Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Frankenstein
>
2. Volume 2, chapters 1-9 (1818 edition), 9-17 (1831 edition)
Laurele, I'm not sure if I like either but I do think both are sympathetic to a degree, Victor for his singleminded effort toward creation and the remorse that haunts him afterwards, and the creature because of the isolation that defines him.
I've only read two of the chapters, but so far I don't see how the creature could have murdered anyone. He was kind to the family that he was hiding from, bringing them wood, etc. He didn't want to scare them so remained hidden. Frankenstein seems high on intelligence and short on acting responsibly.
Laurele wrote: "http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Indexe...Who is more likable, Frankenstein or his creature?"
Oh, the creature, definitely, at least so far. He has a noble heart; he helps out the De Lacys quite a lot, he is industrious in his learning, he is clearly quite intelligent, if people would only look past his exterior and judge the person inside, I think he could easily be a good, kind, loyal friend.
I wonder whether this book is ever used to give comfort to those who are physically deformed, helping them understand that the revulsion of some people is irrational and confirming that their goodness has nothing to do with their appearance. Of course there's the downside of how he reacts to rejection, but still . . .
Elizabeth wrote: "I've only read two of the chapters, but so far I don't see how the creature could have murdered anyone. "Read on. But you're right, Shelley presents him initially as a kind person (and he is a person, isn't he? Maybe I should stop calling him the creature and just call him the character or the created person or something like that, or maybe we should decide here on a name to use for him) with no malice or hatred in him.
Evalyn wrote: "Laurele, I'm not sure if I like either but I do think both are sympathetic to a degree, Victor for his singleminded effort toward creation and the remorse that haunts him afterwards, ..."Hmmm. As Paul noted in the first book thread, I'm not sure that this isolated single-minded effort is all that good a thing. And as for remorse, if it's come at all, it's come very slowly and without any of the love or affection that a parent ought to feel for even a disfigured child.
I am amazed at this second book. So much going on, such insights into human nature. Shelley seems to start with the Romantic idea of man as an innocent, harmless child of nature (even eating just nuts and berries, not even harming any animals for food), very much an Adam even if the world he is thrust into isn't a garden of Eden.
But then she seems to suggest that of the nature-nurture controversy (the controversy hadn't been put in those terms in her day, but it dates back at least to Shakespeare's Tempest and Caliban, doesn't it?) in the end nurture prevails over nature. Charlie's personality, which was by nature loving and affectionate, is turned by nurture into evil dimensions and directions, which overcome his nature.
So far, it seems that he recognizes this and regrets it and wants to revert back to his natural self. But whether he will be able to or not, we won't find out until next week.
Everyman said: "I wonder whether this book is ever used to give comfort to those who are physically deformed, helping them understand that the revulsion of some people is irrational and confirming that their goodness has nothing to do with their appearance. Of course there's the downside of how he reacts to rejection, but still . . ."I think it would bring despair rather than comfort, because the Creature's plight was hopeless. No one would stay around him long enough for him to show his goodness.
I agree that the creature is the more sympathetic, at least at this point. Still, he has a temper!Perhaps because VF is young, it's not overly surprising that he doesn't think about the long-term consequences of his actions - I think considering the full complexity tends to come with age and experience, in addition to knowledge. But, he was incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible. I think his reasons for not letting people know what he was up to stem from immaturity, ambition and arrogance. I don't think he wanted to share the "credit" he thought he would gain from his endeavors, but I think he also felt that he was smarter than others and he couldn't learn much more from them. I seem to recall a passage where he mentions getting all he can from classes, etc. - in his mind, he's beyond that now. Of course, he learns that he wasn't quite as smart as he thought, but too late.
On the notion of accepting those with deformities, it seems to me that this is in some sense a fairly modern concept. Even looking at the early 20th century's treatment of people with physical or mental handicaps/disabilities, people were often mistreated, discriminated against, feared or ostracized. And, this is the more common conditions, certainly not an enormous being created from body parts who appears to be physically superior and mentally able to learn, and who would evoke reactions for a variety of reasons.
Susan from MD wrote: "Perhaps because VF is young, it's not overly surprising that he doesn't think about the long-term consequences of his actions - I think considering the full complexity tends to come with age and experience, in addition to knowledge."Good point. And coupled to that, he hasn't been a parent. If he had been, I do believe that his approach would have been totally different.
2.1 1813:"NOTHING is more painful to the human mind, than, after the feelings have been worked up by a quick succession of events, the dead calmness of inaction and certainty which follows, and deprives the soul both of hope and fear. Justine died; she rested; and I was alive. The blood flowed freely in my veins, but a weight of despair and remorse pressed on my heart, which nothing could remove. Sleep fled from my eyes; I wandered like an evil spirit, for I had committed deeds of mischief beyond description horrible, and more, much more, (I persuaded myself) was yet behind. Yet my heart overflowed with kindness, and the love of virtue. I had begun life with benevolent intentions, and thirsted for the moment when I should put them in practice, and make myself useful to my fellow-beings. Now all was blasted: instead of that serenity of conscience, which allowed me to look back upon the past with self-satisfaction, and from thence to gather promise of new hopes, I was seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried me away to a hell of intense tortures, such as no language can describe.
"This state of mind preyed upon my health, which had entirely recovered from the first shock it had sustained. I shunned the face of man; all sound of joy or complacency was torture to me; solitude was my only consolation -- deep, dark, death-like solitude."
Victor is in deep psychological trouble, isn't he? And still, instead of seeking help and consolation, he takes refuge in his old nemesis, solitude.
Everyman wrote: "...Maybe I should stop calling him the creature and just call him the character or the created person or something like that, or maybe we should decide here on a name to use for him) with no malice or hatred in him...."Eman -- An English teacher to middle school/high school children with whom I spoke about this story said she instructed her classes to call him "creature" rather than "monster." With "Charlie" (@8) you take the step further and both of you demonstrate the power of naming. (For fun on this subject, peruse some of Adiche's fictional blog posts in Americanah.)
Yes, sadly we still see disrespect to basic human dignity (and oppression/misery resulting therefrom) as to people in so many forms yet today and that is what oft erupts into rebellion or acts of terrorism/killing or other baser behavior now as in the past. As Elie Wiesel wrote in his "Night" re the Holocaust, "[n]or shall I ever forgive the world for having pushed me against the wall, for having turned me into a stranger, for having awakened in me the basest, most primitive instincts". (in his case cowering and not protecting his Jewish father from a beating by the SS and being angry at his father for being "noisy" and provoking the SS's wrath).
Extreme mistreatment oft corrupts the soul. One hopes that character can withstand such abuse.
Laurele wrote: "2.1 1813:...Yet my heart overflowed with kindness, and the love of virtue. I had begun life with benevolent intentions, and thirsted for the moment when I should put them in practice,..."I hadn't noticed this before, so thanks so much for quoting that. Isn't this exactly the same frame of mind Charlie is in in his early times? His heart also overflowed with kindness and benevolent intentions, he thirsted (and with the De Lacys in fact was able to) put them in practice.
Uncanny, isn't it, how similar they really are? Both are clearly highly intelligent (how else could Charlie learn to read and write just from observation and self-teaching?), both have intense focus, both are benevolent in spirit, both have done acts which they shouldn't have.
Sue wrote: "As Elie Wiesel wrote in his "Night" re the Holocaust, "[n]or shall I ever forgive the world for having pushed me against the wall, for having turned me into a stranger, for having awakened in me the basest, most primitive instincts""Milton Mayer, a Jewish Quaker, expressed much the same idea in his book "They Thought they were Free," about ten German friends of his who had become Nazis and how the treatment of the Germans after WWI led so many decent people to allow, and even do, such monstrous things. Of course Shelley never had this in mind, but the psychological development (or destruction) of Charlie seems pretty clearly echoed in many post-WWI Germans.
It is the role of poets, isn't it?, to shed a light on what it means to be human, including on the dark corners of the human mind and soul, and Shelley seems to me to be doing this quite powerfully.
Laurele wrote: "Victor is in deep psychological trouble, isn't he? And still, instead of seeking help and consolation, he takes refuge in his old nemesis, solitude. "Very true.
Also true of Charlie. But while Victor's solitude is self-imposed and a choice of his will, Charlie's is imposed by the world against his will.
Does anyone, other than myself, think it's odd that De Lacey' son and daughter do not question the unexplained arrival of wood on their doorstep every day?
What is the point of the story about Felix and Safie and her father? It's a story of sacrifice and betrayal. Is it's purpose to explain that the creature learns that not all people in the world are good or honorable? I did notice that Safie's mother is a feminist, thus mirroring Shelley's mother. Is there some kind of message behind this? I obviously can't see it.
Why the references to so many books? Paradise Lost? Sorrows of Werter? Plutarch's Lives? Should I be looking for summaries of these books on Wikipedia? I'm assuming these books were read by most people in the 1800s, and that they have some relevance to the story. Is that so?
On the question of the wood showing up, I think they did question it a bit (or at least wondered where it came from). Since there was no immediate answer, I think they decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak, and enjoy the fact that they did not have to collect wood.On a broad level, Safie's story and the books were used to give Charlie exposure to a range of human nature and experiences and history. Her arrival and story allowed him to learn language, so that he could learn more via the books.
Yikes, late for work - more later. Interesting questions.
Elizabeth wrote: "Why the references to so many books? ....Should I be looking for summaries of these books..."To throw out a few more book names: How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler or Francine Prose's Reading Like a Writer or How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster -- there are a myriad of ways to read, each with values and drawbacks. (A few weeks ago, one of the participants on this board polled a bit on what participants here tended to research as we read, from history to geography to.... The responses ranged, often depending on the material being read and the time available when doing the reading.) One of the reasons rereading can offer such rewards is that when one returns to a text, one's own reading elsewhere enhances the experience.
Laurel has made it clear from the start of our selection process that Paradise Lost had strong influences on Frankenstein. But are any of us (well, maybe a few) willing to go out and tackle Milton in order to read Frankenstein? But might our curiosity be peaked enough to move it up on our TBR if we haven't already read it? (As Laurel so ably led some of us through it about seven years ago now elsewhere than Goodreads.)
Shelley was participating in and writing for a well read group that summer of ghost stories and these books would have been known to them. You might well find of value the Wiki article on The Sorrows of Young Werther, which includes statements like:
"In 1821, he [Goethe] commented to his secretary, 'It must be bad, if not everybody was to have a time in his life, when he felt as though Werther had been written exclusively for him.'" -- implying recognition of the universality of the story, even after he came to regret that his fame had been built upon it.
"He [the creature in Frankenstein] sees Werther's case as similar to his own. He, like Werther, was rejected by those he loved."
Likewise, the Wiki entry for Plutarch's Lives provides some good clues as to why Shelley might have included this particular book in the creature's leather case, i.e., its studies of the ethics and character of ancient greats, not just biographies of their lives.
For today's reader, it seems to me these selections help the story convey an aura of elitism and as being deeply embedded in the Romantic movement. Goethe, of course, became known as well for Faust and making deals with the Devil. So there becomes sort of a secondary allusion by naming one of his writings, without being quite so blatant.
PS -- while I think each of the books I mention has some great ideas about reading, I don't believe I have ever finished any of them. I'd rather read the literature! lol.
Lily wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Why the references to so many books? ....Should I be looking for summaries of these books..."To throw out a few more book names: How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. ..."
Thanks Lily for you thoughtful answer.
Susan from MD wrote: "On the question of the wood showing up, I think they did question it a bit (or at least wondered where it came from). Since there was no immediate answer, I think they decided not to look a gift h..."Yes, I got that he learned about the world and language, but surely the story of how Felix was betrayed has more meaning than that? Unless, the point was for the creature (now Charlie?) to learn that no all people have a sense of morality!
Elizabeth wrote: "Why the references to so many books? Paradise Lost? Sorrows of Werter? Plutarch's Lives? ."My opinion: Paradise Lost because it talks about the creation of man and the conversion of Satan from a presumably originally good angel in Heaven to a bad angel bent on the eventual destruction (if you consider an eternity in Hell such) of mankind. The Sorrows of Werther was a very influential novel at the time of the despair of unrequited love and the agony of a sensitive person dealing with insensitive life. It was highly influential at the time and, indeed, inspired a number of suicides of German youth. Plutarch because it gives examples of how to live life well, honorably, and nobly.
Those are just my guesses. These three were all central books in the education of intellectuals of Shelley's time.
Lily wrote: " But might our curiosity be peaked enough to move it up on our TBR if we haven't already read it? (As Laurel so ably led some of us through it about seven years ago now elsewhere than Goodreads.)"She also led us through it here in the summer and fall of 2010. Perhaps you weren't with us then?
Shows that maybe we should consider revisiting some of our early reads since we have a considerable number of posters now who weren't with us in the early years.
Speaking of the creature/monster/creation/Charlie, why do people think that Shelley never named him? (Really, that VF never named him.)
Everyman wrote: "Speaking of the creature/monster/creation/Charlie, why do people think that Shelley never named him? (Really, that VF never named him.)"One hypothesis: VF waffled on whether he had created a "man" or a "creature." In the second Biblical Genesis story, naming is a capability expressly given Adam. I think one starts to get mixed up in the role of language in defining creatureness, to coin a word. Also, perhaps on the very role of "the Word" in creation. Shelley may have been audacious in where she had been willing to tread -- although I don't see such a theme of creation emanating from words or maybe knowledge well developed. Certainly she does imply the dangers of creation enacted without wisdom. (So she takes us to the brink of what wisdom is embedded in what is.)
Genesis 2:19 "So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner..." NRSV
Everyman wrote: "She also led us through it here in the summer and fall of 2010. Perhaps you weren't with us then?..."Not that I remember! :-) That's about the time I started being aware of Goodreads discussions, but wasn't active for awhile. I started with another board.
Lily wrote: "One hypothesis: VF waffled on whether he had created a "man" or a "creature." ... I think one starts to get mixed up in the role of language in defining creatureness, to coin a word."Are back to Descartes here? It all does fit together, doesn't it?
Everyman wrote: "Speaking of the creature/monster/creation/Charlie, why do people think that Shelley never named him? (Really, that VF never named him.)"I think that naming is an act of love, or at least of acceptance, and VF felt neither of these for his monster. (I think of farmers I've known who have taken care not to name animals that are marked for slaughter.) Although Frankenstein set out to create a human being, he realized a moment too late that he had not, and could not dignify his folly by naming it.
I just thought also of the play and movie Amadeus, in which Salieri always refers to his hated rival Mozart only as "the creature."
Paul wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Speaking of the creature/monster/creation/Charlie, why do people think that Shelley never named him? (Really, that VF never named him.)"I think that naming is an act of love, or..."
Paul, I agree about the name and I was thinking the same thing - we name those we love and those who "belong" with us. I forgot about the Amadeus reference; my thought went to Breakfast at Tiffany's and naming the cat. Holly didn't feel she had the right to name the cat until they were sort of more committed to each other; she wasn't ready for the commitment, though I think the cat was!
Even when he was creating Charlie (or the creature, for those not naming!), he didn't seem to have any compassion or emotion - it was an experiment. Although there are a couple of comments where he compares himself as "creator" to a father, I don't see him as paternalistic at all - it just seems to be a convenient and obvious comparison.
I also don't see that he was wanting to create a person/human being/son - I think he wanted to create something new that would bring him recognition and glory. He didn't seem to consider a personal relationship with his creation.
Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Why the references to so many books? Paradise Lost? Sorrows of Werter? Plutarch's Lives? ."My opinion: Paradise Lost because it talks about the creation of man and the conve..."
Thanks, Everyman, for the information. I really enjoyed the section that described him reading the books. I wondered how common those particular books would be, given that he "found" them - it made them seem like books that would be more generally read rather than by the elite.
"Man's yesterday may ne'er be like his morrow;Nought may endure but Mutablilty"
Percy Shelley's poem Mutability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutabili...
Bosson Glacier, above Geneva. Source:http://www.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/Shelle...
Wendel wrote: ""Man's yesterday may ne'er be like his morrow;Nought may endure but Mutablilty"
Percy Shelley's poem Mutability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutabili...
Bosson Glacier, above Geneva. So..."
Thanks for the reference and the painting.
@25Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Why the references to so many books? Paradise Lost? Sorrows of Werter? Plutarch's Lives? ."My opinion: Paradise Lost because it talks about the creation of man and the conve..."
Interesting to me that each of these books deals with topics the 21st century touches upon in impacts to humans of the likes of bullying, discrimination, self-esteem, parental (especially maternal) bonding of a child, sense of self-worth,....
Lily wrote: "Interesting to me that each of these books deals with topics the 21st century touches upon in impacts to humans of the likes of bullying, discrimination, self-esteem, parental (especially maternal) bonding of a child, sense of self-worth,.... "That's what makes them classics -- that they speak both on a contemporary level (for their time) and on a core human level that is continuously relevant to what it means to be human and to try to live a good life.
Elizabeth wrote @20: "Why the references to so many books? Paradise Lost? Sorrows of Werter? Plutarch's Lives? ..."I suppose Shelley thought of Plutarch as a 101 on morals and Werther as a crash course on the human (male) heart. While Milton illuminates the relation between man and his Creator - or the role of Prometheus/Satan?
Not having read Milton I do not like to speculate, but I am (still) intrigued by Shelley's interpretation of Milton. May we assume that Mary's religious ideas were not quite conventional in 1816?
Percy, in his introduction to Prometheus Unbound says that he did not like to think of a reconciliation between Prometheus and Zeus:
I was averse from a catastrophe so feeble as that of reconciling the Champion with the Oppressor of mankind. The moral interest of the fable, which is so powerfully sustained by the sufferings and endurance of Prometheus, would be annihilated if we could conceive of him as unsaying his high language and quailing before his successful and perfidious adversary.
The only imaginary being, resembling in any degree Prometheus, is Satan; and Prometheus is, in my judgment, a more poetical character than Satan, because, in addition to courage, and majesty, and firm and patient opposition to omnipotent force, he is susceptible of being described as exempt from the taints of ambition, envy, revenge, and a desire for personal aggrandizement, which, in the hero of Paradise Lost, interfere with the interest.
The character of Satan engenders in the mind a pernicious casuistry which leads us to weigh his faults with his wrongs, and to excuse the former because the latter exceed all measure. In the minds of those who consider that magnificent fiction with a religious feeling it engenders something worse. But Prometheus is, as it were, the type of the highest perfection of moral and intellectual nature impelled by the purest and the truest motives to the best and noblest ends.
This leads me to a lot of questions. But one thing is clear as day: Frankenstein, our modern Prometheus, is nothing like the original!
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "Interesting to me that each of these books deals with topics the 21st century touches upon in impacts to humans of the likes of bullying, discrimination, self-esteem, parental (especia..."What is really striking to me on this reading is the power of the human need for companionship. Like Adam, the creature asks his "god" to make for him a companion, and in something of a reversal of the Biblical story, he promises to go away with her to a sort of Paradise in the wilds of South America (albeit a cloistered one). Like Victor, I found the creature's plea to be moving, and found myself wishing I could advocate for him against Victor's reluctance.
Kathy wrote: "What is really striking to me on this reading is the power of the human need for companionship."And striking indeed is Charlie's desperate need for companionship, yet Frankenstein tends to prefer isolation; he studies alone, creates alone, goes off in a boat late at night to be alone, goes climbing in the mountains to be alone. He has had companionship -- his brother, Elizabeth, Clerval, Justine. But for the times which are important to him, he turns his back on them and goes into solitude.
Charlie, on the other hand, as you point out, deplores his enforced solitude and is desperate for the companionship he sees in the DeLacys and reads about in his books.
Kathy wrote: "...Like Adam, the creature asks his "god" to make for him a companion,..."You sent me to Genesis, Kathy. My recollection of the story was that the initiative for a companion came from God, rather than Adam, parallel to some theological conjectures God made humankind for his own companionship. All of which stumble us into rich, complicated stories about the origins and responsibilities for companionship.
The second Genesis story is here, see Genesis 2: 18-25:
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Gene...
In the Priestly story of Genesis 1 humankind is made together. See Genesis 1:26-31:
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Gene...
Interesting... I was actually working from the text itself. In Chapter 7, the Creature, after reading Paradise Lost, says, "But it was all a dream: no Eve soothed my sorrows, or shared my thoughts; I was alone. I remembered Adam's supplication to his Creator; but where was mine?" A footnote in my Norton critical edition says: "Adam asks God for a 'human consort' in Paradise Lost VIII.357ff." It's interesting, now that I think of it, that Shelley has the creature learning his Biblical history not from the Bible itself but from Milton!
Kathy wrote: "...It's interesting, now that I think of it, that Shelley has the creature learning his Biblical history not from the Bible itself but from Milton!..."Kathy -- Part of why Paradise Lost gets a one star rating on my list of books, even though I recognize that it is one of the greats of the great books! Shelley herself (and so many others) probably learned her Biblical stories from Milton as much as from the Bible itself.
Thanks for catching the mismatch! I hadn't.
Kathy wrote: "Shelley herself (and so many others) probably learned her Biblical stories from Milton as much as from the Bible itself."Do you know how prevalent this was in Shelley's time? Would it have been only the "educated," or was ranking Paradise Lost with the Bible widespread in the general public?
Icydove wrote: "Do you know how prevalent this was in Shelley's time? Would it have been only the "educated," or was ranking Paradise Lost with the Bible widespread in the general public? "Excellent question. I hope somebody knows the answer.
I suspect that Pilgrim's Progress was likely a more common guide to the Bible than Paradise Lost, but I could easily be totally wrong.
I am behind again and am skimming through comments. So if I repeat a previously mentioned idea or question, please forgive me!A common theme that appears stressed is the effect of nature. The only times Victor or his creature have moments of ecstasy is almost exclusively when they experience some beauty in nature (with the exception of the few times Victor allowed himself to be comforted by family and friends). At the same time, nature, when "chased to her hiding places" is a source of horror.
Question: is the "power" of the creature he creates, especially as it becomes malignant, an illusion or real? I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly...I was thinking of Dr. Jekell and Mr. Hyde as well...and also sort of thinking of the laws of thermodynamics lol Victor is the higher source of intelligence and also, since he was a human by "nature" had the sources of soul and spirit. Could the power he feels the creature exhibits over himself really be greater than...himself?
Where does the creature's seemingly inherent sense of worth come from? "I asked, it is true, for greater treasures than a little food or rest; I required kindness and sympathy; but I did not believe myself utterly unworthy of it."
Genni wrote: "A common theme that appears stressed is the effect of nature. The only times Victor or his creature have moments of ecstasy is almost exclusively when they experience some beauty in nature ..."Nice observations. It's really interesting that while Victor is feverishly at work on his creation that he remarks on the beauty of the season, but he says that "my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature." (Chap. 4) During the course of the novel he is calmed and rejuvenated by trips into the countryside or the mountains, but these scenes and their health-restoring properties are often cut short by the appearance of the Creature, or his ill effects.
Clerval (who studies languages, not science) cheers Victor and together they go on "rambles in nature."
Clerval called forth the better feelings of my heart; he again taught me to love the aspect of nature and the cheerful faces of children... I became the same happy creature, who, a few years ago, loved and beloved by all, had no sorrow or care. When happy, inanimate nature had the power of bestowing on me the most delightful sensations. (Chap. 6)
I've been trying to think of the novel in terms of Paradise Lost, and while there are flashes of congruence between them, it just doesn't come together for me. I think maybe the reason for that is the lack of God in Frankenstein. Where there is God in Paradise Lost, there is Nature in Frankenstein. The original sin here is one against Nature rather than God.
Everyman wrote: "Icydove wrote: "Do you know how prevalent this was in Shelley's time? Would it have been only the "educated," or was ranking Paradise Lost with the Bible widespread in the general public? "Excell..."
The Bible is much easier to read than "Paradise Lost," and I think it was much more popular. This is the period following the Wesleyan revivals, and the common people would know their Bibles. If they did not read the Bible themselves, they certainly heard it read in their churches and chapels, whether Anglican or dissenting. Genesis and the gospels would have been especially well known. And those who read Milton would have read him with Bible at elbow.
Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: "A common theme that appears stressed is the effect of nature. The only times Victor or his creature have moments of ecstasy is almost exclusively when they experience some beauty in n..."Genni and Thomas, I think you are onto something. Nature was really important to the Romantics as a source of the Sublime. I think some of them left God and the human soul and spirit out of their thinking, making Nature supreme. Some of them were Christians, especially Coleridge and, in his own way, Blake, but others had left that behind. I read somewhere that Percy took a lot of the "religious" material out of Mary's manuscript.
Genni wrote: "Where does the creature's seemingly inherent sense of worth come from? "I asked, it is true, for greater treasures than a little food or rest; I required kindness and sympathy; but I did not believ..."That's a great question unanswered isn't it? If everything is nature, then there' soothing else.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Jane Eyre (other topics)Train Dreams (other topics)
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (other topics)
Essence of Christianity (other topics)
How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (other topics)
More...
Who is more likable, Frankenstein or his creature?