Category: Blog ENG 334

Based on the comments that I received during our peer review session of the first five pages of our final papers, I feel as though I am in a good place to continue the revision process. After discussing my presentation draft with my peers I feel as though I have set some very strong ground work for the final version of the project. I think the biggest thing that I will be focusing on is adding stronger evidence to the work. As of now my work is primarily driven by my thoughts and ideas, however I think it will be more beneficial to comb through my sources once more and really find evidence that will both back my claim and provide an argument against my claims. I wish to still include both types of evidence in order to strengthen my thoughts. I want my help my readers see potential arguments and my thoughts and reasonings against such.

In addition to adding this evidence, I think I will have to delete some of my own work to make sure that I have room so to speak. I intend to keep this work that I have done for the final paper, but I do not believe it is necessary to include in my presentation. Also, I plan to make some simple edits regarding some of mu sentences that contained extraneous fraising. It’s my home that by deleting some of this wording it will both make room for more evidence, as well as make my points that much clearer.

One thing that I feel as though is a strength in my project currently is my organization. Both rereading it for myself and reading peer feedback has told me to stick with my organization scheme at the moment. Though I do recognize I may have to rework some of my section to fit with the new information I will be adding. This may cause me to have to restructure a little bit, though I do not believe it will warrant any huge changes to the format of the presentation. Moving forward to the essay I think I will also stick to my current format while I add my second claim along with the evidence and critiques that accompany that.

This passage can be found right at the beginning of Ross C Murfin’s essay, Marxist Criticism and Frankenstein. Murfin begins his writing by justifying to his reader why Marxist criticism is still relevant after the fall of the USSR. It is Murfin’s view that it was in fact the fall of the USSR that in fact strengthened the use of Marxist criticism in the literary world. He argues that since the taboo associated with Marxism lifts somewhat after the fall of the Kremlin. Without the need to fight and discourage communism and Marxism on such a strong and prominent front literary critics could step out of the shadows and look at texts in new and different ways without fear of social prosecution. One key point Murfin makes is “the assumption that Marxist criticism will die on the cine of a moribund political system rests in part on another mistaken assumption, namely, that Marxist literary analysis is practiced only by people who would like to see society transformed into a Marxist-communist state, one created through land reform, the redistribution of wealth, a tightly and centrally managed economy, the abolition of institutionalized religion and so on. In fact, it has never been necessary to be a communist political revolutionary to be classified as a Marxist literary critic” (Murfin 447.) He is clarifying what it means to be a Marxist critic to show potentially sceptic readers that his essay is very much valid.

I think is very important that Murfin began his essay in this way, because he is showing his readers that it is okay to be a Marxist critic and they still have very good things to say when it comes to literature. Murfin is telling his reader this is why this matters and he is doing his best to disband any lingering societal stereotypes before delving into the body of his work. However, this made me as the reader question why did he begin things by explaining to us why Marxist criticism is relevant and “okay”? Why didn’t he begin things with defining the term? To me it felt as though he assumed his readers knew the term and was immediately assuming that his readers would take a negative view on things, so he started on the defensive. To be honest this made me as a reader almost feel attacked when beginning his worked, which in turn game me a more negative view on the essay as I read. However, I do see where Murfin was coming from and would say that this passage was essential to his work.

Looking through the primary sources that were brought into class wav very interesting I thoroughly enjoyed getting a chance to look at the historical documents and try to understand why each was created when they were. When asked to pick a document or artifact to write about I found it to be a bit difficult since there were so many interesting pieces. I finally chose a magazine called Young Folks’ Annual. Within this is a collection of different articles dispersed amongst each other on topics of politics, science, and how to live. I chose to focus more on the science aspect of the magazine since I found that it tied into our discussions of heart and science.

The particular article I chose to focus on it entitled The Temperance Teachings of Science by Prof. A. B. Palmer, M.D., LL.D. The article was published in 1886 only four years after the first publication of Wilkie Collins’ Heart and Science. Though This article concerns the effects of alcohol on the body and not vivisection like in Heart and Science, one must keep in mind that each was written in a time where science was rapidly changing and finding new ways to define itself. Though Heart and Science can be said to argue against the use of vivisection in science, it can also be said that it emphasizes the importance of science in the late 1800s. This something that Palmer’s essay is also doing. Early on in the essay Palmer addresses that they were living in a time where science had turned over a new leaf and was in the midst of many new and great discoveries. He uses the example of a candle. Palmer explains that in the past (or before the second half of the 1800s) scientists used the light of a candle to help perform their experiment, whereas today (in 1884) the candle itself is now being studied.

Palmer continues in his work to inform his readers of the effects of alcohol on the human body. He describes in great detail how the depressant moves from the stomach to the blood and to the brain and each of the effects it has on the body along the way. Having read many articles surrounding the debate of vivisection, I cannot help but wonder and ask how did Palmer reach such explicit conclusions about the human body. One could argue that the information given in this article is extremely informative and relevant, considering prohibition was a mere 35 years away. However, the same could be said for many of the conclusions found as a result of vivisection. The second half of the 1800s was a time that science evolved to be a stepping stone for what we know today. Our ideals and morals have changed since then and yet what we know is largely based on those findings.

After reading O’Gorman’s essay on Suzan-Lori Parks’ play In the Blood, I found myself in alignment with many of her arguments. In my own reading of the play, In the Blood stands as a strong example of forwarding Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter in a contemporary and modern setting. From my view, Parks’ took the skeleton of Hawthorn’s work which aims to shine a spot light on issues of what it means to be just and moral. The Hawthorn’s novel shows us through the lens of the mid 1850s, what it was like to be judged by the puritan society in 1642. Through the characters of Hester, Chillingworth, and Dimmesdale I as the reader was able to see the different ramifications when conformity with society is both upheld and also broken. To me this exactly what Parks did with her own work, however she placed the same issues and dilemmas in modern day New York.

Parks used the authority of Hawthorn’s work to her advantage. By forwarding his ideas she legitimized and authenticated her own play about a women who has fallen from society today, a story that has been told and heard countless times. Without the backing of The Scarlet Letter, it is my opinion that the play would be far less interesting and prominent in modern culture. This is something that O’Gorman states in However, I found that there are discrepancies between O’Garman’s analysis and my own. She states within her essay that self-repression due to societal norms is a major theme that Parks brings to light in her play to mirror The Scarlet Letter, however I beg to differ that in truth neither Hester is truly self-repressing. In fact it is society itself that confines each of these women. Moreover, it is in fact characters like Dimmesdale and Welfare who are surprising themselves. Parks’ version of Hester has been cast aside by society with no home or education to speak of. According to O’Gorman, Parks insinuates that Hester “chooses to continue reproducing rather than developing her skills” (O’Gorman, 50), when in fact it is societies refusal to accept and assist Hester that holders to her position out society.

O’Gorman does address the issue of education in her work saying that it was Hester’s education in both works that caused her to break from a self-repressive state. It is stated within the essay that it is Hester’s homelessness and illiteracy that “allows her some liberation from the way in which her community has branded her” (O’Gorman 52), though I would argue that it precisely Hester’s lack of an education and lack of a home that has cast her from society in the first place. Today the status of a women depends on her level of education and her ability to live in a domestic home, neither of which Hester is able to do. It is my opinion that Parks created this Hester in this way to emphasize the fact that it was not Hester’s choice to be thrown aside by society. This is also true in Hawthorn’s version, however with the 1642 backdrop it may appear less apparent to the modern reader.

Wang, Fuson. “The Historicist Turn of Romantic-Era Disability Studies, or Frankenstein in the Dark.” Literature Compass, vol. 14, no. 7, July 2017. EBSCOhost,

https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.une.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1111/lic3.12400

• This article takes Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and places it under the lens of disability. Fuson Wang compares different readings of the text with today’s disability critics’ views. He draws upon evidence from many different time periods including, the romantic-era of disability studies and the enlightened view of disability. Wang argues that by reading the text with disability in mind it is clear that “Shelley offers a more nuanced account of abnormal embodiment than disability scholars have traditionally allowed.” If I choose to pursue this thread, I believe that I would be able to forward Wang’s in a few different ways, however I have not chosen exactly which yet.

Bissonette, Melissa Bloom. “Teaching the Monster: Frankenstein and Critical Thinking.” College Literature, vol. 37, no. 3, 2010, pp. 106–120. EBSCOhost, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.une.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=cddd7c32-0ab6-4f90-b11a-3792beebdbcf%40sdc-v-sessmgr01

• I am an Elementary Education major, so this article jumped out at me as I was researching this text. Within this work Melissa Bissonette analyzes the way that Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is taught. It is her view that the novel should be taught to new readers threw the monster and the different unknowns that he brings to the table. She argues that many students of the text lack a critical lens and are not guided in such a way that will allow they to fully analyze the text to its fullest potential. I am not convinced this is the exact article that I wish to write midterm on but it is headed in the right direction so I have decided to include it here. I would love to write about the concepts of nature vs nurture and the deferent critical lenses of that have been used to analyze this text.

The Educational Legacy of Romanticism, edited by John Willinsky, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1990. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uneedu/detail.action?docID=685980.

• Within this essay Anne McWhir examines the education of the monster in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein through the lens of romanticism. She argues that Frankenstein’s monster was doomed both by origin and his education. McWhit delves into other works of similar topic as well as the everlasting debate of nature vs nurture. After doing a brief reading of this article, I have been lead to believe that it is this that I will base my midterm on. It covers many topics that I am interested in and provides me with many different avenues to follow when looking to forward and counter.

This is my first reading of Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. For me, this novel was always the book referenced in academic discussion or reffered to when reflecting on high school English class, however it was a mystery to me. This being said I have quite a few unexpressed thoughts on the novel and after reading the critical history I found that some of my own thoughts did in fact align with what some of the modernists’ perspectives. I think the first thing that struck me, and we did discuss this some in our previous class, was just how gloomy the tone of the book truly is starting from the very first chapter. From there I couldn’t help but examine the three main characters and the society they lived in as well as the way the story line unfolded.

First and foremost, I couldn’t help but dissect the character Hester as I read the novel. Hester, for all intents and purposes, seems to be a very “normal” women in my view, in fact I would almost say that she is quite remarkable. She made a mistake, she is a loving mother, and she is able to show compassion towards others. In my opinion, Hester as a character could have been written into a novel in any time and he character would hold true. Hester is described as being unwomanly by the author, however from my first reading, I found that the tone of the author almost implied that he secretly admired the character’s ability to think freely and independently. This view does fall in line with the modern critics that look at the novel through a feminist view.

To continue the thought of feminist’s I couldn’t help but notice how both of the leading male characters died at the end of the story. The way the men in the story reacted to the affair contrasted Hester’s actions greatly. We knew form the beginning that Hester was going to take on the act as soon as she stepped out of the prison, and in the face of great scrutiny she holds the identities of both her husband and lover. Hester allows both men to walk away from the incident, yet both men choose to suffer greatly. I found it interesting that though Dimmesdale is never publically shamed he is the one driven to death by shame and sorrow, not Hester. Similarly, Chillingworth also succumbed to death after the death of Dimmesdale, no longer having a victim or target for his anger and hate. I wonder then why is that Hester alone prevails the incident, going on to be a loving mother of Pearl. From what I have heard about Hawthorne’s writing and from what I have read in the critical history it does not surprise me that both of the dominate male characters are the ones who are depicted as suffering the most and enduring the most pain.

The end of the nineteenth century was a pivotal time in the collective views of the western society. During this time society fought to orient its moral compass and define a set of societal beliefs that would propel it into the perils twentieth century. In Sara Murphy’s project Heart, Science and Regulation: Victorian Antivivisection Discourse and the Human she argues that the large political and social debate over scientific branch of vivisection was the largely the platform on which the English society stood to argue right from wrong and what was to be accepted in the impending futuristic world. Murphy cites the work of the novelist, Willkie Collins, saying his book Heart and Science largely reflected the struggles of the day. Towards the end of her project Murphy states, “antivivisectionists sought to define emotional and dispositional norms that would articulate the category within of humanity with national identity” (383). She is saying that though the scientists of the day were locked in a heated debate of whether it was right to conduct scientific experimentation on live animals, they were in fact on the larger scale fighting to change the views of an entire civilized society.

Murphy touches upon three crucial elements that were involved in such a revolution of public view, the governing law, humanistic nature, and the influence of literature. Upon further examination of all social revolutions it would appear that these three elements are the building blocks of a societal change. As Ovit pointed out within her work, a trial, which is to say an in depth examination of the law, is merely a reflection of the accepted belief of present day. Farther more, this is to say that the law is an articulation of the collective population’s moral views. Though not all governing laws are a true representation of the public opinion, it is undeniable that all laws do have an impact on public views. Whether they are in favor of such laws or against, laws help unify the people’s views of difficult subjects.

In perhaps a subtler way than the governing law, literature also has an enormous impact in shaping the views of the masses. Murphy sites the work of others by saying “‘English literature may be pressed into our services […] help[ing] to awaken public opinion’” (375), in other word we are able to use literature to our advantage using the power of the written word to help change the views of the larger population. Often times such literature pulls at the third most important aspect of a shift in public view, human nature. We as humans are extremely predictable, and generally fall back on what we find “natural”. Writers use their works to pull at the most fundamental elements of what it means to be human, in order to persuade their readers of their convictions. The collective view of an entire population is not something that can change overnight. It takes time and the help of, the law, the written word, and basic human needs to create a societal revolution.

Annotations

I found both the readings from Appendix B and Otis’s essay to be very intriguing on many different levels. One aspect that I was very drawn to, perhaps because of our discussion in class on Monday, was the topic of why a novel was written. I found it very interesting to go from reading a novel such as Frankenstein who’s meaning and purpose can be taken in hundreds of different directions, to a Heart and Science which begins with two prefaces that give the read explanation to the intended purpose of the text. Otis concludes at the end of his essay “that Collins and Wells retry Ferrier by creating fiction that recalls and challenges his science” (46).

Heart and Science, though arguably not one of Collin’s best works, was written for a distinct purpose. The novel aims to influence the societal views during the turbulent ethical debates of the end of the nineteenth century. Collin’s does this the best way he knew how, through the written word.

Collin’s achieves his goal by depicting the character of Benjulia as a mad scientist. Throughout the entirety of the novel Bejulia is portrayed in ways the make him seem barbaric, untrustworthy, and almost monstrous. Collin’s plays to the prejudices of the day by describing the scientist as having “the hair of an American Indian” and the complexation of “true gipsy brown.” By using subtle characterizations such as this Collins argues his point that vivisectionist are barbaric and bad people. This is similar to the way Claude Bernard’s views of vivisection which describe such scientists as men who do “not hear the animal’s cries of pain, and [are] blind to the blood that flows, and who [see] nothing but [their] idea and organisms which conceal from [them] the secrets [they are] resolved to discover.” Both of these depiction were of the same goal, to try and persuade the general population to view vivisection as a monstrosity of science.

Beyond the reading into the purpose of why Heart and Science written, I also came across many connections to our previous reading of Frankenstein while reading these supplemental texts. In the third section of Appendix B the concept of gender roles is brought into question which is something we talked quite a bit about during the reading of our last novel. We concluded that there quiet a lot of evidence to read Frankenstein through the lens of a feminist, and it would seem the there is also for Heart and Science. In Otis’s essay he describes how Collin’s seems to categorize his characters “into either ‘heart’ or ‘science’ camps” (38) with many of the women falling into the heart camp. Yet it is also argued in Appendix B that “it is not true that fools and women and children are on one side, and wise men on the other”. There is also a connection between Otis’s writings and points about the ethics of what is natural and the ethical dilemmas of Frankenstein. The monster created by Frankenstein seems to be denied ethical rights, because it is not natural. This seems to parallel with Otis’s point of if it ethical to maim natural animals for unnatural things (page 33.)

Over all there are far more connections between our three current reading pertaining to Heart and Science  as well as our reading of Frankenstein than I can fit into this one blog post. However, I hope to explore these topics and more during our in class discussion.

Allen Smith’s essay does pose an interesting view on the historical racial influences on Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. He explains to his reader the connection between the time’s West Indian and American Slaves and the concepts of master and slave. Smith also delves quickly into the ideas of sexuality denial and revenge. However, does leave out quite a view other views of our recent times. He picks and chooses from works that were publish in the mid twentieth century and forward, creating his own explanation of the creature and his creator.

One view that I found was not factored into Smith’s essay was the literary concept of education. How does our education shape our views and make us the people (or creatures) that we are today? Smith lightly touches upon this by comparing the way the creature learns from the De Lacey family to the way West Indian and American slaves who “were forced to find their covert education as they might” (553). I had never thought about the creature like a slave trying to learn denied knowledge in secret, instead I viewed the creature as more of a blank sleight who was starting fresh. In my mind I missed the fact that there were people in world history who aged to adulthood having no education. However, my issue with comparing these historical figures to the creature is the creature is more like a child. He did not have other life experiences to learn from like historical slaves did. I do in fact see the similarities, but in my mind the creature’s education is more representative of one of man’s most basic conundrums, nature vs nurture.

Another previously discussed topic Allen Smith draws upon is the concepts of sexuality. Smith only writes about this topic for an about two pages, however the idea spans enough to fill many more than that. His overall thesis about the topic of sexually seems to align with much of what was said in the critical history, however he does not branch out as much but rather focuses on how “the Creature is denied control and fulfillment in sexuality” (559). I was a little surprised with this and to read about Smith’s theory about the Creature’s thoughts about rape and sexual assault I was interested to see a different take. I personally was more interested in the ideas of gender roles and expectations that are pressed upon the monster. I would seem that the monster was heavily influenced by his observations and learnings and sought a female partner. Victor himself also represents quite a bit of sexual issues, so I would be curious to find out what Allen Smith would say about him. Over all you can see quite clearly that Allen Smith draws upon many of the basic ideas that are mentioned in the critical history, however brings his own take on things. I am very curious to discuss this in class!

            Surprisingly this is my first encounter with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. This being said, I was very interested to read the Critical History that accompanied the novel. Since I was going into this text cold, I decided to put my main focus on the character development and symbolism within the first segment of the book. I, unfortunately, did not have the time I would have liked to do a bit of background research on the novel and its author, so I decided to make my primary focus the physical text that I had in front of me. And I’m sure that anyone who has read Frankenstein before will agree with me when I say that this story is filled with motifs, symbols, and interesting characters!

            First I would like to share my views of the characters in the story. Victor Frankenstein is a character the I find to be very curious. Seeing how this first second of the book it narrated primarily my Victor it is both difficult and easy to read his character. I found that it was very interesting to have a window opened into his thoughts and his motives, but it also made it tough to see how others may have perceived him. One thing I found very interesting was the fact the throughout the entirety of the first 16 chapters Victor tells his readers over and over that he is not a mad man. To me this seemed like an odd thing to continue to mention, and suggested to me that Victor clearly was undergoing a serious internal struggle. It is very apparent to the reader that he is filled with overwhelming amounts of emotion throughout the reading, which shows us he struggles to self-regulate himself. Victor feels very intense emotion which is beautifully described to the reader and helps the reader sympathize with him. However, there are glimmers of the different perspectives of Victor’s behavior. When Clerval visits Victor after he has created his monster he cries “…what, for God’s sake, is the matter? Do not laugh in that manner. How ill you are! What is the cause of all this?” (63). This gives us readers a window of a new perspective. It would seem, contrary to what he tells the reader, that Victor may be indeed a bit of a mad man.

            When it comes to the monster himself, I was very intrigued. To me the monster that Frankenstein created is more than a character, and more of a representation of the human nature. The monster shows through his story that he is torn between an terrible vengeful nature and soft tender tendency toward compassion and kindness. As I was reading I was almost tempted to view the monster as a manifestation of Victor Frankenstein himself. After scarlet fever killed his mother, Victor seemed to enter a bit of a downward spiral of grief in which he seemed to harness to create his monster. Through a metaphorical lens I could see that the monster seems to embody Victor’s humanistic internal struggles. He shows a side of great compassion and yet turns to a crazed furry as well.

            With a different approach I saw that the monster showed us readers how an education can mold and sculpt a human being. The monster learns from the French family and witnesses their struggles and kindness. He takes what he sees and internalizes it and begins to commit kind acts for the family such bringing in wood. However, the monster did revert back to aggression and anger after the family turns on him. I feel as though the cause of this was due to his abandonment by his creator. To me the mirrors the dangers of abandoning a child at birth. The child is dependent on their mother (or their creator) to show them how to create meaningful human connections, and if they miss out on this it will follow affect them for the rest of their lives. The monster in this case shows just this, he is able to attempt to learn compassion and kindness in later life but is greatly affected by the scares left from the absence of Victor when he was first created.

            I was very interest to read the critical history of the text, because I found that in some ways my views of the novel fell in line with some of the reviews and I also had my eyes opened to new perspectives on of the text. I was very interested in the viewpoints Johanna Smith and the other scholars who studied the text through a feminist lens. I thought Laura Kranzler’s made a very interesting point by conjecting that “Victor’s creation of life and modern science’s sperm banks and artificial wombs show a similar ‘masculine desire to claim female (re)productivity for themselves’” (279). This had not occurred to me when reading the text, but it got me thinking and finding myself in a bit of an alignment with these views.

            One other view point that I would also like to explore is the thoughts of Grant F. Scott’s queer reading. While reading the text initially I did notice subtle tones of homosexulaism within the story. I would be interested to broaden this theory a bit and examine it more closely since the view points on such a topic has changes so dramatically in the last 250 years. When I finished reading this critical history I felt as though I found myself thinks similar thoughts about each of the different perspectives. I wish that this critical history was able to focus in on some of the bigger time periods and perspectives rather than trying to give us readers as many as possible. As I read I found things that greatly interested me, however there wasn’t the elaboration on the topic that I would have hoped for. However, over all I was very interested and pleased with both the original text and the critical history.