Frankenstein’s monster, a result of scientific innovation, was endowed with life and suddenly found himself in a world of which he knew nothing about. Comparable to the birth of humans, both the monster and infants begin their lives with an empty canvas, as they begin learning from the instant of their introduction to the world. Based on this similarity of comparison, Frankenstein’s monster can represent the most basic form of human existence: because the monster is young and naïve to society, he expresses his basic yet powerful emotions in an uncensored manner. Instead of the monster representing the doom of humanity as a result of technological advancements, the monster can represent humanity itself. The application of Lyotard’s ideas to the emotions of the monster can therefore provide a foundation for explaining why humanity in general experiences unhappiness: ultimately, because of the existence of two separate genders.
In Lyotard’s essay “Can Thought Go On Without A Body?”, the relationship between thoughts and unhappiness is questioned and investigated. According to Lyotard, feelings of abandonment and incompleteness due to gender differences brings about strong forces of desire (Lyotard 22). This spoken desire, to the monster, was that of acceptance, compassion, and companionship from other living beings, as he states the following: “I am an unfortunate and deserted creature; I look around, and I have no relation or friend upon earth…I am full of fears [in being] an outcast in the world forever” (Shelley 136). Seeking to realize his dreams, the monster was only brutally rejected by his beloved De Lacey family and Frankenstein refused to provide a female companion. The monster’s desires grew so strong that, when not fulfilled, a desire for revenge took its place.
The monster's extreme unhappiness and despair grew exponentially, and can be traced back to his thoughts of gender and acceptance. Because he was aware of his gender, and also learned of human relationships formed between opposite sexes, the monster’s misery stemmed from this void in his existence. Here Lyotard’s view can be applied as he states that “Thinking and suffering overlap” (Lyotard 18). Lyotard believes that we think because there is something missing; in the monster’s case, he is missing a companion of the opposite sex.
Perhaps the knowledge of gender differences is not the main source of unhappiness in humanity, but it can certainly be considered the basis of such, as the simple desire for acceptance and companionship causes humans to think, which in turn cause our suffering, and may account for various negative actions in society. When reinterpreting Shelley’s work in such a way, it can be concluded that had Frankenstein created a genderless monster, he would not have felt such unhappiness and despair. Similarly, should humans remove focus from gender differences in society, we would not be consumed with thoughts of fulfillment, and much of our current unhappiness would become absent.
4 comments:
Josh-- I know this still needs a lot of work, but I seem to have hit a wall...I think i have a decent start, but i'm having trouble organizing it and providing support in a way that makes a better argument. Any suggestions would be a lot of help..
hey sorry i didnt check the blog earlier ive been trying to get all my work done so i can celebrate this weekend lol.
Alright first i think your best paragraph is definitely the 3rd.I think thats where you really get into the best part of your arguement. He suffered because he lacked a mate...and as a result of that suffering began thinking of ways to screw with Frankenstein, and eventually he couldn't think of anything but turning Frankenstein's life into a living hell.
I think thats the best way to approach this prompt, mostly because i think its easier to treat this topic broadly, like instead of approaching it from the HE/SHE angle just take it back to suffering causes thinking, and have the HE/SHE thing in there as a major cause of suffering but not the only one.
Itd would mean having to tweak your thesis, but i think its a better/easier way to go about it.
Id take the intro from your first paragraph talking about the monster and the blank slate, then id go right into your third paragraph about suffering driving the monster to think. then just talk about other elements that made the monster suffer, Then go into the HE/SHE arguement in a paragraph or two, finally conclude with your idea how the monster is really genderless, the division between him and humanity is the real source of his suffering. And what drove him to think so complexly.
I hope this helps and ill definitely try to check more often if you wanna try talking about it outside of the blog just facebook me and post or something
Frankenstein’s monster, a result of scientific innovation, was endowed with life and suddenly found himself in a world of which he knew nothing about. Comparable to the birth of humans, both the monster and infants start their lives with an empty canvas, as they begin learning from the instant of their introduction to the world. Based on this similarity of comparison, Frankenstein’s monster can represent the most basic form of human existence: because the monster is young and naïve to society, he expresses his basic yet powerful emotions in an uncensored manner. Instead of the monster representing the doom of humanity as a result of technological advancements, the monster can represent humanity itself. The application of Lyotard’s ideas to the emotions of the monster can therefore provide a foundation for explaining why humanity in general experiences unhappiness: ultimately, because of the existence of two separate genders.
The tale of Frankenstein effectively portrays the monster’s increasing unhappiness and despair as he grew older and gained more experience in the world. Comparable to the growth and intellectual development of humans, as more is learned about humanity, more reasons for unhappiness are uncovered. The leading cause of the monster’s misery can be traced back to his thoughts of gender and his yearning for acceptance. Because he was aware of his gender, and also learned of the human relationships formed between opposite sexes, the monster’s misery stemmed from this void in his existence. Upon the monster’s creation, it can be argued that he had no sources of unhappiness until this realization was made. Therefore, had gender not existed, the monster would feel no absence, and thought would not have occurred.
In Lyotard’s essay “Can Thought Go On Without A Body?”, the relationship between thoughts and unhappiness is further investigated. According to Lyotard, feelings of abandonment and incompleteness due to gender differences brings about strong forces of desire (Lyotard 22). This spoken desire, to the monster, was that of acceptance, compassion, and companionship from other living beings, as he states the following: “I am an unfortunate and deserted creature; I look around, and I have no relation or friend upon earth…I am full of fears [in being] an outcast in the world forever” (Shelley 136). The monster’s desires grew so strong that, when not fulfilled, a desire for revenge took its place.
As the monster’s thoughts are applied to the workings of humanity, Lyotard’s view is relevant as he states, “Thinking and suffering overlap” (Lyotard 18). Lyotard believes that we think because there is something missing; in the monster’s case, he is missing a companion of the opposite sex. To Lyotard, because gender is the origin of thinking, a world without gender would be a world without thought. One must be able to think in order to suffer, and suffer in order to think; therefore, the origin of suffering is ultimately the existence of gender differences.
The simple desire for acceptance and companionship, present in the monster’s more primitive thoughts and in every being of humanity, result in thinking and eventual suffering, and may account for many negative aspects of society. Should humanity remain thoughtless and ignorantly happy, acts of hatred, despair, and revenge would be few if present at all. When reinterpreting Shelley’s work in such a way, it can be concluded that had Frankenstein created a genderless monster, he would not have yearned for such companions, and therefore never would have felt such unhappiness and despair. Without the monster’s miserable disposition, his savage acts would not have been committed, and Frankenstein’s tale would have ended quite differently. Similarly, should humans remove focus from gender differences in society, we would not be consumed with thoughts of fulfillment, or any thoughts at all, and much of humanity’s suffering would cease to exist.
Josh - these are some good comments, especially re: the third paragraph. You two are working well together. One cautionary note - it is only occasionally a good idea to urge someone to be more general and less specific...
Amanda - I liked the idea of your introduction. You could have said it with about half as many words, though.
Your idea that the monster would not have experienced suffering without awareness of gender is interesting, but ignores everything that happens to him through the early part of his story. Maybe you could make it work, but not without talking about, for instance, how he suffers from cold, and from both fire and its absence.
Now, if you believe that Lyotard is right (or if you're simply going along with him temporarily) that gender/suffering is the origin of thought, and that we see this in Frankenstein, the way to demonstrate it would be through finding relevant material in the novel and talking about that - your argument, in other words, seems highly speculative.
Your ideas about gender and its role in the monster's suffering are relevant, interesting and, in my eyes, plausible. But you pay no attention to how the story of the novel works out, nor do you try to justify this set of concepts using the novel - nor do you explain why you agree with Lyotard.
Short version: this is an interesting argument, and a sharp improvement from your first paper, but it's an argument fundamentally devoid of evidence.
Post a Comment