--Frankenstein is ultimately interpretable. Because the text is so greatly misunderstood and misrepresented by almost every one of its reproductions, critics are not only free to draw any conclusion they want from it, but almost feel compelled to spread their enlightening words to the masses.
--Despite Shelley's reluctance to place any sort of external meaning on her text, that mysteriousness is exactly what has encouraged critics to search for meaning. The phenomenon of applied meaning to Frankenstein is a sort of precursor to the death of the author. Perhaps more important is that critics very rarely interact, with each interpretation of Shelley's novel existing in a kind of heterogeneous soup of theory.
--Most contemporary Romantic critics believe the monster to be unfailingly sympathetic while failing to look at any of Victor's redeeming qualities or the creature's vices. Indeed, their opinion is that the creature is an example of what humans should be while Victor is one that should be reviled. Contemporary criticism as reached consensus against opinions, rather than embracing a plurality.
--The core of Frankenstein's value lies in its ability to present readers with insoluble problems that must be approached from both sides, not in forcing readers to choose one in particular. While choosing one perspective may not be wrong, the forceful methods many teachers take to informing their students about them often crowd out other modes of thought.
--Rousseau might provide an overly simplistic reading of Frankenstein. Though the creature is the essence of Rousseau's thought, the idea that Victor is inherently flawed because he is part of human civilization and that the creature is inherently good because he is not cheats the reader of much of the moral tension that Shelley sought to create.
No comments:
Post a Comment