using the young scientist as a forewarning to the lone captain against his
This may seem like a hopeful transition towards a greater general and public understanding of Mary Shelley’s novel. Yet, there are still misconceptions and common mistakes revolving around Shelley’s most famous novel. For instance, Daniel Cabrera uses Frankenstein’s creature and Rabbi Loew’s Prague Golem as an analogy to modern technology. He does not confuse Frankenstein and his creature, but he describes the creature as a “nameless monster made by a Dr. Victor von
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Critical Analysis About the author Naomi Hetherington is a member of the University of Sheffield, the department of lifelong learning. She is an early researcher in sexuality, religious culture, the 19th-century literature, and gender. She holds a BA in Theology and religious studies, an MA and a Ph.D. in Victorian Literature. She currently teaches four-year pathway literature degree at Sheffield University for students who have already attained foundation degrees. Among the books, she has written the critique of Frankenstein.