| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MARY SHELLEY FRANKENSTIEN": |
|
|
|
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" ( Kenneth Branagh ) and "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley, 1995.
This paper compares the film director Kenneth Branagh's and book author Mary Shelley's depictions of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein" respectively: Characters, relationships, plot, focus, images, pacing and style
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The recent motion picture version of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein hews closely to the plot of the novel while failing to capture its essential purpose. The full title of the movie is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but the possessive does not mean that this version can be considered mary Shelley's vision. Janet Maslin of the New York Times notes this when she writes that the film will not strike anyone as chiefly Mary Shelley's invention. Its principal architect is Kenneth Branagh. . . [who] takes on the godlike, idealistic young scientist's role while also directing this "Frankenstein" as an overheated romantic fable .
An examination of the book and the film shows where the attitudes ... "
| |
|
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2005.
This paper compares the novel and film versions of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein".
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 3 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Hollywood film adaptations of novels, such as "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley, are often quite different in plot, characterization and theme. The author points out that Mary Shelley's novel was written nearly two-hundred years ago. The paper relates that her approach was dictated by her perceptions of the prevailing moral, social, intellectual, and religious views of her early nineteenth century audience.
From the Paper
"As this comparison of Victor Frankenstein's transforming portrayals in fiction and film demonstrate, Hollywood film adaptations of novels such as "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley are often quite different in plot, characterization and theme. Mary Shelley's novel was written nearly two-hundred years ago, and her approach was naturally dictated by her perceptions of the expectations of her early nineteenth century audience, for she was aware that she needed to appeal to the prevailing moral, social, intellectual and religious views of contemporary English society. "
| |
|
Mary Shelley?s "Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheu", 2002.
This paper discusses Mary Shelley?s use of the Greek legend of Prometheus, the god that defied Zeus and brought fire to humans, in her book ?Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus?.
1,120 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that Mary Shelley?s reading of Prometheus in ?Frankenstein? is most accurate to the true meaning of the legend and constitutes a critique of the excessive individualism championed by the Romantic Movement.The author points out that the subtitle of ?The Modern Prometheus? refers to the character, Victor Frankenstein. The author believes that, in the character of Victor Frankenstein and in the very act of his creation, Mary Shelley joins together two seemingly opposite aspects of human study and science and poetry, reason and imagination.
From the Paper
"At the end of the novel, Walton halfheartedly heeds Victor?s reluctant message to ?seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries?(1031). When the creature escapes, Walton does not chase him, but instead continues on his return to England, and more importantly, his family. If there is the slightest semblance of a happy ending, Walton?s return to England is probably it, although the fact that he returns a failure cannot escape our final interpretation of the novel?s denouement. The story of "Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus", layered with multiple philosophical questions regarding the nature of Man, is a romantic irony of social failure, brought on by a rampant egocentricity in a male-dominated drive for knowledge and discovery."
| |
|
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2007.
This paper discusses surgical themes and ideas in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein".
2,355 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although Mary Shelley does not provide any in-depth explanation or discussion as to exactly how Victor Frankenstein created his "living dead man", it is clear that he utilized many known scientific properties of the age, especially electricity. The author points out that, in order to fabricate this human monster, Frankenstein must have employed certain known medical procedures to create his monster, which in the novel is described as being collected from "charnel-houses" and "slaughterhouses" which "furnished many of my materials", meaning that these "materials" were body parts. The paper concludes that Mary Shelley, as a result of her great imagination and obvious knowledge of the medical field during the early 19th century, created an enduring fable, one which has remained in print for almost two hundred years.
From the Paper
"Since most of Frankenstein takes place in the confines of Europe, it would be to our advantage to examine what was occurring in France and Great Britain in relation to medical research in the early part of the 19th century. As Smith points out, "Although the understanding of human anatomy was well-developed by 1800, physiology was founded on superstition and suppositions." In France, the dissections and post-mortem experiments of certain doctors and surgeons were seen by some people as quite disturbing; in fact, they were viewed as "radical and sacrilegious.""
| |
|
Masculine Revisioning in Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", 2002.
This paper detects the deviations Kenneth Branagh instills into Mary Shelley's seminal work in his 1994 film adaptation reflect his own attempts at "masculinizing" her seminal work.
3,155 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The essay uses psychoanalysis as a method of comparative discourse, in order to see more clearly the variances and motives between Shelley's and Branagh's texts. The author claims that while Branagh's adaptation affords perhaps the most accurate retelling of the plot of Shelley's text, the lens by which he interprets the tale bends the focus, elaborating upon certain underlying narratives while suppressing or overlooking others. The essay maintains that "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" demonstrates an attempt to revise and rewrite the story in order to place emphasis on more culturally masculine concerns and anxieties, and is far from being the definitive cinematic imagining of Shelley's work. Moreover, he feels that by looking closely at key deviations in Branagh's interpretation and presentation, one can observe a systematic re-envisioning which seeks to displace and usurp Shelley's argument against masculine ideals.
From the Paper
"Stephen Behrendt contends that Victor Frankenstein and his monster reflect Mary Shelley's anxiety over the public role of authorship in a male-dominated society. As objects of discourse, women were continually reminded of their "proper" and "natural" place in private familial and public extrafamilial interaction" (Behrendt 71). Victor's "unnatural" process of creation a man assuming the maternal role of biological life-giver mirrors Shelley's socially constructed sense that she behaved unnaturally in assuming the role of artistic creator. Victor's hysteria and the Creature's disfigurement embody Shelley's horror at her own articulation a horror unconsciously generated by the dictums of a patriarchal world. Victor demonstrates his hysteria when he confesses that "a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the consummation of my labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings" (Shelley 162). "
| |
|
Monstrosity in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein', 2007.
This paper discusses the topic of monstrosity in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' and looks at the impending catastrophe inherent in modern science and technology.
1,600 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' is a highly prescient work that anticipates the nature of the new technology that was emerging in the wake of the industrial revolution. The nature of this new technology was to challenge the natural order, and this is symbolized through Victor Frankenstein mimicking the function of the Creator. The writer points out that Shelley wishes to convey the horror inherent in this act. The writer maintains that what is created is a monstrosity, and the consequence is doom, for both creator and creation. The novel is also the first example of science fiction, a genre that continues to examine the relationship between man and technology. This essay examines the novel intricately in the light of this theme. It follows the steps in which the naive view of science leads on the creation of monstrosity. It then examines why it is a monstrosity, and spells out the full consequences.
From the Paper
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is clearly a cautionary tale that spells the moral and sociological implications of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. There is a tendency to limit the theme of the novel to science, and thereby to ignore the underlying philosophy. But the scientist is only encouraged, or discouraged, by the social and philosophical milieu in which he exists. In this sense the rise of modern science must be properly attributed to the philosophy of Enlightenment, that which believed in the infinite perfectibility of man through the strict practice of reason. If experimental philosophy is one expression of this philosophy, then philosophic individualism is another. This latter philosophy maintains that the human being is intrinsically free, and therefore his nature is ultimately good, which also implies that it is devoid of evil. Apparent evil only reflects the constraints of man as a social being."
| |
|
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, 2008.
This paper studies the work "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.
937 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the book "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Specifically, the writer discusses the book's origins and landmark significance. The writer notes that "Frankenstein" is such a memorable book that it has been retold in film and myth time after time. The writer also points out that Shelley's novel lives on today in the many films, from comedy to horror, that have retold her story in one form or another. The writer maintains that Shelley's book is significant because it really helped bring the horror genre into world focus and attention, and because it has been retold so many times in so many different ways.
From the Paper
"Frankenstein was not mad; he was simply possessed with a great and consuming desire to know everything about science and the creation of living matter. He becomes obsessed with his creation, and horrified to discover that he cannot control it or its violent tendencies.
"The book is also significant because of its exploration of science and knowledge, especially by a young woman, at the time it was written. It became an immediate success because the characters and their interests were so engaging, and it has never really stopped influencing other novels and films."
| |
|
Mary Shelley's ?Frankenstein?, 2004.
A look at the importance of Mary Shelley's ?Frankenstein? as a representation of 19th century culture in Victorian England.
2,475 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Mary Shelley's ?Frankenstein? and, in particular, it looks at how has come to be regarded as connecting important, but widely disparate, elements of 19th century culture in Victorian England. It discusses how, with many apparently conflicting themes such as the domestic ideology of the bourgeoisie family and parenting, on the one hand, and fear of pregnancy, childbirth, and forbidden emotions ranging from the desire to play God and incest on the other, Shelley?s "Frankenstein" is often seen as a complex mosaic, which lends itself to varying interpretations. It also explores whether the adoption of such a contextual framework helps to clarify the divisions in Shelley?s work between conformist and challenging views of gender- balanced roles both in society and within the make-up of the individual personality.
From the Paper
"The existence of a patriarchal culture during Mary Shelley?s lifetime has been well established in a wide body of work in the fields of sociology, cultural studies, and literature. The study of such works helps understand the historical antecedents of a patriarchal culture and the forces in operation during the time of Shelley?s writing Frankenstein. Masculinity and femininity has, over generations, been defined and shaped by men through the medium of patriarchal culture. Further, the beginning of the nineteenth century and the Industrial Revolution accelerated the masculinization of culture due to the exponential increase in the production of knowledge by men and the multiplication of cultural codes and languages written in male script (Aker & Morrow, p. 25)."
| |
|
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2005.
This paper discusses Mary Shelley's attitude toward science as presented in her ageless masterpiece, "Frankenstein".
905 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, a century or two later, Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", which is a clever perception of what careless use of science could do to mankind, is a prophetic vision that was way ahead of its time. The author points out that science was an important theme in Shelly's days when modern scientists started showing an interest in the workings of nature; however, the Church was against such prodding and believed that only God needed to know how intricately things worked and that man need not meddle with nature, which also appears to be Shelley's advocacy in this book. The paper suggests that Frankenstein cannot believe that his careless use of science would produce such horrifying results thus raising an issue of responsibility in the use of science similar to the anxiety of today on the subject of cloning.
From the Paper
"In Frankenstein's case, we understand that his obsession of creating a human being was grounded in purely egoistic beliefs. He was hungry for fame and power and wanted to be above everyone else. He actually felt that he was far superior to other people and felt that science would allow him to dominate the society. He hopes to use his creation as a slave or a servant when he proclaims: "..." Like a person who is impressed by social status and rank, Victor also possesses a desire to rise above the common heard and be counted as an important person."
|
| Term Paper # 90571 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
Mary Shelley?s "Frankenstein", 2005.
This paper discusses Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" as a novel of the Romantic period.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that while the Romantic period was known for its intense appreciation of nature, it also exhibited a heightened interest in the occult, the gothic and the strange phenomena as reflected in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein". The author points out the most striking similarity between Victor Frankenstein and the monster, both of which were created as Byronic figures, is, that like his creator, the monster also shuns society but simply because of society's repulsion of him. The paper relates that Frankenstein, a social misfit, is driven by an intense desire to do something outrageously different in order to earn high social status and immense fame and recognition, which shows his deep yearning for social superiority.
From the Paper
"The heroes and central characters that emerged during the literature of this period were thus usually viewed as the anti-social specie with some dark attributes and deep capacity for analysis and observation of human nature. In this novel too, we notice that both Victor and the monster share some common traits such as deep intellectual tendency to analyze and study human nature. Both are dark heroes with negative characteristics who are often instigated against the society due to the cruel behavior of the people around him. Their anti-social attitude emerged from mistreatment of society and they both in their own unique way rebelled against the fixed social rules and norms. When the society shunned them, both began displaying a negative streak, which shows that unlike the traditional hero, there is no redeeming quality or "heroic virtue" that could help them emerge as a real hero in the end."
| |
|
Mary Shelley?s "Frankenstein", 2006.
A critical analysis of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" or "The Modern Prometheus".
1,890 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 0 sources, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Some modern critics have dubbed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein a gothic story. This paper attempts to defeat this claim by showing that the novel can be interpreted in a number of different ways due to the tale's artistic validity. It discusses how, because "Frankenstein" was born out of ideas, the theme, characterization and relationships of the central figures can all be considered on different levels.
From the Paper
"We may interpret Frankenstein's mirror image or Monster firstly as symbolizing reason in isolation, since he is the creature of an obsessional rational effort. The manifest change in Frankenstein's nature after the creation of the Monster can be explained by the part-separation of his intellect from his other integral properties. He becomes a sort of Hamlet figure, indecisive and remorseful too late. He decides to destroy the Monster, but is persuaded to pity him by creating a female Monster, though fails at the last moment. He then receives the Monster's threat of revenge and does nothing: "Why had I not followed him, and closed with him in mortal strife? But I had suffered him to depart..." Frankenstein muses bitterly when the damage has been done."
| |
|
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2005.
This paper discusses the relationship between language, thought and self-awareness in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel "Frankenstein".
960 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the monster in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" did have a thought process before he learned language, but he did not have the ability to reflect on himself. The author points out that the monster's development of self-awareness, made possible though language, allowed him to realize the story behind how he was created and abandoned in the world that he now hates so much. The paper concludes that, without the inclusion of the description of the developmental process of the monster, this novel would not have been as interesting as it is.
From the Paper
"From listening to these people, he began to think in specifics. He learned about their past and their present position; why they were in this cottage in the middle of the woods. He began to learn about their personalities, which involved critical awareness to see that everyone has their own distinct personality. This led him to reflect upon himself, bringing him to the realization that though he was among others, none of them walked beside him; there was nobody to keep him company, or help him through the obstacles he endures in everyday life. Though he now knows language, what use was it to him? "
| |
|
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2005.
An analysis of the theme of playing God in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein".
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how, when Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" was first published in 1818, the reviews were mixed. The Tory Quarterly Review slammed it, stating that it inculcates no lesson of conduct, manners, or morality This paper argues that this review was nonsensical and how in fact, "Frankenstein" teaches a lesson that is as relevant today as it was in the early 19th century. This lesson is that man has no business playing God, and that attempting to do so can have catastrophic consequences.
| |
|
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", 2007.
This paper discuses how the narrative in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" deals with the problem of authorship.
770 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 0 sources, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", the reader is provided three different narrative voices: Victor Frankenstein, the creature he has created, and Captain Robert Walton, intrepid explorer.
The author points out that, by peeling away the concentric layers of narration, the reader discovers that the words attributed to the Frankenstein's creature, specifically from Chapter XI to Chapter XVII, may simply be Victor's subjective interpretation of the creature's mindset and that the entire story may simply a fabrication authored by Robert Walton. The paper suggests that the the unreliable narrator issue reflects a larger theme touched upon in the novel, the tension between author and artifice.
From the Paper
"The opening letters, attributed to Captain Robert Walton, provides the setting and occasion for Victor Frankenstein's narrative. At the end of Chapter IX, Victor agrees to hear his creature's tale, out of a sense of duty as creator. These are the two points in the book where the reliability of the narratives comes into question. Although Walton helps frame the larger narrative, his letters, which initiate and conclude the novel, poses the question whether Walton, not unlike the book's author, is concocting a "ghost story" for the sake of amusement, or whether this account is an accurate representation of actual events."
|
|
|
