Luka'cs & Shelley

Put in a room together, I think P.B. Shelley and Gyorgy Lukacs would realize how compatible they would be as friends. Although Lukacs dislikes the "Romantic-reactionary legend which denies to the Enlightenment any sense or understanding of history and attributes the invention of historical sense to the opponents of the French Revolution," he believes in- above all- history being a process (910, 912). Lukacs touches on an interesting idea- history, like literature, as a process, changing over time (912). Shelley's Defense rests on his belief in literature changing over time; changing according to the given dominant perceptions of the time it is received in the mind-set that it is received in. Lukacs' entire point is that "there is such a thing as history, that it is an uninterrupted process of changes and finally that is has a direct effect upon the life of every individual" (913). Both Lukacs and Shelley focus on the individual's experience within these processes.

I know one deals with literature and the other with history, but both are subjects that are revisited and re-seen and reevaluated over time. Both subjects remain in a single point of view- that of the author. As Winston Churchill pointed out, "History is written by the victors." Examples include Germany as 'bad' in WWII and the United States being successful in Vietnam. I'm not arguing that Germany was 'good' or the United States failed persay, but you see where I'm going...

I wonder how Lukacs [would have] reacted [if] when he read Shelley's Defense. Both of their arguments center on "changes over time." I also wonder whether Shelley would count as the "Romantic-reactionary" or the ideal "Voltaire"-esque writer (910). Shelley does "grasp the salient features of their world with a bold and penetrating realism," like the writers Lukacs discusses; though, whether or not he saw the "specific qualities of [his] own age historically" is up for discussion.

(My fault for being this late. Not only did I have class until 8:15 and didn't post beforehand, but I subsequently forgot what account and password I was using for this site. - Diana)

The Education of Victor Frankenstein

Victor Frankenstein’s education largely comes from reading scientific textbooks, albeit many are fictional or fantastical sciences, but nonetheless scientific in nature. The Monster’s education largely comes from reading the religious text Paradise Lost. How is this a metaphor for Althusser’s claim that “the church has been replaced today in its role as the dominant ideological state apparatus by the school” (1348)

Althusser claims that schools “ensure the subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its ‘practice’”(1337). However, Gramsci believes that “the more extensive the ‘area’ covered by education and the more numerous the “vertical” “levels” of schooling, the more complex is the cultural world, the civilization” (1006); is then a civilized world defined by its subjugation to ideology?

The monster claims he intends to flee to the wild untamed country—by all accounts, the “uncivilized” parts of the world, i.e., places with the least institutionalized education and the fewest state apparatuses. Victor comes very close to creating a female monster; once he created a she-creature, presumably the monster would have run off to these uncivilized corners of the world, yet Victor cannot bring himself to do this. Althusser states “’ideas’ of a human subject exist in his actions’” (1354). In Victor’s case, his ideology is represented through inaction in first his refusal to create a monster and eventual through the action of destroying the monster. How has Victor been inculcated to the ideology of the State?

Gyorgy Lukacs emphasizes the importance of history as an important measure of human progress. If history allows for man to progress and evolve, and to be self aware – history provides “concrete possibilities for men to comprehend their own existence” (914) – how does a lack of history inhibit personal progress? For example, Frankenstein’s monster is overly concerned with his lack of connection to humanity, his lack of history and his otherness—is his interest in a mate an interest in forming a necessary history to progress?

Ideology - Voluntary or Not?

One thing that I've been trained to do when reading a work of literature is to examine how it questions the common ideology. According to Marxist theory, ideology is transmitted through culture and the arts as well as challenged. Furthermore, Louis Althusser asserts that ideology is not voluntary but the result of structural factors in society. We don't coose to accpet or reject ideology; rather, it is so ingrained in society that we accept these ideas and beliefs as true. I guess I would thus pose the question, Do you agree with Althusser or do you think that ideology is something we consciously choose to accept? With regard to Frankenstein, there are many ways that the novel questions ideology, but in what ways does it transmit and enforce ideology?