Abstract This paper presents a two-fold analysis of the novel, "Frankenstein". One facet discusses the issue of conflict and change happening in human society during the period, and the other facet looks into the dynamics of these changes through exemplars and cases illustrated in the novel. The paper then explores the dominant theme of humanity versus nature and how this conflict affects the development of science and state of humanity. Specifically, this paper posits that "Frankenstein" serves as a chronicle of human history, where science, supported by humanity, dominates nature, thereby causing changes and conflicts that helped shape and improve modern societies of today.
From the Paper "With these state of events and forces dominating 19th century human society, this paper's analysis of the novel Frankenstein is two-fold: one facet discusses the issue of conflict and change happening in human society during the period, and the other facet looking into the dynamics of these changes, through exemplars and cases illustrated in the novel. However, despite this two-fold analysis, one recurring and dominant theme is inherent in the discussion and analysis, and this is the theme of humanity versus nature, and how this conflict affects the development of science and state of humanity in the novel Frankenstein. Specifically, this paper posits that Frankenstein serves as a chronicle of human history, where science (supported by humanity) dominated over nature, thereby causing changes and conflicts that helped shape and improve modern societies of today."
Abstract This paper looks below the level of the plot exploited by movie version of the book to examine what Shelley herself would have felt was the true level of horror in the book, the investigation of what it means to be human and the terrible things that we might each do ? and in turn have done to us if we were somehow to lose that quality of ourselves that sets us off from all other living creatures as uniquely human.
From the paper:
"It is perhaps true that any movie based on an important book does a great disservice to it, for the media of literature and of film are so essentially different from each other that any translation between the two of them must be cause for substantial cross-cultural fumblings. But Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus (published in 1818, long before any author could imagine what the big screen might do to her work) has been especially ill-served by its various cinematic adaptations, which have transformed this novel about a prototypical "mad scientist" who creates a monster who eventually kills him from a serious investigation into the nature of the human soul into a horror flick. Indeed the name Frankenstein has become popularly attached not only the Shelley's creature itself but to a whole genre of low-tech horror movies."
Abstract This paper compares the attitudes of philosophers Peter Winch and Bruno Latour to the study of the sciences - natural vs. social. Each philosopher published works on the topic and these are analyzed.
From the paper:
"What is natural and what is social in the sciences? Is there a divide between the two, where the naturalsciences operate in the realm of objectivity, while the social sciences are a philosophic construction of man? There is a very old dispute in the social sciences about whether social inquiry is ?natural? or not. Naturalists hold that the methods of the naturalsciences should be used by social scientists, to explain and predict human behavior, just as we explain and predict phenomena like mass and velocity? Or is social inquiry a separate endeavor that is essentially interpretive and philosophical?"
Abstract This paper studies the 19th century book "Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften" by Wilhelm Dilthey. The book establishes human sciences as field independent from naturalsciences. The paper summarizes the book's assertions and findings, beginning with a discussion of how Dilthey divides the human mind into its interaction with the outer world and its external natural processes. The paper concludes with the author's personal evaluation of Dilthey's work.
From the Paper "Dilthey defines Geisteswissenschaften (roughly translated into English as "Human Sciences"), as the study of the individuals, groups, and forces ruling society. His basic presumption is that a man overwhelmed with specialized knowledge is simply "a serviceable tool of society" and not a "co-agent in its formation" and therefore man strives to understand and comprehend the world around him. An indication of Human Sciences' independence is the sovereignty that man finds in his will. That sovereignty implies the freedom of his human spirit opposed to the causality of human nature, and therefore signifies that the human spirit cannot be subjected to laws of the latter."
Tags:natural, sciences, methodology, human, mind, process
Abstract This paper attempts to determine the overall relationship between science and nature in "Frankenstein" and whether both serve as vehicles to God, or divine knowledge. It looks at how Shelley portrays the pair as antithetical adversaries. It also discusses how themes from John Milton's "Paradise Lost" feature heavily in the question of science versus nature and the potential for divinity within the pair. The paper relates that Milton's poem shapes the consciousness of the monster as well as epic allows Shelley to add a human drama to the non-human entities of science and nature. The paper also argues that Shelley's Miltonic references imply that divinity is dead in the realm of science.
From the Paper "When the monster bounds across the perilous landscape and approaches his creator, Victor's words becomes charged with god-like rhetoric. He commands the creature, the "vile insect," to flee, or else be trampled to "dust." Victor even wishes for the power over life and death (the initial motivation for his scientific pursuits), so he can "restore those victims whom <the creature>...diabolically murdered." Victor, once so close to a euphoric ecstasy with nature, now becomes an embittered and wrathful god. He sojourns to the peaks of Montanvert for rest and recovery, but his interactions with the creature weaken him physically and rob him of a spiritual communion with nature. "
Abstract The issue of the consequences of scientific knowledge is a commonly debated one. Mary Shelley, in the nineteenth century, offers a deep and comprehensive understanding of human values and attitudes towards science in her novel "Frankenstein". This paper shows that instead of simply categorizing science and scientists as either good or evil, Shelley presents a complex network of interwoven values concerning a scientist's responsibility to himself, society and in the practice of science. The paper shows that Shelley analyzes the effects of the accretion of scientific knowledge. As a result, she admonishes scientists who do not think of the consequences of their imprudent certainty of the progress of science and its inherent benefits to mankind. Instead, Shelley asserts that although it is feasible to study nature, the natural world will not succumb to domination.
From the Paper "Shelley implies that although a scientist may possess the necessary knowledge to achieve almost limitless scholarship, he must think of the consequences of his actions. While Frankenstein represents a rash scientist who must later pay for his lack of regard for society, Walton aspires to discover a total source of power but his ambition is moderated by his love and respect for humanity. Walton, as Shelley's ideal scientist, possesses a more developed conscience than Frankenstein. He strives for distinction by acquiring knowledge yet turns back when his actions have the potential to harm others."
Abstract This paper reviews Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and, in particular, examines the irrational behavior of the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein. It looks at how Victor Frankenstein's irrational behavior begins with his ambition, and what begins as a healthy curiosity about nature and science turns into an obsession that he cannot control. It analyzes the effect of this irrationality on the other characters in the story and shows how Frankenstein's irrational behavior leads to the death of four innocent people and, eventually, his own demise.
From the Paper "The next character to suffer from Frankenstein's irrational behavior is Justine. She is accused of murder and Frankenstein is still unable to tell what he knows. This scene demonstrates the depth of Frankenstein's irrational behavior. Even as he hears the judges condemning Justine, all he can do is leave the courtroom "in agony" (69). This scene is amazing because it demonstrates Frankenstein's selfish nature. He says, "The tortures of the accused did not equal mine: she was sustained by innocence, but the fangs of remorse tore my bosom and would not forgo their hold" (69). Even as Justine confesses to a murder she did not commit, Frankenstein is not moved. He admits feeling despair, but not so much as to save the girl's life."
Abstract This paper analyzes two works of literature that explore the destructive fascination for science and nature: Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Birthmark." It discusses the characters of Alymer and Frankenstein, both men of science, and how they are responsible for their fate.
Tags:Frankenstein, The Birthmark, Alymer, Hawthorne, Shelley, Prometheus
Abstract This paper analyzes the famous gothic novel by Mary Shelley's ?Frankenstein?. It discussed the idea that Dr. Frankenstein tried to play God by creating his own "man" through unnatural means. The author writes that Dr. Frankenstein attempted to play God by trying to create life in a different way from natural birth. He stepped beyond the realm of what man should create and brought a monster into the world.
From the Paper "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is often considered one of the first science fiction novels although it is a Gothic novel. She wrote the book when she was only 18 and was very influenced by Milton's Paradise Lost and Rousseau's Emile. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein also has a subtitle called "The Modern Prometheus", which refers to the figure in Greek mythology who caused a great conflict between the Gods and man by stealing Zeus's fire. Legend says that he used the fire to bring life to the clay figures of mankind that he created."
Abstract This paper discusses how Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" and Bram Stoker's "Dracula" both express views on the nature of good and evil. It explores how the authors use points of view as a device to establish the plot and tell the story. Frankenstein and Dracula both use the themes of dangerous science and redeeming religion. The paper contends that these warnings against science make the books not just shocking horror stories, but stories meant to teach the reader something about how to live.
From the Paper "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and Bram Stoker's Dracula both express views on the nature of good and evil. The authors use point of view as a device to establish plot and tell the story. Frankenstein and Dracula also both use the themes of dangerous science and redeeming religion. These warnings against science make the books not just shocking horror stories, but stories meant to teach the reader something about how to live. The character of Dracula is in every way evil. He is both tricky and wise, and his appearance is intimidating and frightening. Harker describes Dracula: "His eyes were positively blazing. The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hellfire blazed behind them" (Stoker 40). The counts actions are also undeniably evil; immediately following his description of the count, Harker tells of how the count feeds a live, human baby to three vampire women."
Abstract An in-depth view of Frankenstein's reasons for producing his monster and his mixed feelings of grief and elation at his results. Explored here are the character traits and eccentricities of many of the main players. The essay also looks at whether there are any autobiographical aspects to Shelley's writing when discussing pain and success.
From the paper:
"Superiority through suffering is a major theme of Mary Shelley's novel, a romantic half-tragedy in which the fall from greatness is nearly all fall or, more accurately, where greatness is defined in terms of the personal pain which results from the consciousness of loss which cannot be recalled or comprehended by other men. In unique regret, Frankenstein discovers his true distinction when he tells of he was seized by "remorse and the sense of guilt"to a hell of intense tortures.? The failure of language, as always in romantic fiction, is meant to be a sign not of vacuity or of an imaginative limitation of the character or author, but of the single non-communicable nature of great experience. The hero of the novel, a young Genevese student of naturalscience, is a magnetic character, described as possessing attributes that seem almost divine. Yet despite such expressions of love and veneration for the nobility of Frankenstein, Shelley expresses through her characters certain reservations about him that has led some readers to interpret the novel as an unconscious repudiation of Shelley."
Abstract This essay looks at how Mary Shelley's " Frankenstein" is a story that is the possible precursor of a modern cloning experiment gone bad. The author discusses the ethical problems related to human cloning, and how the monster created by Dr. Frankenstein serves as a warning against mankind's efforts to interfere with nature.
From the Paper "The story of Dr. Frankenstein and his unfortunate monster illustrates how much havoc could be wreaked on society by anyone person who attempts to "play God". In the nineteenth century, there was a far greater belief that the creation of life was the province of God alone. Now technologically advanced science is a multi-billion dollar industry and the progress of genetics in the last decade is far outpacing the legislation that society has to monitor its application. Even in 1818, Mary Shelley raises the idea that we, as a society, were in grave danger of becoming far cleverer and more scientifically able than we were wise. It is for these reasons that Mary Shelley makes some of Dr. Frankenstein last words, in Chapter XIII, read like a terrible warning to mankind, one that stands against cloning today: ?Man," I cried, "how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom! Cease; you know not what it is you say."
Abstract This paper examines ?Frankenstein?, an inspiring and engaging novel by Mary Shelley, which makes us reflect the consequences of our actions upon ourselves and the society at large. It analyzes how a deeper insight into the story brings out many subtle themes such the dangers inherent in man's quest of trying to have a domineering influence upon society (and nature) without concerning himself about the looming dangers involved in such a selfish motive.
Outline
Thesis
Introduction
?Frankenstein? and the "Creator"
Labor (Selfish and Ethical Aspects)
Societies Perceptions
Collectivism vs. Capitalism (Marxist View)
Conclusion
From the Paper "In Frankenstein Shelley touches upon society's jaundiced perception wherein appearance is used as the yardstick to judge a person. In many instances appearance can be deceptive and it can give us a wrong picture of the reality. In the novel the monster, though it was striving to be friendly and helpful to people, is looked upon as an evil and dangerous creature. Shelley attempts to challenge these preconceived notions of society indicating their inability to present an undistorted clear picture of the individual. From a Marxist viewpoint we can further extend this argument to the class divisions that are present within the society and the rigid dogmas associated with them. If only the villagers had desisted from hating the creature at the very sight of it and offered to listen to it they might have developed a liking to it."
Abstract Victor Frankenstein is the main character of Mary Shelley's novel, "Frankenstein," published in 1818. He is a brilliant and over-ambitious young Swiss who delves in naturalscience and aspires to achieve the sole divine prerogative of creating life. Victor reaches this peak level of ambition because he has been pampered in childhood and, because of this, everything seems possible to him. This paper shows that Alfred Adler, like Sigmund Freud, believes that one's personality or lifestyle is fixed as early as 5 years old. The paper discusses three basic child situations, as offered by Adler, the first of which is pampering. Pampered children, like Victor, assume that they can take without giving and do not learn to do things by themselves, only to discover later that they are actually inferior. Victor is also the first child in the family and, according to Adler, first children are more likely to turn into problem children, or become precocious, solitary and more conservative than children in another birth order. The paper shows that Adler's personality concept is viewed as applicable to Victor Frankenstein in his pursuit and creation of a monster. The paper shows examples from the novel of the traits discussed by Adler.
From the Paper "Victor's lack of natural domestic affection for the creature has very dire consequences for both of them and other people around them (Waxman 2003). He has delved into the depths of the mystery of creation and removed the barriers between life and death, also by using body tissues of dead persons. The combination amounts to monstrosity in all levels. In procreating the monster, Victor also traverses and violates the boundary between the sexes and arrogates upon himself the procreative capacity of a woman in procreating and delivering a creature. When he sees the contemptible result of his ambitious experiment, Victor wants an abortion, instead."
