More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical analysis essays of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Critical essays Frankenstein (Mary Shelley)
Critical essays Frankenstein (Mary Shelley)
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
Brooks begins his argument by analyzing the relationships of the novel and how they build tension between the characters. He speaks to how the narrative frame itself positions the reader to "supplement" the story of the "speaker", which in the case of Frankenstein is both the text itself and the individual narration of the characters. Most importantly, he sets up how Frankenstein's narrative frame, essentially a series of conversations relating one characters unresolved issues to another, begins creating the concept of the monster. Creation of the monstrous, in the idea of Brooks happens solely through language, a medium deemed corrupt and insufficient. This is the source of the monstrous, as Brooks reveals that through the Monster's exposure to the world, he no longer takes part in the imaginary order as he finds that he cannot be accepted on appearance alone, and instead uses language as a tool to express his desires.
However, this proves to be insufficient, as once the monster uses the symbolic power of language, an expression of the conscious, he no longer ca...
... middle of paper ...
...ess of meaning generated to compensate for the lack of completeness in relationships constructed by language. The excess of meaningless signification, seeking resolution for false desire (such as creating a female mate) drives the Monster to irrational actions as he cannot fathom how language, which he sees as superior to the imaginary, cannot fulfill his requests as he witnessed them fulfilled during his time watching the De Lacys.
Finally, Brooks' argument of "What Is a Monster?" explores how we negotiate the core "lack" of meaning in life, and how our transfer from the wholeness of the imaginary order and our mother spawns a search for completion. Through what we think are meaningful connections and uses of language to fulfill our needs, we really are pushing ourselves away from our goal by putting excess meaning between ourselves and our unconscious desires.
In Ted Genoways’ article “Here Be Monsters,” written in 2005, he elaborates that minds will envision the unfathomable visions regardless. He later supports it by saying that it will lead to creating the fear that monstrous events will happen. Genoways believes that we must grasp the realism of the problems that consume this world to overcome them. This short story comes from the “Virginia Quarterly Review,” which is a magazine created for discussions, reviews, poems, and more. This specific, analyzing article intends to inform and spur discussion. It focuses on improving the world rather than within the self. “Here Be Monsters” is an agreeable writing. The point made is that if there is no action taken, then we will unfailingly fear the threats and retract from those whom we distinguish as dangerous. This piece of writing is a valid impression with supporting philosophies that contains relevant explanations.
We are shown that this ‘monster’ is a ‘creature’ and more of a human than we think. It is in the complex structure of the novel that Mary Shelley creates sympathy. We shift from Robert Walton to Victor Frankenstein to the monster and finally back to Walton. With each shift of perspective, the reader gains new information about both the facts of the story and the reliability of the narrator. Each perspective adds pieces of information that only they knows: Walton explains the circumstances of Victor’s last days, Victor explains his creation of the monster, the monster explains his turn to evil.
Continuing with the thread of human development, we see the creature's acquisition of language. The creature most craves this sort of knowledge:...
exemplifies his lust for knowledge which leads to his creation of the monster, his personal
Baldick, C. "Making Monstrous - 'Frankenstein', Criticism, Theory - Botting,F." Review Of English Studies 45 (1994): 90-99.
The language that is used through this passage evokes empathy and sadness for the monster in the reader. For most of the story, is passed to us the form of second hand event retold by Victor, through letters to Walton and conveyed to us that way. This seems to draw a stronger link to the monster. At this stage, the monster seems to be in child-like wonder, an doesn’t understand why everyone has been so terrified of him, or why victor was repulsed of him. He hides in a hovel and steals food, fulfilling his most basic needs. He is then able to better understand emotions; after he is no longer hungry and cold, he is able to focus on how the people in the cottage seem to communicate and are sad. He starts to learn their language, and, after understanding their poverty, sees its his fault and is able to correct that. The increasing complexity of the language shows the monster’s ...
...most readers tend to sympathize with Frankenstein because of the way in which he is mentally and physically harmed by his creation. However, one must also realize that while Frankenstein is a victim in the novel, he also exhibits features that make him a monster. These monstrous qualities, however, stem from his passion for science and his desire to create life. Not only does the reader criticize and pity Frankenstein, but the reader also empathizes with Frankenstein’s creation. He was unjustly shunned by society because of his physical appearance. On the other hand, the reader realizes that like Frankenstein, the creation can not be sympathized with entirely. He too exhibits traits that make him appear villainous. It is the duality of these two characters that make Frankenstein and his creation two of the most appealing characters of the nineteenth century.
The definition of ‘monstrosity’ and what it means to be ‘monstrous’ can be understood to mean something that is visually unattractive, malformed and/or terrifying. However, monstrosity is not exclusively about something aesthetically ugly, it can also apply to what differs from what is considered ‘normality’. What is ‘normal’ versus what is ‘monstrous’ is closely linked when exploring ideas about the human condition. The representations of monstrosity in Frankenstein and in The Tempest reveal how what is monstrous and what is normal are often found side by side, challenging the idea that it is limited to outcasts who do not ‘fit-in’, and that deep down, a desire to be understood, accepted and included and to live life with meaning are central to the human condition and that monsters in society often reveal our deep seated fears and anxieties about our own existence.
As the monster discovered, language is intertwined with culture (Brooks 594). He is on the side of nature, a deformed creature of appearance, and upon catching sight of his reflection understands not to show himself to the cottagers, of whom he yearns to win the love of, for fear of them fleeing (595). He is ‘excluded but learning the means, by which to be included’ (595) with language.
When were naïve children, we might have been fearful of the monsters in our closet, but in reality there were no monsters. Our fear of the unknown, coupled with our imagination, caused us to believe that there was actually a monster. Fear is an innate emotion that all humans have expressed. Monsters in movies and novels that we consume should be considered as tangible creature that encapsulates our fears. These stories make us imagine a world in which a fictional character defeats and conquers things that we ourselves might not venture to do. In essence, we let ourselves vicariously live through the life of these characters and we share the same fear of the fictional threat. In addition, Brooks makes argument on whether to fight their “monster”
It is clear that knowledge is what keeps the beast within monster dormant. This has a direct contradiction on how knowledge effected Ulysses and Frankenstein. This represents the dualism between knowledge and brutality. The monster represents the beast within all of us. The beast it is subdued with knowledge, yet is ever present waiting for you look into the water and witness its reflection. Yet, there is a dark side to knowledge. Knowledge creates a hunger that is insatiable. There is no end to what we as humans can learn, but human nature dictates we never stop. This urgency to learn everything comes from our realization that we are soon to meet our maker and quickly it turns from a journey towards an unreachable goal but one where we are pitted against an hourglass that is quickly running out of sand. This hunger is a beast of its own and somewhere between this beast and the beast of the unknown, we find our
The vivid, dark imagery of the monster’s creation is used to emphasize Victor’s emotional and intellectual motherhood. This false maternity sets the stage for the future personification of the monster as a child. For instance, while Victor creates his creature, he is utterly consumed. "The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul,
When the Monster first encounters them, he is a newborn thrown into this world without any cognizance of anything. He has no erudition of his essence, the only truth he kens is that people absquatulate from him. As the Monster observes the DeLacey the first
He first discusses the concept that the being or object must be possible by explaining that the term monster “refers to any being not believed to exist now according to contemporary science” (27). Therefore, believing that a monster is possible “does not commit us to a belief in [its] existence” (29); rather, through the monster’s portrayal in the narrative, a viewer becomes convinced that the monster is logically possible and that the viewer’s thoughts about the monster are real. Carroll then expands on his second requirement, the threat component, clarifying that monsters can be physically, morally, or socially threatening. It is essential for a monster to be threatening in one of these three ways – or at least appear to be so – because when these beings “cease to be threatening, they cease to be horrifying” (28). Therefore, the threat component is critical to the experience of art-horror. Finally, Carroll describes that a monster can meet the final requirement of this condition, impurity, in a number of ways, whether by being “categorically interstitial, categorically contradictory, incomplete, or formless” (32). In order to art-horrify, it is necessary that a monster have this impurity in some form, as it arouses disgust in addition to the
When asked to envision a monster, everyone would have different ideas. Some would speak of beastmen with large horns and sharp teeth. Some would imagine a swarm of hive-minded insects that surround their victims to drain their lives. Some would find that their demons as shapeshifters that disguises themselves as familiars or loved ones, only to stab their targets in the back and consume their soul. These sort of creatures aren’t seen in reality except, perhaps, in a videogame or a horror novel. Instead, everyday, we are burdened by the “monsters” that are expectations, challenges, and our own minds. These obstacles aren’t ones we can physically fight, but ones we must overcome. As for myself, I would imagine an invisible voice that clings to