While I thoroughly enjoyed reading Frankenstein for the first time, I’ve had trouble jumping into a discussion of the text on the blog; I needed a focus, a perspective: an article to discuss. Thankfully, Dr. Schwartz provided me with such an article. Entitled “Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory,” this article written by Diane Long Hoeveler not only addresses how feminist writers have approached this novel in a multitude of ways, but also new and developing theories including queer theory and disability studies. Because it may be boring to some to sum up the entire article, I’ve decided to mention a few of the ideas that I thought particularly interesting.
Taking the French feminist approach—that which concerns itself with the masculine-dominated system of language that produces meanings and often times erases women’s contributions—the author views Frankenstein as a prime example of “a specifically feminine form of language…based on female subjectivity:” l’écriture feminine. Readers are able to see this style described in Shelley’s introduction when she describes her creation, Frankenstein, as a “hideous progeny,” her monster that will go forth and haunt the memories of all those who read her work. I found this perspective particularly interesting because calls into question the foundation for the novel’s language, revealing its fragility much like the fragility of the monster’s foundation: Victor.
I also found Peter Brooks’ reading Lacanian reading of Frankenstein fascinating as well. Believing that psychoanalysis was driven by the stages in which one engages in the language process, Lacan believed that all discourse could be understood only through a desirous approach in which everyone becomes engaged in the hunt for unattainable: "a lost and unachievable object, as if moving incessantly along a chain of unstable signifiers without any possibility of coming to any final point of meaning or fixed significance. Taking Lacan’s teachings into account, Brooks believed that the creature’s monstrosity resulted in his inability to engage in “the signifying chain and language.” Because of this, the monster cannot gain meaning, cannot fully become human. Regardless of the monster learning to speak a particular language, it nonetheless experiences extreme alienation because of his origin as “other.”
I’d like to end this particular blog on my favorite approach towards Frankenstein discussed in the article, that of disability studies. According to Simi Linton, disability studies calls into question the “constricted, inaccurate, and inhumane concepts of disability,” particularly the notion that disabilities are primarily medical. Because the monster’s “ugly” appearance and ambiguous gender, one can view Victor’s creation as a disabled figure because it defies Mary Shelley’s society that places value on physical beauty, conformity, and stable, strict notions of gender. Taking a biological approach, Stephen Jay Gould asserted that the explanation for the characters’ rejection of the monster resulted because of a mamalian pattern in which instincts guide us away from the malformed. Arguments such as these add heavily to the nature vs. nurture debate.
While there were more perspectives taken towards this novel described in the article, I found the above-mentioned takes to be particularly provocative to our own approaches towards reading Frankenstein.
Frankenstein's monster is definitely "the other" that people cower away from, and a lot of it does have to do with the fact that he is body parts stitched together and leaking, while towering over the average 6' tall man. Then again, he is also a cold-blooded murderer and stalker, according to the demise of his victims. There is a passage in volume II in which Victor claims that there is a burden hung around his neck (a reference to the Rhime of the Ancient Mariner), and I think the monster's burden is similar, not because of anything he has done, but because he was born burdened. If he were attractive, the entire story would have changed. The discussion of the monster's gender is so intriguing, and so .. "other".
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info, Michael.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how many different approaches there are to the ideas presented in this novel. I was wondering how a feminist might go about reading this text considering that for the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft, Frankenstein contains such weak females like Elizabeth. While I am not fully satisfied in that respect, the French feminist approach does give me some perspective. I believe I took a Lacanian reading of the text, the monster’s “otherness” with no attached historical self-identity could not allow him to fully integrate despite his outward appearance. The quote that was used defined my reading of the text: there was “no fixed meaning” to anything. The last approach mentioned was also incredibly fascinating. I have watched many documentaries (thanks to the Discovery Channel) on how much biological history asserts itself in terms of choosing a healthy mate that will ensure species survival. Then again, to say that Victor had no role in the monster’s monstrosity would be monstrous. Either way, these all help give me new perspective on the novel.
The various theoretical theories that you mention places the novel into a different light. Particularly, the phrase “hideous progeny” is extremely pertinent because Frankenstein has been introduced to me even before I knew the extent of Shelly’s story. It has literally haunted my mind because I have known of it since I was a younger child. Perhaps the “fragility” of the novel correlates with a lot of the sentiments of our peers. I know there were a few people who frustrated with the language of the novel, along with the structure of it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post.