In The Madwoman in the Attic, Gilbert and Gubar discuss the categories of angel and monster that are given to women in a patriarchal society "where women are warned that if they do not behave like angels they must be monsters" (1932). Women are expected to behave like angels, to conform to the expectations that (male) society has of them. If they do not conform, particularly if they are in any way intellecutal, they are considered monsters. According to Gilbert and Gubar, this contributes to women writers' "'anxiety of authorship' -- a radical fear that she cannot create, that because she can never become a 'precursor' the act of writing will isolate or destroy her" (1929). Gilbert and Gubar explain that this anxiety was more prominent in the 19th century, when women writers did not have any precursors from which to draw an example, to gain strength, and to add to a tradition. These women writers, to which Shelley belongs, had to choose between being an angel or a monster -- to either remain passive and repress their desire to write, risking madness, or to write anyway, allowing themselvs to be labeled as monsters.
Applying Gilbert and Gubar's theory to Frankenstein, it is possible to interpret the creature as the monstrous side of Shelley (in society's view) and Victor as the angel. The creature is the manifestation of what happens to a woman writer in a patriarchal society -- one that sees the woman as "other" and denies women subjectivity (as Simone de Beauvoir writes in The Second Sex). The creature is the "other" and is denied subjectivity by society. On the other hand, Victor represents what happens to a women writer who is forced to repress her desire to write. Once Victor gives life to his creature, he realizes the implications of what that means -- he gave life to a "monster." From that point on, he tries to deny that he ever did anything of the sort, and the secrecy of it drives him mad and even results in mental and physical ill-health that parallels the sicknesses that Gilbert and Gubar point out as prominent and even desired among 19th century "angelic" women. Thus, Frankenstein illustrate the two choices offered to a woman in patriarchal society (even though few women are present in the novel) and its unwelcoming effects: "Whether she is a passive angel or an active monster, in other words, the woman writer feels herself to be literally or figuratively crippled by the debilitating alternatives her culture offers her" (Gilbert and Gubar 1936).
Gilbert and Gubar as well as Simone de Beauvoir and other feminist theorists base their theory on the way women are perceived in society. What might a Marxist or cultural studies theorist say about the socialization of women? How would Marxism or cultural studies analyze society's effects on a woman writer?
A weekly conversation between 12 graduate students using Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and its model of monstrous hybridity to explore the equally monstrous, equally hybrid field of literary theory. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
First Frankenstein Movie Ever
I found this last night after watching a documentary on American Horror Movies. Its the first Frankenstein movie ever made by Edison Studios in 1910. What is interesting is at the end of the movie, the Creature sees himself in the mirror, loathes himself, and disappears, only leaving his reflection behind. Victor runs into the room and sees himself reflected in the mirror as the Creature. What would the psychoanalysts say about that? :)
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
He Said...She Said.
Shelley’s Frankenstein, as we all know, has two different prefaces. One of these prefaces, included in the original edition, is written by her husband. Years later, Mary Shelley’s own preface is published with the 1831 edition of the work. These two distinct voices, relayed in the prefaces, tie in perfectly to the discussion that is presented in the beginning of Gilbert and Gubar’s work, “The Madwoman in the Attic.” Gilbert and Gubar ask, what happens “if the Queen’s looking glass speaks with the King’s voice?” How does this idea complicate the writing of Frankenstein, with the original preface being written in P. B. Shelley’s voice? Does this difference in author create a visible divide between the preface and the work, or is Mary Shelley, in the text, speaking with “the King’s voice”?
Let me answer that.
As previously discussed, P.B. Shelley’s preface is predominately focused on science and the advances being made, something that, even though the text touches upon, it is not the actual focus of the work. P.B. Shelley provides a very structured preface, trying to find a space for Frankenstein to be accepted in the world of science. However, when the work is read, it is clear that it is much more than an example of the capabilities of science. Frankenstein provides an undoubted discussion of humanity and the manner in which society constructs what is deemed acceptable and what is not. Thus, the ideas the P.B. Shelley presents in attempts to latch the work onto the scientific advancements of the time, are clearly not developed in the text. In that matter, it becomes obvious that Mary is presenting her work according to her own standards, and is not attempting to align herself with those of the King.
If Mary is not speaking in the King’s voice, then she is most certainly speaking in her own. In her preface, the reader is shown her writing process, something which naturally flowed out of her onto paper. In reading the preface that Mary writes, it is obvious that the book naturally follows, and that they are of the same hand. In Mary’s preface she details the development of the work, and does not try to validate it. She depicts her relationship with the work, something that only an author can accurately do.
In terms of Mary Shelley then, it appears to me as if she does not try to speak with the King’s voice, but instead challenges the standard by using her own. She does not have a problem with presenting her work in her voice, and the fact that she includes a second preface many years later, shows that she wants the work to exist in a manner that is all her own. Thus, Shelley truly helps to create the image of female author as a force to be reckoned with, resisting the notion that female authors must rely on their male predecessors.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Click here, if you dare!
It makes sense to think about the female characters in Frankenstein when reading this week’s pieces, however some concepts from Halberstam’s biography and “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” prove interesting when applied to Victor Frankenstein’s creation.
It makes sense to think about the female characters in Frankenstein when reading this week’s pieces, however some concepts from Halberstam’s biography and “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” prove interesting when applied to Victor Frankenstein’s creation.
For example, Norton mentions the idea of women being able to, “access masculinity as well, and they can do so without surgically altering their bodies” (Norton 2635). It is fascinating to mull the groundbreaking science involved in Shelley’s “creation.” How far ahead of her time was she, that men and women are now able to serve as their own Frankenstein: with the financial resources available, all modern humans can explore surgically altering their own sexuality.
Halberstam’s piece led me to question the creature’s sexuality. The obvious question that lingers is the true sex of the creature: we can safely assume that the creature is masculine, but we do not know of the true functionality of his sexuality. On page 97, the creature states his attraction to young women, but appears to comprehend the fact that such a beautiful, young woman would not want to engage with him because of the “sanguinary laws of man.”
The creature then explains, “You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being.” Does the creature know what those sympathies are? We know he has independently become quite learned, but has he been able to discern the complex issues surrounding sexuality?
Halberstam also brings up the idea of ugliness and female masculinity that might be interesting to discuss within our gathered ideals of ugliness and male masculinity (2650-2651)). Don’t some of these traits relate to the description of the creature, especially the quote from Wilkie Collins’ The Woman in White. Assuredly, these are descriptions supporting a thesis about female beauty, but can they be applied - in a human way - to men? Indeed, had the creature possessed more facial beauty, would he not have been revered as a superhuman man? He had great intellect and power; it was his mug - his “yellow skin” that “scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath” that got him in trouble. Similarly, he had “hair of a lustrous black,” like Collins’ Marian with her “thick, coal-black hair” (Shelley 34).
Of course, this passage deals with lesbian ideals of beauty and the ways they are interpreted by men, but it may illustrate a greater human understanding - or, misunderstanding - of “beauty” and “ugliness.”
As Victor himself said, “I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! - Great God!” (34).
Feminist Approaches as a Reinvention of Marxist Literary Theory
Update: I corrected some typographical errors. I also posted a PDF on Blackboard.
The contemporary feminist discourse—indeed, the whole of gender identity theory—finds itself anchored, intentionally or not, in a cultural struggle accurately described by Marxist theorists a century earlier. Feminist theory is a re-imagining of the same class structures identified by the Marxists and cast in terms of “anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance” (Butler 2549). Gender and sex serve as substitutes for economic class power structures. In framing a discussion in terms of “the institutions by which women have traditionally been controlled,” these theorists are inevitably entering into the same theoretical claims posed by Marxists as explanations of dominant and oppositional culture (Rich 1591). While the Marxists look at the state apparatus and the repression of a minority identity in relation to class, the feminist theorists replace class with gender and sexuality.
The Marxist conception of society’s structure is one with a dominate culture prevailing over alternative and oppositional cultures. Institutions such as schools and religions serve as forces of control towards maintaining that dominant culture; these apparatuses of the state have but one function and that function is maintaining the dominant state. To say then that Harold Bloom serves as a state apparatus is to suggest that his views on literature serve to fiercely promote the western tradition dominated by white male authors, a position he sticks to vehemently. In part because Marxists were concerned with the condition of political control, their focus tends to be in relationships within the political realm offering definitions of “the State as a ‘machine’ of repression, enabling the ruling classes to ensure their domination over the working class” (Althusser 1339). The struggle within the Marxist tradition focuses on socio-economic class; they champion the working class while chastising aristocracy’s dominant cultural position. The feminist theorists offer a fundamentally similar discourse and the alternative narrative they construct simply relies on a new lexicon charged with sexuality and gender.
Feminist and gender identity theorists identify a relationship between male and female authors on the same conditions as the Marxists identify the relationship between the working class and ruling aristocracy. In the feminist construct, the dominant culture is a white male tradition with female or non-heterosexual men acting in a minority role. “The fierce protection of white male privilege from minority encroachments rounds out a century of discourses of manliness and manhood” and thus serving as an institutional state apparatus defending the dominant white male hegemony (Halberstam 2638). The literary tradition, like government schools or the institution of the Church, has served primarily as means to continue the dominate white male culture—Harold Bloom is not the first nor only State apparatus promoting the white male literary canon. The normative concern of feminist theory focuses on “Western literary history is [as] overwhelmingly male—or, more accurately, patriarchal” and therefore feminists believe the traditional concept of the literary canon reduces women and femininity to a secondary, alternative culture (Gilbart and Gubar 1928). Women’s presence in the literary world is, as Deleuze and Guattari describe within the Marxist tradition, a minor literature constructed within the major language of white masculinity. At the same time, female characters are similarly overshadowed by mythological constructions of women created by the dominant male culture. These myths serve as “institutions by which women have traditionally been controlled;” such institutional myths serve to further undermine the female within the literary canon (Rich 1591). The mythology of women is an extension of the marginalization of femininity and serves as constituent component to female repression; feminine mythology serves the same function of a school or a church to maintaining the dominant culture. The mythology is another form of the state apparatus.
As the dominant culture, the male author and masculine characters do not endure the same challenges faced by their female counterparts because “woman is other than man;” yet for the white male “there is no such thing as a masculine mystery” (de Beauvoir 1265, 1270). The dialectic that feminists theorists pursue then is one of white male dominant culture with the role of the female artist and the female character participating in “in quite a different literary subculture from that inhabited by male writers, a subculture which has its own distinctive literary traditions” (Gilbert and Gubar 1930). Such a subculture would suggest also that female writers produce the culture for a female subculture. Again, such a position borrows from the Marxist tradition:
Serving as the intellectuals of a distinct subculture, female writers bear the responsibility of bringing about a female subculture that is not alternative but rather oppositional. Adrienne Rich argues “feminist theory can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration,” suggesting a similar argument presented by Raymond Williams (Rich 1593). Williams explains that “there is a simple theoretical distinction between alternative and oppositional, that is to say between someone who simply finds a different way to live and wishes to be left alone with, and someone who finds a different way to live and wants to change the society in its light” (Williams 1431). It is here that the yoke between feminism and Marxism becomes forever interwoven; the minority female subculture identified by feminist theorists is being called to action to challenge the dominant white male hegemony precisely in the same way the Marxists see the conflict between the working class and the ruling aristocracy.
Once more, Mary Shelley rescues theorists’ assumptions by providing textual evidence supporting feminist approaches with Frankenstein a sandbox for yet another demonstration of theoretical claims. The critical moment for Victor is the destruction of the female monster before giving her life; by destroying the she-creature, Victor sets in motion the destruction of his own family and his inevitable premature death. The parallel between Marxist and feminist theory is at the forefront of his decision. The act of destroying the monster serves to protect the white male privilege from encroachment. Victor acts in the interest of the State to preserve the dominant culture; his act is a literal and figurative protection of white male hegemony. The creation of his male monster represents “Frankenstein’s implicit goal of creating a society for men only” (Mellor 274). The male creature alone presents no threat to the dominant culture Victor represents. It is only in the creation of a female monster that the dominant culture is threatened. The female creates the threat. Victor asks himself “had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations?” (Shelley 114). Creating a female monster would presumably allow the monster the capability of reproduction and thus allow the monster in future generations to displace the society Victor, as a member of the aristocratic class, is so much a part of. The fundamental component to Victor’s concern is the threat that a race of monsters present to the State. This threat manifests itself as a fear of the female because female subculture represents the same threat to dominant male culture. His refusal to complete the female creature suggests his concern that she “might assert her own integrity and the revolutionary right to determine her own existence” (Mellor 279). The fear of a she-creature rejecting the male monster’s plans is similar to Victor’s fear that the monsters present a threat to his own position as a privileged white male. With the creation of a female monster, the male monster ceases to be the other and instead takes his place as a ruling patriarch.
The feminist tradition reinvents the Marxist conception of dominant culture in new terms of sexual and gender identity. It serves as an extension of the Marxist tradition as a specific subset of the approach. In many ways, the feminist critical approach proves vulnerable to Harold Bloom; as a theoretical approach, feminist and gender identity theories are unable to escape the gravitational pull of the massive western literary tradition. They are in effect, under the same anxieties of influence experienced by male writers misinterpreting and reinventing a long line of western literary critiques.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1335 – 1361. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2540 – 2553. Print.
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1423 – 1437. Print.
Gilbert, Sandra M., Gubar, Susan. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1926 – 1938. Print.
Gramsci, Antonio. “Formation of the Intellectuals.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1002 – 1008. Print.
Halberstam, Judith. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2638 – 2653. Print.
Mellor, Anne K. “Possessing Nature: the Female in Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. Ed J. Paul Hunter. New
York: Norton, 1996. 274 – 286. Print.
Rich, Adrienne. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1591 – 1609. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed J. Paul Hunter. New York: Norton, 1996. Print.
Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1423 – 1437. Print.
The contemporary feminist discourse—indeed, the whole of gender identity theory—finds itself anchored, intentionally or not, in a cultural struggle accurately described by Marxist theorists a century earlier. Feminist theory is a re-imagining of the same class structures identified by the Marxists and cast in terms of “anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance” (Butler 2549). Gender and sex serve as substitutes for economic class power structures. In framing a discussion in terms of “the institutions by which women have traditionally been controlled,” these theorists are inevitably entering into the same theoretical claims posed by Marxists as explanations of dominant and oppositional culture (Rich 1591). While the Marxists look at the state apparatus and the repression of a minority identity in relation to class, the feminist theorists replace class with gender and sexuality.
The Marxist conception of society’s structure is one with a dominate culture prevailing over alternative and oppositional cultures. Institutions such as schools and religions serve as forces of control towards maintaining that dominant culture; these apparatuses of the state have but one function and that function is maintaining the dominant state. To say then that Harold Bloom serves as a state apparatus is to suggest that his views on literature serve to fiercely promote the western tradition dominated by white male authors, a position he sticks to vehemently. In part because Marxists were concerned with the condition of political control, their focus tends to be in relationships within the political realm offering definitions of “the State as a ‘machine’ of repression, enabling the ruling classes to ensure their domination over the working class” (Althusser 1339). The struggle within the Marxist tradition focuses on socio-economic class; they champion the working class while chastising aristocracy’s dominant cultural position. The feminist theorists offer a fundamentally similar discourse and the alternative narrative they construct simply relies on a new lexicon charged with sexuality and gender.
Feminist and gender identity theorists identify a relationship between male and female authors on the same conditions as the Marxists identify the relationship between the working class and ruling aristocracy. In the feminist construct, the dominant culture is a white male tradition with female or non-heterosexual men acting in a minority role. “The fierce protection of white male privilege from minority encroachments rounds out a century of discourses of manliness and manhood” and thus serving as an institutional state apparatus defending the dominant white male hegemony (Halberstam 2638). The literary tradition, like government schools or the institution of the Church, has served primarily as means to continue the dominate white male culture—Harold Bloom is not the first nor only State apparatus promoting the white male literary canon. The normative concern of feminist theory focuses on “Western literary history is [as] overwhelmingly male—or, more accurately, patriarchal” and therefore feminists believe the traditional concept of the literary canon reduces women and femininity to a secondary, alternative culture (Gilbart and Gubar 1928). Women’s presence in the literary world is, as Deleuze and Guattari describe within the Marxist tradition, a minor literature constructed within the major language of white masculinity. At the same time, female characters are similarly overshadowed by mythological constructions of women created by the dominant male culture. These myths serve as “institutions by which women have traditionally been controlled;” such institutional myths serve to further undermine the female within the literary canon (Rich 1591). The mythology of women is an extension of the marginalization of femininity and serves as constituent component to female repression; feminine mythology serves the same function of a school or a church to maintaining the dominant culture. The mythology is another form of the state apparatus.
As the dominant culture, the male author and masculine characters do not endure the same challenges faced by their female counterparts because “woman is other than man;” yet for the white male “there is no such thing as a masculine mystery” (de Beauvoir 1265, 1270). The dialectic that feminists theorists pursue then is one of white male dominant culture with the role of the female artist and the female character participating in “in quite a different literary subculture from that inhabited by male writers, a subculture which has its own distinctive literary traditions” (Gilbert and Gubar 1930). Such a subculture would suggest also that female writers produce the culture for a female subculture. Again, such a position borrows from the Marxist tradition:
“Every social group, coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential function in the world of economic production, creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields.” (Gramsci 1002)
Serving as the intellectuals of a distinct subculture, female writers bear the responsibility of bringing about a female subculture that is not alternative but rather oppositional. Adrienne Rich argues “feminist theory can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration,” suggesting a similar argument presented by Raymond Williams (Rich 1593). Williams explains that “there is a simple theoretical distinction between alternative and oppositional, that is to say between someone who simply finds a different way to live and wishes to be left alone with, and someone who finds a different way to live and wants to change the society in its light” (Williams 1431). It is here that the yoke between feminism and Marxism becomes forever interwoven; the minority female subculture identified by feminist theorists is being called to action to challenge the dominant white male hegemony precisely in the same way the Marxists see the conflict between the working class and the ruling aristocracy.
Once more, Mary Shelley rescues theorists’ assumptions by providing textual evidence supporting feminist approaches with Frankenstein a sandbox for yet another demonstration of theoretical claims. The critical moment for Victor is the destruction of the female monster before giving her life; by destroying the she-creature, Victor sets in motion the destruction of his own family and his inevitable premature death. The parallel between Marxist and feminist theory is at the forefront of his decision. The act of destroying the monster serves to protect the white male privilege from encroachment. Victor acts in the interest of the State to preserve the dominant culture; his act is a literal and figurative protection of white male hegemony. The creation of his male monster represents “Frankenstein’s implicit goal of creating a society for men only” (Mellor 274). The male creature alone presents no threat to the dominant culture Victor represents. It is only in the creation of a female monster that the dominant culture is threatened. The female creates the threat. Victor asks himself “had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon everlasting generations?” (Shelley 114). Creating a female monster would presumably allow the monster the capability of reproduction and thus allow the monster in future generations to displace the society Victor, as a member of the aristocratic class, is so much a part of. The fundamental component to Victor’s concern is the threat that a race of monsters present to the State. This threat manifests itself as a fear of the female because female subculture represents the same threat to dominant male culture. His refusal to complete the female creature suggests his concern that she “might assert her own integrity and the revolutionary right to determine her own existence” (Mellor 279). The fear of a she-creature rejecting the male monster’s plans is similar to Victor’s fear that the monsters present a threat to his own position as a privileged white male. With the creation of a female monster, the male monster ceases to be the other and instead takes his place as a ruling patriarch.
The feminist tradition reinvents the Marxist conception of dominant culture in new terms of sexual and gender identity. It serves as an extension of the Marxist tradition as a specific subset of the approach. In many ways, the feminist critical approach proves vulnerable to Harold Bloom; as a theoretical approach, feminist and gender identity theories are unable to escape the gravitational pull of the massive western literary tradition. They are in effect, under the same anxieties of influence experienced by male writers misinterpreting and reinventing a long line of western literary critiques.
Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1335 – 1361. Print.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2540 – 2553. Print.
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1423 – 1437. Print.
Gilbert, Sandra M., Gubar, Susan. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1926 – 1938. Print.
Gramsci, Antonio. “Formation of the Intellectuals.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1002 – 1008. Print.
Halberstam, Judith. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 2638 – 2653. Print.
Mellor, Anne K. “Possessing Nature: the Female in Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. Ed J. Paul Hunter. New
York: Norton, 1996. 274 – 286. Print.
Rich, Adrienne. Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1591 – 1609. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ed J. Paul Hunter. New York: Norton, 1996. Print.
Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed Leitch, Vincent B.; Cain, William E.; Finke, Laurie; Johnson, Barbara; McGowan, John; Sharpley-Whiting, T. Denean; Williams, Jeffrey J. New York: Norton, 2010. 1423 – 1437. Print.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Frankenstein's Female Trouble
The embodiment of the female presence in Frankenstein is addressed in many ways which correspond with our readings on Feminist and Queer theory. Although we cannot say how Mary Shelley viewed her own position as a woman and cannot therefore comment on how she sought to depict the female entity in her novel, the positions of the female characters in the story are reflective of long enduring social perspectives which Shelley could have been perpetuating subconsciously in her writing. This analysis is in no way a defense of that perpetuation, but an examination of the social mores which would have been accepted as common during the time period in which the story was written
The women of Frankenstein maintain the archetypal roles as the over-romanticized objectified “muse” as well as the economically disenfranchised waif and the defeminized, ugly old woman. The entire novel would not have been able to take place if it weren’t for Mrs. Margaret Saville whose existence is merely served as an object for her brother to direct his self-indulgent musings to. Robert Walton addressed his sister throughout his beginning letters: “Heaven shower down blessings on you, and save me, that I may again and again testify my gratitude for all of your love and kindness.”(9); “Continue to write me every opportunity: I may received your letters (though the chance is very doubtful) on some occasions when I need them most to support my spirits.”(11,12) For the reader, Mrs. Saville’s existence remains cloaked in what Simone De Beauvior would call “feminine mystery.”(1268) We know nothing about Saville; we never hear a response to her voice in any of the letters. We know nothing about her as a living subject besides the fact that she serves as an object that is directly at the disposal of her wandering brother. As De Beauvior would say in “The Second Sex”, Mrs. Saville’s time is afforded to her by her brother, “he gives her the time he passes with her.”(1269)
Moving on from Mrs. Saville, almost all of the remaining women mentioned in the story began at some form of economic disadvantage before a man came to liberate them from their positions of poverty into a position of masculine enslavement. Adrienne Rich in her essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” highlights this practice within Points 5 and 6 of a rubric created by Kathleen Gough to describe in specific ways different forms of exercised male power:
“5. to confine them physically and prevent their movement—[by means of…keeping women off the streets;…enforced economic dependence of wives]
6. to use them as objects in male transactions—[use of women as ‘gifts’; bride price; pimping; arranged marriage; use of women as entertainers to facilitate male deals”(1595)
In the very beginning of Victor’s part of the story, we learn of how his mother was acquired by his father. His mother was at the mercy of a sick father who had lost all of his wealth and was subjected to a life of plaiting straw poverty until Elder Frankenstein came to her rescue: “He came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care, and after the interment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation. Two years after this event Caroline became his wife.”(19)
Elizabeth Lavenza enters into the story in a similar fashion. After her mother dies, her father intends to marry another woman and offers her to his brother-in-law. Along with this offer also comes her mother’s fortune, which I think should be noted. From the time
Saphie, on the other hand, is a very interesting character. Within her story, we discover a tale of defiance on behalf of her and her mother regarding her mother’s “enslavement by the Turks”(83) According to Saphie’s story, her mother “instructed her daughter in the tenets of her religion, and taught her to aspire to higher powers of intellect, and an independence of spirit, forbidden to female followers of Mahomet.” Ironically, after all of this talk of freedom, Saphie processes the idea of freedom as marriage to a Christian. “The prospect of marrying a Christian, and remaining in a country where women were allowed to take a rank in society, was enchanting to her.”(83)
According to Adrienne Rich, by entering into a marriage from Saphie’s position, she would be again reinforcing her disadvantage; exiting one institution of what she views as female slavery for another. Rich states “a woman seeking to escape such casual violations along with economic disadvantage may well turn to marriage as a form of hoped for protection, while bringing into marriage neither social nor economic power, thus entering into that institution also from a disadvantaged position.”(1598) Rich continues this thought quoting Kathleen Barry “female sexual slavery is present in ALL situations where women or girls cannot change the conditions of their existence; where regardless of how they got into those conditions, e.g., social pressure, economic hardship, misplaced trust or the longing for affection, they cannot get out; and where they are subject to sexual violence and exploitation.”(1599)
I turn now to Judith Halberstam’s “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” when analyzing female masculinity and leading into queer theory as represented in Frankenstein. As we can all tell from the novel, Victor’s opinions on the functions the functions of females in his life are only that they serve him faithfully, that they be kind, gentle, and understanding, that they wait for him for however long it takes for him to figure himself out. However, when he finally meets one woman who won’t tolerate his neurotic, afflicted, and self-involved personality, this is what he has to say about her: “She was a hired nurse, the wife of one of the turnkeys, and her countenance expressed all those bad qualities which often characterize that class. The lines on her face were hard and rude, like that of persons accustomed to see without sympathizing in sights of misery. Her tone expressed her entire indifference; she addressed me in English, and the voice struck me as one that I had heard during my sufferings.”(123) Because of her blunt attitude with dealing with Victor as a supposed murder, Victor himself could not sympathize with her position of having to care for a miscreant and turned away from her with “loathing.”
Like many women who do not follow the believed social standards for female conduct, the hired nurse falls within what Halberstam regards as women not being viewed as feminine who are “either foreign, working class, oddly gendered, or sexually corrupt.”(2651)
When applying Queer Theory to the novel, we can see many similarities drawn to Halberstam’s description of the presence of love triangles between Victor, Clerval, and Elizabeth. We can also delve into how the Creature’s body is representative of what Butler states as “a prediscursive multiplicity of bodily forces that break through the surface of the body to disrupt the regulating practices of cultural coherence imposed upon that body by a power regime.”(2544) Butler as makes an intriguing reference to drag performance which I think can be applied to the Creature “Her/his performance destabilizes the very distinctions between the natural and the artificial, depth and surface, inner and outer through which discourse about genders almost always operates.”(2541)
The question I propose for Wednesday’s class is How is the Creature representative of an Ultimate Otherness which embodies both the female socio/cultural dilemma as mentioned in our readings and that of the questioning gender performances? Do be more descript about that last part of the question, the Creature is denied of sexual reproduction as well as a position in society; He can neither plant a seed nor create; How can we analyze his position in regards to Butler’s discourse on gender distinction?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Methodology of Deconstruction
In “The Exorbitant. Question of Method” Derrida develops the methodology of deconstruction. According to him, “the writer writes in a language and in a logic whose proper system, laws, and life his discourse by definition cannot dominate absolutely. He uses them only by letting himself….be governed by the system” (1691).Thus for Derrida critical reading should focus on what a writer commands of the patterns of language he uses and, equally important, on what is out of his command. For critical reading to produce a signifying structure, it must not merely reproduce the intentional relationship the author has with history, which is conveyed by language. This encourages a protected reading, whereas Derrida is in favor for an unrestrained open reading. It seems to me that he challenges the totality of outside references, such as history and psychoanalysis in the way they close up a text. Derrida attempts to open up texts to repressed meanings that exist outside of western metaphysical tradition, although never really detached. Hence, what opens a reading to Derrida is the absence of the “supplement” or “substitutive signification” that is only traces that take form in differential references outside the text. Thus, Derrida encourages an intrinsic reading that remains within a text. He proposes a deconstruction of a text by examining language and the text in the most infrastructural sense. By offering double commentary, or dual reading deconstruction seeks out binary oppositions and then inverts them. This also reinforces that a text has multiple interpretations. Contrary to my previous belief, deconstruction does not dismantle or deconstruct a text, but rather shows how the text deconstructs itself by inherent contradictions; interpretation of meaning depends on the identification of binaries and oppositions and then by the dismantling and displacement of them through critical reading. Thus, what seems to be stable or meaningful becomes elusive.
In “Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Bud” Johnson applies Derrida deconstructionist method to Melville’s Billy Bud. Johnson examines the infrastructure in term of binary oppositions and contradictions. First she examines the discrepancy between character and action: Billy Bud the good, innocent, and harmless character kills the evil and malicious Claggart, thus making the latter a victim, and condemning himself. The contradiction and discrepancy between character and action to Johnson is reflective of the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified, and by that she adds a another layer of interpretation in which a character’s inner being is the signified and his outer being the signifier. Whereas most critical readings see the opposition between Bud and Claggart as an allegorical good against evil and Adam versus Satan, Johnson reverts this reading by revealing the tensions that imply that Billy is not as innocent as he seems. She says “far from being simply and naturally pure, he is obsessed with his own irreproachability in the eyes of authority” (2265). Johnson further implies that Billy’s explosive blow to Claggart might be was due to his self-repression and his obdurate insistence on his innocence. She also shows that Claggart there are factors for his adamant hate of Billy Bud since he “perceives Billy only though the distortion of an unfavorable interpretation” (2268). Johnson provides this “reverted reading” through the clash of two readings (in which Bud and Claggart are the readers of each other) rather than two characters. Other oppositions Johnson analyzes is justice/injustice, knowing/doing, performance/cognition.
In relation to Frankenstein, we can also attempt to deconstruct the work in the same way Johnson did of Melville’s Billy Bud: by examining the oppositions that eventually invert within themselves. I would especially like to focus on the Creator/Creation binary. Upon close reading of the text it can be discovered that this binary position is already flawed and unsettled. In the process of creation, Frankenstein thinks about glory as a creator: “a new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” Still, Frankenstein creates a being that is larger and stronger than him, making it very difficult for him to subdue or control his creation, thus destabilizing his position as creator. Furthermore, by giving the Creature life, Frankenstein becomes responsible for his happiness and welfare, yet he immediately abandons the creature, leaving him to find his own way in the world; a deplorable behavior on part of the creator. Victor leaves the creature in infantile condition, absolving himself of any responsibility; yet he is responsible for the Creature and its actions, but Victor only thinks of the Creature as a situation when he starts hurting his family. The Creature was born inherently good, yet it is people’s rejection and Victor’s abandonment that turns him evil. We can see how after his disastrous encounter with the cottagers, the Creature reads Frankenstein’s journal and vows revenge, seeing his creator as a tyrant and tormentor for creating him hideous and then forsaking him. Although it is the Creature the one who wreaks havoc and destruction, it is Victor to blame because of his faults as a creator. These faults can be first seen in the physical appearance of his creation that is described as having yellow skin, eyes sunk into their sockets, and black lips. One can also argue that the monster is Victor’s double and is merely acting out his evil impulses. For instance, when Victor destroys the monster’s bride, he does it on a selfish impulse, for how can he deprive his creature of female companionship when Victor himself is soon to be wed. When the Monster says to Victor that he will be with him on his wedding night, it is clearly a threat to hurt Elizabeth not Victor although he convinces Walton that it was he was the one that would be killed. If the Monster wanted to kill Victor he would have done it on the spot, and judging from the Monster’s actions, it seems that he wants to hurt Victor’s family to make him miserable and lonely. We can see from this point how when it is the creator that has power over his creation, the creation begins to have power over him, because he has forsaken his responsibilities as creator. The Creature in a supplication to his creator reasons with Victor, imploring him to do his duty toward his creation: “All men hate the wretched; how then must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends." Then the Creature becomes in a position of power, and enslaves his creator. In the subjugation of Victor to the Creature, the Creature says: “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master;-obey!” In the end it is the Creature who destroys the creator, yet the death of the Creator entails the death of the creation, thus restoring some balance to the creator/creation binary.
In “Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Bud” Johnson applies Derrida deconstructionist method to Melville’s Billy Bud. Johnson examines the infrastructure in term of binary oppositions and contradictions. First she examines the discrepancy between character and action: Billy Bud the good, innocent, and harmless character kills the evil and malicious Claggart, thus making the latter a victim, and condemning himself. The contradiction and discrepancy between character and action to Johnson is reflective of the arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier and signified, and by that she adds a another layer of interpretation in which a character’s inner being is the signified and his outer being the signifier. Whereas most critical readings see the opposition between Bud and Claggart as an allegorical good against evil and Adam versus Satan, Johnson reverts this reading by revealing the tensions that imply that Billy is not as innocent as he seems. She says “far from being simply and naturally pure, he is obsessed with his own irreproachability in the eyes of authority” (2265). Johnson further implies that Billy’s explosive blow to Claggart might be was due to his self-repression and his obdurate insistence on his innocence. She also shows that Claggart there are factors for his adamant hate of Billy Bud since he “perceives Billy only though the distortion of an unfavorable interpretation” (2268). Johnson provides this “reverted reading” through the clash of two readings (in which Bud and Claggart are the readers of each other) rather than two characters. Other oppositions Johnson analyzes is justice/injustice, knowing/doing, performance/cognition.
In relation to Frankenstein, we can also attempt to deconstruct the work in the same way Johnson did of Melville’s Billy Bud: by examining the oppositions that eventually invert within themselves. I would especially like to focus on the Creator/Creation binary. Upon close reading of the text it can be discovered that this binary position is already flawed and unsettled. In the process of creation, Frankenstein thinks about glory as a creator: “a new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” Still, Frankenstein creates a being that is larger and stronger than him, making it very difficult for him to subdue or control his creation, thus destabilizing his position as creator. Furthermore, by giving the Creature life, Frankenstein becomes responsible for his happiness and welfare, yet he immediately abandons the creature, leaving him to find his own way in the world; a deplorable behavior on part of the creator. Victor leaves the creature in infantile condition, absolving himself of any responsibility; yet he is responsible for the Creature and its actions, but Victor only thinks of the Creature as a situation when he starts hurting his family. The Creature was born inherently good, yet it is people’s rejection and Victor’s abandonment that turns him evil. We can see how after his disastrous encounter with the cottagers, the Creature reads Frankenstein’s journal and vows revenge, seeing his creator as a tyrant and tormentor for creating him hideous and then forsaking him. Although it is the Creature the one who wreaks havoc and destruction, it is Victor to blame because of his faults as a creator. These faults can be first seen in the physical appearance of his creation that is described as having yellow skin, eyes sunk into their sockets, and black lips. One can also argue that the monster is Victor’s double and is merely acting out his evil impulses. For instance, when Victor destroys the monster’s bride, he does it on a selfish impulse, for how can he deprive his creature of female companionship when Victor himself is soon to be wed. When the Monster says to Victor that he will be with him on his wedding night, it is clearly a threat to hurt Elizabeth not Victor although he convinces Walton that it was he was the one that would be killed. If the Monster wanted to kill Victor he would have done it on the spot, and judging from the Monster’s actions, it seems that he wants to hurt Victor’s family to make him miserable and lonely. We can see from this point how when it is the creator that has power over his creation, the creation begins to have power over him, because he has forsaken his responsibilities as creator. The Creature in a supplication to his creator reasons with Victor, imploring him to do his duty toward his creation: “All men hate the wretched; how then must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions, I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends." Then the Creature becomes in a position of power, and enslaves his creator. In the subjugation of Victor to the Creature, the Creature says: “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master;-obey!” In the end it is the Creature who destroys the creator, yet the death of the Creator entails the death of the creation, thus restoring some balance to the creator/creation binary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)