Category Archives: Group 5
Comment on Victor’s Character Flaw by csulli
Thanks for your response Josh! I have left my post semi-unformed for the sake of the novel’s end. I don’t remember it and so I feel as if I cannot fully form my opinion around the tragic hero that Frankenstein is shaping up to be. I find that at the moment, his lack of responsiblitiy is currently what makes him a detestable person. His emotions reveal that he is sympathetic for the effects of his actions (death of Justine & agreeing to make a wife for the demon). So yes, he is very pitiful with his inaction and self-wallowing.
Thus, we share the same questions, will Frankenstein become a hero of his own tragedy? I’m doubtful. Continue reading
Comment on Frankenstein: The Evolution by Josh Ambrose
I think you could do a whole semester on the history of adaptation of Frankenstein! For a few thoughts on the early 1931 film, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_(1931_film)#Difference_from_film_and_book
Note that the film was based more on … Continue reading
Comment on Leading up to “a spark of being into a lifeless thing” by Josh A
That's a good final question, one that I've been pondering myself. Do you think Shelley legitimately thought when she wrote the book that the day was coming when AI would be created?
According to wikipedia, btw, the word "robot" was first used in the 1920s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_in_literature Continue reading
Comment on Victor’s Character Flaw by Josh Ambrose
So, do you find him a tragic hero? Likable but flawed? Or do you think he’s unsympathetic, almost villainous in his lack of responsibility? He certainly is a pitiable character in his sorrow, much of the time!
That said, will he really be a “scapegoat” if he was the one responsible for all of it? Continue reading
Comment on ‘the modern prometheus’ by Josh A
I think you're right! I think too that perhaps we can get a greater appreciation for the narrative's estranging qualities when we consider its original audience…and how unknown Shelley's narrative may have been for them.
Then again, was it THAT unknown? You've already referred to other creation myths. There's also the Jewish folktale of the Golem…but this very well may have been the first time an author tried to explain a creation myth with science (even "vague" science!) Maybe that's where the unknown truly came in. Continue reading
Frankenstein: The Evolution
Throughout our modern society we, as individuals, frequently complain concerning the variations between novels and the movies created in their image. In regards to Shelley’s Frankenstein this has never been more readily apparent. I must shamefully admit that while picking … Continue reading → Continue reading
‘the modern prometheus’
As I sat down to read Frankenstein for the ‘nth’ time (this is not the first time I’ve read it, nor is it the first time I’ve studied it at Mason either), I thought about it in a different lens … Continue reading →
Continue reading
Victor’s Character Flaw
In Volume I of Frankenstein, I noticed a reappearing character flaw in Victor. His utter lack of responsibility continually crops up in all that he does. His trait of irresponsibility first stood out to me when he begins his education in Ingolstad… Continue reading
Leading up to “a spark of being into a lifeless thing”
I agree with where Julia Douglas and Occasionalbologna (sorry, I do not know who in my group has that username:) were going with their blogs. I also thought about how Suvin states, “SF concentrates on possible futures and their spatial equivalents, but it can deal with the present and the past as special cases […]
Continue reading
Comment on Questions of Genre by Josh Ambrose
So the newness factor of reanimation is what makes the work science fiction? What would you say to those who argue that is a single factor, emblematic of what Suvin dismisses as cheap literature? Do you think that Dr. J and Mr. H is sciencefiction?
Inc… Continue reading