Psychoanalytic Criticism

Well, this criticism was really something. There was just so much information packed into these 30 or so pages, but nonetheless it really intrigued me. I have been learning about Freud in other classes so it was neat to see how classes do overlap. The most interesting part to me was the fact that sometimes our writing is often portrayal about personalities within us. I never thought of this, but in all honesty sometimes people write like who they were, who they are, or who they would like to become as a person and a writer.

Now moving on to the "meat", so often times we overlook the fact that Victor did approve of his creation ( for a short moment, of course). I liked how the criticism made note of that because human nature is to remember the negative over the positive. What finally clicked while reading this was the fact that Victor was creating himself but after the monster opened his eyes, Victor regretted making the monster immediately. Victor does not see himself as the monster and then he wants to destroy it. He desired to create someone for himself that resembled himself. A down scaled example would be simply in writing. We put our hearts, breathe, and time in creating something beautiful but after seeing the final product sometimes we just want to start over. This is difficult in the case of creating a human being from dead corpses, don't you think?

On an ending note, I just want to point out one of my favorite quotes from the excerpt : "We read all the stories in the novel as if a hand is over our eyes, too, and at any moment it will be lifted and the novel will transform from something read into something seen --- perhaps someone seen in a mirror."(page 293) Often times I correlate what I am reading with people I know, and this is an interesting thought to ponder. Do you guys ever relate what you are reading to reality? To yourself?

No Class- Feminist Response

Let me just start out by saying that I was a bit confused about this assignment, but I am sure it is my fault. I felt the criticism was a bit odd because a woman did not talk, it was only by a woman through a man. Even though I knew that Mary Shelley did not put her name on the book, it was a light bulb moment for me because of the female criticism at that time and I found it interesting. But now that it is all straightened out, let me tell you about my view of the "oppressive domesticity" of Victor's family. I believe that Victor's family was oppressive because it too perfect; it contradicted society. No one is that perfect. Her father and mother were figures that isolated Victor from the outside world. His mother was the perfect little homemaker and the father was a gentleman. But we all know nothing is perfect (except the divine power of God, of course). Human nature is evil and sinful, so there must have been something wrong with the picture. Women were seen stereotypically as the ones who stayed home and took care of the household while the other men traveled and were disciplinary. Victor was used to being the center of attention and taken care of and even played with others such as Elizabeth. It was not until deaths in the family did Victor experience real freedom. When he did, he took his freedom to the extreme by creating a new being. He then took the being for granted and rejected him because the monster was not perfect like his family had been. I believe this corresponds with Shelley because like Victor, she was oppressed as well until later in life when women's writing was more accepted. The lightbulb moments were really happening this morning and that my friends is the exciting part!!!

The end.

Let me just start out by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed last class. I learned a lot about not only why the book was written, but also those involved in the book. I especially loved the quote from Paradise Lost:
"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me Man, did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?"

Although this quote is in the beginning of the novel, it sums up the whole novel. It was noted last class that sometimes children nowadays say that to their parents as a joke, but in reality we often wonder for what purpose we were made. Frankenstein had a purpose for making this monster although he abandoned him. Frankenstein created this monster that was supposed to be a friend and companion, but rather the monster was undisciplined and lacked structure as an individual. It baffled me because the monster had feelings; he acted as a human being. All the monster desired was acceptance, much like people in today's society. But because humans are judgmental and firstly see the outward appearance, the monster became revengeful.
After many unfortunate events, Frankenstein actually fears his life. He created something he feared!! The monster seriously messed with his brain making him paranoid about everything. I honestly believe that if Frankenstein had taken the time to appreciate, discipline, and teach the monster he would have acted differently.

I was unsure about what to focus my blog on today because we had finished the reading, but also we were the contextual documents, so I focused on both. I know we are supposed to solely focus on one topic, so please pretend these are two separate.
The document I decided to focus on was the note Paracelsus [on Creation] (1531-1538). I thought it fit quite well because it notes creation and Frankenstein's monster was a creation of Frankenstein. The document discusses that things are created as a way of life, and everything that is created is unique. But just because things are created differently, they all suffer the same. I created the connection that just because Frankenstein was not created by God and did not look like humans, he suffered from rejection just like people in today's society. I also liked how this note states that people must be different or it would make for a boring world.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and this document.

Frankenstein pgs 3-90

When I first thought about this book, I tried to envision what it would be like. My first thought was actually that about Halloween and how everyone dresses up like Frankenstein. Did it derive from the monster made by Frankenstein in the book? I kept this in mind as I read. Maybe one of you girls know the answer? It would be intriguing if that were so. Because Frankenstein during Halloween does indeed have scars-- we shall see. Moving on, the first thing I noticed was the language that Shelley uses for her book. I like it very much because her vocabulary is simple yet she uses adjectives that brighten up the story.
I am going to focus on chapter V because it intrigued me the most.
The quote that stuck on to me the most was the following :
"For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."

Was it worth creating such a monster despite your loneliness? I found it interesting that he shifted emotions so quickly. So many times because of today's society, our human nature is always wanting and never patient for things to happen on their own. Although Frankenstein's monster was hideous and evil, I felt bad for it because his creator did not accept him. Frankenstein put much effort, time, and health into making this creation, yet he left him. I know that Frankenstein did feel some type of emotion towards him because Frankenstein became sick after his monster had left. He worried very much about the monster but not enough to save him. We shall see what happens. I liked how the monster had a mind of his own and he also had emotions. He was a real being. He was loving at first, but it was mankind that did not accept him that made him bitter. Just like Frankenstein was lonely, his monster became lonely because no one resembled him whatsoever. Frankenstein created a being although not physically like himself, the monster was emotionally and mentally similar to his own. I am excited to see what is to come.
Questions for you guys:
1. What do you think is to come?
2. Do you think the monster and Frankenstein are similar?
3. Do you feel any sympathy for Frankenstein? the monster?

This book is interesting. I like it so far, but it is an odd book.
Let me know your thoughts!

What? the Book is over?

Indeed bloggers, the book is over. So the real question is, what have I learned? Focusing more on the end of the book, (pages 125-319) one of my favorite chapters started on page 126. Different cultures read different ways and with different type of books. I was tickled at this notion. Words are words, right? Why does it matter where you put them as long as you put them somewhere, right? I was able to remember how important reading used to be. Today, reading is just a score on a report card to pass to the next grade, reading is in a test needed for our transcript for college. Reading has just become a letter grade. But is reading more? The ancient people thought so. I was amused with a thought mentioned : "In 1588 and Italian engineer, Agostino Ramelli, serving under the King of France, published a book describing a series or useful machines. One of these is a "rotary reading desk" which Ramelli describes as ' a beautiful and ingenious machine, which is very useful and convenient to every person who takes pleasure in study'..." (pg 131). It baffled me to know that people actually made furniture , even beds, to read books more easily. The only thing we try to make convenient for anything in America is trying to make the newest arm chair the most comfortable for watching television at night. I also agree with the fact that reading involves a great deal of privacy (pg 153). I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but reading is really an adventure where you can become whatever or whoever you desire to, and this aspect makes reading special.
On an entirely different note, I also found interesting when talking about Comstock (pg 287) the author asked what types of books he read? Then I began thinking, "What type of books do authors read? What type of books do teachers read? Fun ones? Boring ones? Short ones? Fat ones?" I guess I assumed if one was a teacher or in high supremacy they were only entitled to boring books if they seemed to be boring people. Wouldn't it be funny to find a fiction teenage book in the hands of someone in power? Possibly.
Reading is an adventure. Last week, I challenged you guys to go find a book and go to your secret place. How did it go? What was your favorite part from the book we are reading now? I truly enjoyed this book. I honestly thought this book would be unentertaining and tedious, but I found it rather fun. Let me know your thoughts!