Grace Ghazzawi
Professor Lyons
Introduction to Graduate Literary Studies
1 November 2010
“The Space Between What’s Wrong and Right”
The relationship between being and doing is questioned in Barbara Johnson’s “Melville’s First: The Execution of Billy Budd” in which the discussion of the nature of a character and their representation in the text is defined (2261). In her work, Johnson questions the interplay between the moral nature and the physical make of a character and the disconnect present between the two concepts in Melville’s “Billy Budd.” This notion, then, of a discontinuity in textual representation, allows for the analysis of characters to not fully depend on their physical characterization, but for there to be an understanding of their moral make. A character can be written as a good natured human, but as the story unfolds, their actions prove otherwise, with them performing the most evil acts in the text. Thus, Melville creates a certain reversal of being and doing, of guilt and innocence, in which the reversal of the morals of the main characters allow for the “radical incompatibility between knowledge and acts” (2264). This notion, of the manner in which physical representation cannot always be positively correlated with moral attributes is something that can also be said of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In Shelley’s work, the characters of Frankenstein and his creation can be viewed as good and evil, on the surface, but upon further analysis the roles become blurred, arguably even reversed. Characterization, along the lines of Johnson’s article, is therefore never an easily read notion, but is wholly dependent on the eclipses of meaning in a text that mark interpretation (2267).
To focus on Frankenstein in the same manner that Johnson focuses on “Billy Budd” in her work, is to establish in a similar fashion, the way that “the gaps in understanding [a character]…are themselves taken as interpretable signs and triggers for interpretation” (2267). These gaps in characterization then, open up volumes of interpretation in a text like Frankenstein. To analyze both Frankenstein and the creation separate from their preconceived moral characterizations of good and evil, will practically force a reader to delve into the actual functions of each character, and evaluate them according to the content of said actions. That being said, instead of automatically assuming that Dr. Frankenstein is a good man who happened to fall into a bad situation in that his experiment took a turn for the worse, the reader, in adjusting his or her viewpoint, would analyze the actual deeds of Frankenstein, and the fact that they are not, in essence, noble or good. To discuss Frankenstein’s actions, and their moral nature, or lack thereof, is to force into discussion what constitutes goodness and accordingly, what defines its absence. Thus, Dr. Frankenstein can arguably be said to lack more goodness than he obtains if his motives and their corresponding actions are dissected. In doing so, it would be undeniable to object to the notion that there is some sort of inherent lack of goodness and humanity in the character of Frankenstein that is manifested through his piecing together of his creation. This act, which pushes the limits of human capabilities, exposes the inhumanity in the morality of the “good” character in the work, ultimately exposing “ a mutineer beneath the appearance of a baby” (2262).
If the analysis of Frankenstein’s moral make must be dissected and interpreted differently, then the same must be done for his creation. Through characterization, which can be stated to be in accordance with his physical attributes, the creation of Frankenstein is automatically constructed as an evil figure in the work. This evil is stated to be inherent and unchangeable, based upon his actions in the text. However, this cannot be altogether correct, being that although the creation indeed performs a series of brutal murders, he also attempts to help the family he encounters in the woods, wanting very badly to be included in some sort of familial unit, an example that speaks to his humanity. In his need to be connected to others, and his consequent denial of this most basic of human needs, the creation becomes synonymous with his characterization as an evil, monstrous being. However, it is through the lack of companionship and compassion that this transformation is fueled, being that he “kills because he cannot speak,” (2266) love, or even exist in a manner that would allow for even the slightest bit of compassion to be present, due to his abandonment by his creator and society as a whole. It could then be deduced that the creation is not actually evil but intrinsically good, and is only presented in a negative connotation because, through his neglect and abandonment, becomes the personification of all that is evil in his creator’s intentions.
The above discussion is based on the speculation that as a reader, one would look beyond the face value characterizations present in a text, and analyze a work in regards to the “gaps in knowledge and of discontinuities in action” (2267) that shape the characters and thus, the plot of a work. In doing so, according to Johnson’s discussion, it becomes exceedingly difficult to disregard the fact that characterization, accurate or incorrect, stems from these spaces between the text, which are often wrongfully based upon the physical attributes presented. It is through these wrongful characterizations, that the notions of good and evil are established, with both ultimately existing because of “the misreading of discontinuity through the attribution of meaning to a space or division in language” (2267). Thus, it is possible that the characterizations in Frankenstein are inaccurate, because they are lost in the “deadly space” located somewhere between knowledge and action.
Works Cited
Johnson, Barbara. “Melville’s First: The Execution of Billy Budd.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Peter Sullivan. Norton: 2010. 2255-2277.
No comments:
Post a Comment