I’m sorry this is late! L I’ve been a bit under the weather and when I sat down to post yesterday it was clearly evident that I would get nothing done. Anyway…Here’s my post.
Freud argues, in his “The Interpretation of Dreams”, that “The attempt to harmonize divine omnipotence with human responsibility must naturally fail” (817). I cannot help but use this quote as a springboard of my analysis of Dr. Frankenstein in accordance with Freud’s principles. Frankenstein ultimately personifies this statement, in that, his attempts to produce a being out of the parts of corpses, is his way of taking the power of the divine and filtering it through his own human abilities. Needless to say, his experiment does not prove successful. The product of his experiment, however, is arguably a functioning being, and in this, develops a certain longing for companionship and the acceptance of those around him, especially Frankenstein. In creating him, Frankenstein forges a paternal relationship with his offspring, even if he tries to deny it. However, such bonds are nearly impossible to break, and although Frankenstein attempts to deny this lineage, he is undoubtedly the father of his creation. Furthermore, being that in creating his off spring in his own image, Frankenstein is also taking on the role of the heavenly father, ultimately functioning as both the father and the divine power ruling over the creature. According to Freud, men have a natural desire to detest their fathers, and in turn, kill them. The same, he argues, is to be said of the “primal father” or God. Therefore, in the world of Freud, it is impossible for the creature, let’s call him the son, to not want to kill his father, Frankenstein, or his primal father, arguably also Frankenstein.
But why is it that there is so much animosity towards Frankenstein, as both father and primal father? In reading Freud, and this awesome article I found entitled “The Symbolism of the Father- A Freudian Sociological Analysis” by Robert J. Bocock, I have gathered that in a situation where there is no mother present, the son will want to kill the father anyway, being that he upholds these morals of society, whether they be social, religious, or both, that preach strict code of repressing sexuality. There is also an inherent disliking of the primal or heavenly father in that he is the one who established these rules, and these constraints which inhibit sexuality. In following the primal father’s example, the father becomes just as bad, in that they both impede on the son’s ability to be sexually fulfilled which results in his aggression towards his father. Therefore, in destroying the female creature, which would be the male creature’s sexual outlet, Frankenstein is upholding this code, and assuring that the creature functions according to the proper rules of society. The creature is unable to have a sexual outlet, and is denied by Frankenstein, his biological/primal father, a way to ever express himself sexually. Thus, it is this repressed sexuality, according to Freud, even if there is no actual mother figure to direct the desires to, that enrages the creature, and causes him to kill his maker, showing that the role of Frankenstein as the father figure, the creator and enforcer of social regulations, in accordance with Freud’s work, is ultimately doomed.
That was fun! See you in class! J
No comments:
Post a Comment