This came from the “One Text: Frankenstein” course. It goes over the way that Frankenstein has been interpreted throughout the years. The interpretations vary greatly, but they largely speak of a warning. This warning is that we must be responsible for the proper development of our creations, lest they get out of hand like the monster. This message is as relevant in cultures throughout the world today as it was when the book came out two hundred years ago. This completes the requirement for discussing cultural influences (2).

 

This essay is a general reflective essay that covered the entire process of my capstone course. It reflects on my learning and development as an English Major, highlighting how well the Institute English Department does its job.

This essay was my first true creative piece that I wrote in my entire sentence at VMI. It meets the requirement of crafting a creative work (6).

The Capstone course is the culminating event of the English Major Curriculum. Therefore, it contained a majority of the skills that I have learned as an English Major. This Final Capstone paper used rhetorical strategies in an academic situations (1), it showed the use of analytical thought (3), it argued effectively (4), and it required me to conduct and document my research on the topic (5).

 

 

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/16/18

Review of ERH- 421WX – One Text: Frankenstein

 

Review of ERH – 421WX – One Text: Frankenstein

 

Being able to take an entire semester to focus on one work of literature has truly been a blessing. I had read “Frankenstein” for Lieutenant Colonel Ticen’s “British Literary Traditions” last spring, and that honestly made me a little bit nervous for this course. When I read “Frankenstein” for the first time in that course, it was long, intricate, and I found the descriptive nature of Shelley’s writing to be both confusing and tiring. So I came into ERH 421 both excited and scared about the work load. So when Lieutenant Colonel Ticen started off the course with an information sheet on how much we all knew about “Frankenstein”, I was not sure where to start. Having a basic understanding of the text, I knew most of what to expect when it came to reading the course. While I was worried about the reading load of the course, I also wrote about the cultural context of the text, including the gothic and romantic elements. While these are two accurate aspects of the course, both of my ideas were changed throughout the semester. First off, while the reading load was, at times, quite intense, I found that it was at best manageable for me to complete all of the work. But the most extreme change in my knowledge of “Frankenstein” came from my understanding of the meaning and culture of the text.

Coming into this course, I only had a general idea behind the culture of “Frankenstein”. As stated above, I had focused only on the style of the book, primarily the gothic and romantic elements. But the main thing I learned from the course was the warnings that Mary Shelley offered, and how they have remained relevant for two hundred years. In every assignment in ERH 421, I evaluated and wrote about these warnings. I focused on the context in which she wrote, and the current context that the course can be taken. When she was writing “Frankenstein”, she was living in a society of political and scientific change. Feminism and industrialization were spreading through Europe. Mary Shelley’s own father and mother were progressive activists, writing on philosophy and feminism. Shelley’s husband, Percy Shelley, was also a progressive philosopher. Needless to say, Mary Shelley’s mind was open to the ideas that teach you how to best treat others and to improve the world and society as a whole. So it is no surprise when she writes a warning for future generations in her story.

In “Frankenstein”, Victor Frankenstein uses a combination of many varieties of sciences, new and old, to stitch together a human being from several corpses that he exhumed. He was so concerned with having a creation that is totally his, and that he never stopped to question the morality of what he was creating. So when he finally brought his creature to life, he realized that he had created a creature that was not wholly human. He was terrified by the gruesome appearance of the creature, leading him to run away and leave the creature alone and afraid in the cruel world that he lived in. While the creature did educate himself rapidly, he had little to no formation on what it meant to be a good person. Without a parent or teacher to teach him morality, and while living in a world that constantly abused and took from him, the creature turned to the one thing that he understood naturally, vengeance. Therefore, Victor was responsible for any actions that the creature took, both because he did not conduct his research with morality in mind, and that he did not guide the creature to be a good being. Shelley uses this situation to instill in her readers the understanding that if they do not act responsibly towards others, and do not take responsibility for their actions, some evil will come because of their irresponsibility. This understanding of responsibility has helped me understand culture as a whole. It leads to an understanding of the cause and effect nature of our world, and has helped me analyze cultural occurrences in many situations.

Developing an understanding of responsibility helps in daily life, and also helps you understand what causes people or groups to take specific actions against others. This helped me analyze the creature in “Frankenstein in Baghdad”, and the way that it was written. Being able to analyze the cause and effect nature of our world is very useful, as seen above. It has helped me analyze other texts that I have read, as well as to understand the contexts of issues such as arguments with others in my personal life. Due to this, I would highly recommend anyone reading this to take a good long time to analyze Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. To those people who may be considering taking this course, I would say that you must keep an open mind. You must read ahead of time and do work far before it is due (that is just for your own benefit so that you do not get swamped with work). Finally, you must strive to see the deeper meaning behind Shelley’s works, particularly when it comes to responsibility for your actions and for your creations.

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/16/18

Overview of Reception

 

Themes of Responsibility in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”

 

For my overview of reception of the “ERH-421WX – One Text: Frankenstein” course, I have chosen to focus on the contemporary dilemmas of science that were warned about through the entirety of “Frankenstein”. Throughout “Frankenstein”, Mary Shelley constantly shows how Victor, the creator of the monster, is to be held responsible for how the creature turned out. I focused on this concept in every paper and project that I have worked on for this course. I am fascinated how such a general warning can live on and remain relevant for two hundred years. Shelley, who wrote “Frankenstein” in a time of great scientific achievement, as well as political and societal change, realized that there should be things done in order to prevent science from getting out of hand. When Victor Frankenstein ran from his creation, he left it to a hard world that ended up turning him into a monster. If Victor had given him guidance and raised him as a child, the creature would have been (we suppose) a functioning and healthy member of society. But Shelley also warns us of our actions towards others, showing how the creature was also turned to vengeance because of how all other people treated him. She shows how his morals were inverted by the poor treatment he received at the hands of all whom he encountered, forming him into a true monster. As a whole, she is reminding her readers to be good people, and to be responsible enough to care for and further develop their productions, lest they grow bad and cause more harm than good.

 

Sources:

“The Gentleman’s Magazine”. 88: 334-335. April, 2018.             http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/gentlemansmag

Reed, Edward S. “From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to   William James”. Yale University Press, 1997. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt32bjtm.6.pdf?refreqid=search%3Aaf7a05a4816df74401f53109d9c89a2c

Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth”. The Sewanee Review, Vol 89. The     Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27543797.pdf?refreqid=search%3Aaf7a05a4816df74401f53109d9c89a2c

Baumann, Rebecca. “Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley’s         Monster”. Indiana University Press, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt22p7j32.11.pdf?refreqid=search%3A76d1935e8fa51431c0373ed7c473ddd9

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/16/frankenstein-in-baghdad-by-ahmed-saadawi-review

“Frankenstein in Baghdad”, written by Ahmed Saadawi, is a rendition of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” meant to show that sort of narrative taking place in Iraq after the US invaded. There are many similarities and differences in these two versions of the “Frankenstein” story. Shelley’s largely romanticized narrative is traded for stories pieced together from several people perspectives, focusing more on the Gothic tradition than the Romantic. Saadawi used this style to reflect the culture of the Middle-East. In his society, where warfare between tribes is an every day occurrence, he reflected that in his writing by having each story teller take place of a tribe. As for the plot, Shelley used the story largely to warn people to be responsible for their actions towards others and what they create. Saadawi largely used his writing to explain the intricacies and culture of the Iraqi people. Both stories had a monster that was pieced together. While Victor was responsible for the creature turning towards revenge, Saadawi’s creature, “Whatsitsname” was geared towards revenge since it’s body was filled with a spirit killed in an Improvised Explosive Device attack. Both stories largely end with the tales of vengeance being taken by their monsters. So both stories are largely related and warn readers about responsibility. Shelley warns us of our responsibility to our offspring and others, and Saadawi warns us about our responsibility to find peace at all costs.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/181762534934967403/

The National Theater Production of “Frankenstein” was, in every sense, a beautiful show and rendition of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. The artistic ability of the producers was astounding. The transitions from scene to scene were practically flawless. The sets they used were simple, yet begged the audience to think for themselves, and to create their own powerful images of the environment in their minds. I only had two issues with production. The first was the steam punk scene, which may have been necessary to show the changing climate of late 1700’s Europe, but it just seemed over the top. My main complaint of the production was its grand over-sexualization of the text. Throughout the entire production, there were tiny elements of sexuality such as the creature placing his face in a whore’s crotch. But the thing that I saw as over the top was the second to last scene of the play, where the creature brutally raped Elizabeth. This was never in the novel, and it was a totally unnecessary addition to the story. While there is some merit to making the creature seem more brutal, it did not add anything to the story as a whole. Besides that, the production was fantastic, and I would recommend it to any mature audience.

My third essay for ERH 421WX was an analysis of 3 scholarly articles, and the conversation that they told. I focused these essays on the science used in Frankenstein, and Mary Shelley’s advice to her readers on how to treat science. Overall, I wanted to show my audience that Shelley does not want her audience to fear science, but to treat science with care and a sense of responsibility towards it. It also shows how society, and how we treat others, can make or break a new being. Overall, Shelley argues that we are responsible for every interaction we have with others, and especially our produce. We must support and guide our children, those who need help, or any creation that we make, or they may turn against us. The scholarly articles continue by explaining how the world we live in today is so interconnected that we need not worry about “Frankenstein” situations, but that we must still treat others well or else their morals may be “inverted” in the same way that the creature’s were.

 

 

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

12/12/18

Frankenstein Paper #3

 

The Burden of Responsibility

 

Mary Shelley, author of “Frankenstein” one of the most prominent books of the 19^th century, which is still widely publicized today, would be disappointed if she saw how society views her “Frankenstein”. “Frankenstein” has gone from a work of literature that warned people of their responsibility to their creations to a term that means to fear scientific discovery itself. Any time some new science is discovered or used, people refer to it as a “Frankenstein” science, where it will likely become some monster that has no benefit to civilization (200). Frankenstein, whose name is now practically interchangeable with the creature, created a monster that he could not control. That is how people view Shelley’s marvelous work. What they fail to realize is that if Frankenstein had raised the monster with good morals, respect, and fair treatment, there would have been no story. The scene would have played out into a wholesome and peaceful ending. But this message has largely been lost to modern audiences. Countless articles, journals, and books have been published on this topics, not only by philosophers and literary critiques, but they have also been written by scientists who are concerned with “Frankenstein’s” false message that is resonating throughout much of modern society.

When Mary Shelley was writing “Frankenstein”, scientific knowledge was very different from today. Many competing theories were present in anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Having recently learned about electricity, scientists were not sure of its capabilities or applications, begging the question of whether it could re-spark the life force in humans. Shelley, who lived near a prison, often heard the bells ringing for prisoners who were receiving the death penalty. Often after their penalty was complete, their bodies would be offered to scientists to study the anatomy and physiology of the human body. There are many different reports of scientists testing electricity on the human body, and seeing the body react in ways that were only thought possible when the subject was alive. This furthered the curiosity about the possibility for humans to resurrect corpses. Shelley, who with her upbringing and marriage to a profoundly educated and intelligent husband, was naturally curious about these scientific experiments that she heard about so often. This curiosity is reflected by Shelley’s creature in “Frankenstein” (200).

Victor Frankenstein’s creature committed murder and arson on several occasions, making him seem like a morally bankrupt being that is incapable of reasoning. From what Shelley wrote, that is anything but true. The creature is shown as highly intelligent, being able to learn English in a matter of months without the aid of other humans. The creature is supernaturally athletic, being able to bound over mountains and the arctic. When he was first created, he had no ability to reason, think, or understand anything around him. All that he knew was what felt good and what felt bad. In this way, “Shelley had thus picked out what was deemed most objectionable in this underground psychology: that feelings associated with ideas were or are more important than the provenance or meaning of ideas” (Franken sci 51). Victor’s creature, while learning how to function as a basic human being, was also absorbing information from those good or bad feelings he received. Whenever he went into public, or tried to do anything for anyone (like help a little child by a river) he was greeted with screams and hatred. This, obviously, made him feel like an outcast, resulting in him feeling bad. Eventually, the creature had to act in some way that was vengeful. Taking vengeance upon his enemies felt good, resulting in him finding that to be an acceptable behavior. After the creature kills the boy at the river, his taste for vengeance ever increases. He finally goes to the man who gave him the greatest pain, Victor.

Victor, the father of the creature, had failed to raise him, running away in terror the first time he saw the creature awake. Instead of guiding him to be a morally responsible creature, he left him on his own to survive. After years of learning and wanting to feel like he belonged, the creature returned to Victor. On the glacier where they met, Victor again treated the monster poorly (albeit it was after his brother had been killed by the creature). The creature, in return, justified his actions against Victor’s brother by stating his need for vengeance. Over and over again, throughout the entirety of the novel, Shelley enforces and reinforces that Frankenstein’s creation “is not evil in itself but has been made that way by society” (scienc myth 42). This serves as a warning to all of those who are conducting new research or supporting scientific advance. Shelley, who was more curious about science than anything, wanted to promote scientific advances, while reminding society as a whole that they are culpable for making sure the research progresses in a way that does not get out of hand. This warning has been largely ignored in modern iterations of the “Frankenstein” story, but society has unknowingly already made advances that make it almost impossible for research to go completely awry as it did in “Frankenstein”.

The world is more connected than it has ever been in the entirety of human existence. Due to this interconnection, science has been publicized far too much, making matters of scientific advance widely known to all. While this does take away from scientist’s abilities to conduct “pure” research, it keeps scientists ethically culpable for their experiments. This is not directly the result of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, but it would please her to know that what she wanted society to get out of her story has largely occurred. Whereas Victor Frankenstein’s research was kept completely private, most research today is publicized and readily critiqued by ethics committees around the world. There are many examples of this ethical judgement from society and ethical committees, such as stem cell research, genetic engineering, and cloning. These issues, while they can be greatly beneficial to humanity, are largely restricted because they have been deemed unethical and potentially dangerous. With these restrictions in place, there will be no “Frankenstein” stories occurring in our society (Science myth 51 and 42).

Mary Shelley did not fear science, and it was not her aim to make others fear scientific advances. Her goal was to promote responsible research, where scientists and society would take care of their research and would act responsible for any good or bad results that came to fruition. She told this by showing the child-like and innocent nature of Victor’s creature. The creature is corrupted by a society that reacts only with fear towards the creature, instead of nurturing it, which results in the creature developing “inverted morals” where he chooses vengeance over forgiveness because it is the only thing that makes him feel good (Frankenstein’s Science 53). The message rings true today, in a time when science is advancing rapidly, that we must maintain accountability for what we produce, lest it harm humans or humanity as a whole.

 

 

Works Cited:

Baumann, Rebecca. “Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley’s         Monster”. Indiana University Press, 2018.

Reed, Edward S. “From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to   William James”. Yale University Press, 1997.

Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth”. The Sewanee Review, Vol 89. The     Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.