“To that which without gendered difference would only be a neutral experience of the space-time of perceptions and thoughts, an experience in which this feeling of incompleteness would be lacking as unhappiness, but only an experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic, to this neutrality gendered difference adds the suffering of abandonment because it brings to neutrality what no field of vision of thought can include, mainly a demand” (Lyotard 21).
“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (Shelley 147).
In “Can Thought go on without a Body?” Lyotard evaluates different traits that machines will need to have in order to continue thought after the demise of humans, one of which is awareness of gender differences. He argues that without recognition of the gender it lacks, a machine will not be able to have true thought. In Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s life is destroyed due to the revenge that his monster seeks on him when he refuses to accept his wish. Frankenstein consistently regrets the moment that he gave him life, but was this really where he went wrong? If read in the context of Lyotard, his true mistake was not giving him life, but rather, giving him gender.
When Frankenstein’s monster enters the world, he is met with nothing but hatred from humans, especially his creator. He is truly distraught by this, which we see especially well as he watches the DeLacey family. He is literally outside and looking in, wanting only to be included and accepted into their family and life - he tells Frankenstein, “to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection was the utmost limit of my ambition” (Shelley 134). He is not granted this wish, and so he continues on to find his maker and demand a female companion. The common thread here is that the monster is looking for something that is missing – someone to share the world with. He wants to be accepted by someone, or something. He says that he needs someone with whom he can “exchange the sympathies necessary for my being”, tying the suffering in his life to his existence in general.
Lyotard, too, writes of the bond between suffering and existence – “Thinking and suffering overlap” (18). He argues that if everything was perfectly fine and nothing was lacking then there would be no reason for thinking. Gender, then, gives us this feeling of lacking something - we lack the other gender, and this brings about desire. The monster desires to be accepted. He desires a female companion. According to Lyotard, the monster owes this feeling to gender difference. Lyotard makes the differentiation between how something without gender would interpret a lack of something and how something with gender would – an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic” versus a “suffering of abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Were the monster to not have gender, then, he would not feel this abandonment by Frankenstein and humans as he does. As these feelings are what lead him to his request for a mate and ultimately the revenge that he seeks on Frankenstein, the reason for them is really the cause of Frankenstein’s demise.
Frankenstein is not bothered by the monster’s mere existence – he originally dreams of a world in which a new species practically worships him as its god. Were the monster able to be a mere “machine” that Frankenstein could control he would have no problem with it – he is only brought to his tragic end by the monster’s retribution, which is caused by his thought and suffering. When reading Frankenstein, it’s easy to wonder why such a superior being would care about having a companion. Lyotard’s analysis of gender shows us how this can be. The monster does not see the world as an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic”. He has gender, and therefore faces “suffering without abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Frankenstein didn’t make a mistake when he created the monster – he made a mistake by allowing him to feel this lack.
3 comments:
You really answer the prompt quite well, giving a clear reason why Frankenstein can be looked at in a new light after reading Lyotard. I think it would have been interesting if you addressed what may have happened if Victor had created a female monster and potentially do some gender comparisons.
The introduction is very clear and sets up a good argument with the claim about what exactly Victor’s mistake was. When reading the essay I got slightly confused through the second to last paragraph. The structure was slightly misleading, I found myself rereading several times to figure out which quote pertained the presence of gender and which pertained to the absence of gender.
Also I feel “Were the monster to not have gender, then, he would not feel this abandonment by Frankenstein and humans as he does.” this is a very bold claim, maybe you should mention that this is true if viewed specifically in reference to Lyotard.
To me there is a clear counter argument that the mistake was made when he decided to create the monster as you present in your final sentence. Maybe you should elaborate more why this is incorrect. As well as constructing your argument for the fact that leaving out gender was the real mistake.
“To that which without gendered difference would only be a neutral experience of the space-time of perceptions and thoughts, an experience in which this feeling of incompleteness would be lacking as unhappiness, but only an experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic, to this neutrality gendered difference adds the suffering of abandonment because it brings to neutrality what no field of vision of thought can include, mainly a demand” (Lyotard 21).
“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (Shelley 147).
In “Can Thought go on without a Body?” Lyotard evaluates different traits that machines will need to have in order to continue thought after the demise of humans, one of which is awareness of gender differences. He argues that without recognition of the gender it lacks, a machine will not be able to have true thought. In Frankenstein, Frankenstein’s life is destroyed due to the revenge that his monster seeks on him when he refuses to accept his wish. Frankenstein consistently regrets the moment that he gave him life, but was this really where he went wrong? If read in the context of Lyotard, his true mistake was not giving the monster life, but rather, giving him gender.
When Frankenstein’s monster enters the world, he is met with nothing but hatred from humans, especially his creator. He is truly distraught by this, which we see especially well as he watches the DeLacey family. He is literally outside and looking in, wanting only to be included and accepted into their family and life - he tells Frankenstein, “to see their sweet looks directed towards me with affection was the utmost limit of my ambition” (Shelley 134). He is not granted this wish, and so he continues on to find his maker and demand a female companion. The common thread here is that the monster spends most of his narrative looking for something that is missing – someone to share the world with. He wants to be accepted by someone or something. He says that he needs someone with whom he can “exchange the sympathies necessary for my being”, tying the suffering in his life to his existence in general.
Lyotard, too, writes of the bond between suffering and existence – “Thinking and suffering overlap” (18). He argues that if everything was perfectly fine and nothing was lacking, then there would be no reason for thinking. Gender, then, gives us this feeling of lacking something - we lack what the other gender has, and this brings about desire. The monster desires to be accepted. He desires a female companion. According to Lyotard, the monster owes this feeling to gender difference. Lyotard makes the differentiation between how something without gender would interpret a lack of something and how something with gender would – while a machine without gender would have an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic”, one with gender would experience “suffering of abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Were the monster to not have gender, then, he would not feel this abandonment by Frankenstein and humans as he does, according to Lyotard he would only experience something that was neutral and purely cognitive. As his feelings of abandonment and being alone are what lead him to his request for a mate and ultimately the revenge that he seeks on Frankenstein, the reason for them is really the cause of Frankenstein’s demise.
Frankenstein is not bothered by the monster’s mere existence – he originally dreams of a world in which a new species practically worships him as its god. He seems perfectly happy with the idea of his creation until he sees that he will not be able to have control over it, due to his superior strength. This physical strength would have just been a powerful tool for Frankenstein to use if the monster weren’t able to think and use it against his creator. Were the monster able to be a mere “machine” that Frankenstein could rein over he would have no problem with it – he suggests even that he would continue to create more. He is only brought to his tragic end by the monster’s retribution, which is caused by his thought and suffering. When reading Frankenstein, it’s easy to wonder why such a superior being would care about having a companion. Lyotard’s analysis of gender shows us how this can be. The monster does not see the world as an “experience producing a simple and pure cognitive aesthetic”. He has gender, and therefore faces “suffering without abandonment” (Lyotard 21). Without gender, Lyotard suggests that the monster wouldn’t even be able to think, keeping his deep-seeded revenge from ever being a problem. Frankenstein therefore didn’t make a mistake when he created the monster – he made a mistake by allowing him to feel this lack.
Scott - these are thoughtful responses to a thoughtful & interesting paper.
Heather - Usually I'm suspicious of opening with quotes, but this is a great pairing.
I found this to be, throughout the paper, a provocative and complicated essay, which does about as much as any short essay can be expected to do. You read Lyotard pretty well, you read Shelley even better, and you relate them to each other in a nuanced, convincing way.
One way in which I can imagine this being pushed farther is by elaborating what, to me, remains an implicit point: for Lyotard, we are driven by desire for what is different; the monster is driven by the drive, not only for what is different, but by the need for difference itself. That is, he lacks not only what the other hypothetical gender has, but he lacks that gender itself. Although one could also read him as being driven by a kind of desire for humanity (which, through its deep difference from him, is metaphorically a gender).
I also ended the paper wondering what your views are on Lyotard, ultimately - do you embrace or question this Lyotardian reading of the monster you've developed?
Good paper.
Post a Comment