The New York Times had an article about new methods being used in looking at language in texts; the researchers are taking a quantitative approach and analyzing texts digitally. Relying on text scans, they looked at the frequency words appeared during the Victorian era. I thought it interesting that "Christian" falls over time while "science" rises in frequency.
Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers
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, December 5, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
New Historicism and Frankenstein
In a week on New Historicism, obvious questions emerge about the history surrounding Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The introductin in the Norton says that "New Historicists study literary tex not as autonomous objects but as material artifacts made in interaction with specific social, cultural, and political forces" (30). What are the "specific social, cultural, and political forces" that surround and circulate through Frankenstein? To briefly name a few, these include the French Revolution and its aftermath, the abolition of the slave trade (1807), the growth of the British Empire, debates over the rights of man. How do these play out in the novel? Because I am doing my final paper through the lens of race and ethnicity studies, I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on ways that race and imperialism make their way into Frankenstein. In my research, I stumbled upon an essay by Anne K. Mellor that offers some insight into the way the French Revolution makes its way into the novel. In the essay, "Why Women Didn't Like Romanticism: The Views of Jane Austen and Mary Shelley," Mellor argues that Shelley responds to the French Revolution by showing what happens when one does take responsibility for his creation: "In her novel, she represented the havoc wrought by the French Revolution in the gigantic and misshapen body of Frankenstein's creature...Frankenstein's creature -- like the French Revolution -- originated in the idealistic desire to liberate all men from the oppression of tyranny and mortality. But the Girondist Revolution, like the monster, failed to find the parental guidance, control, and nurturance it required to develop into a rational and benevolent state" (284). This ties in with our determining last week that ultimately, Frankenstein is a novel about responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's creation, one's actions, and, in this case, one's political ideals.
I know New Historicism came about in response to the New Criticism that was prominent in the 1960s, but in a way I feel like it still focuses on the text. In "Against Theory," Knapp and Michaels argue against approaching literary works through theory. They argue that "criticism is an activity that cannot be governed by transcendent principles; rather, it is a 'practice,' prior to and not determined by any guiding theory" (2489). I like this idea because it brings the focus back to the text. I am an advocate of close reading and basing my analysis on the text rather than the theory, but I do like New Historicism. This is because you look at history through the text and try to determine how historical events may have constructed the work, but you still have to focus on the work. And I really do believe that literary works are socially constructed, which I suppose is why some of our critics for this week were Marxists.
So I guess my overall question up for discussion this week is, what social forces went into the construction of Frankenstein? And where do we see these played out in the novel?
I know New Historicism came about in response to the New Criticism that was prominent in the 1960s, but in a way I feel like it still focuses on the text. In "Against Theory," Knapp and Michaels argue against approaching literary works through theory. They argue that "criticism is an activity that cannot be governed by transcendent principles; rather, it is a 'practice,' prior to and not determined by any guiding theory" (2489). I like this idea because it brings the focus back to the text. I am an advocate of close reading and basing my analysis on the text rather than the theory, but I do like New Historicism. This is because you look at history through the text and try to determine how historical events may have constructed the work, but you still have to focus on the work. And I really do believe that literary works are socially constructed, which I suppose is why some of our critics for this week were Marxists.
So I guess my overall question up for discussion this week is, what social forces went into the construction of Frankenstein? And where do we see these played out in the novel?
The Trouble With Theory
Jameson says “interpretation is not an isolated act, but takes place within a Homeric battlefield, on which a host of interpretive options are either openly or implicitly in conflict” (1826). He is calling for a pluralistic theoretical approach; this is not unlike Gates’s claims that theorists must “learn to read a black text within a black formal cultural matrix, as well as its ‘white’ matrix. This is necessary because the existence of a black canon is a historically contingent phenomenon; it is not inherent in the nature of ‘blackness’ nor vouchsafed by the metaphysics of some racial essence” (2435). How would historical influences alter readings of black texts and black authors? Meanwhile, Adrienne Rich insists “feminist theory can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration of ‘lesbianism’ as an ‘alternative life style’ “ (1593). Rich’s essay is a call to arms for vocal and antagonistic feminist and lesbian theory. How is this different from Gates’s interest in crafting parallel canons, parallel interpretations? How is she different from Jameson’s open ended interpretations and claims that there are no wrong answers?
While the classical theorists seemed set on a single consideration, aesthetics or rather how aesthetics define and distinguish literature, the postmodern era is about dualities and pluralistic approaches. Contemporary to this is an interest in the alternative voices and an interest in minority literature—racial, gender, sexuality, non-western, non institutionally dominant culture. Postmodern theory too considers not canonical literature, but pop culture, pop art, mainstream, mass production, advertising, disposable media—it is an era that casts aside the classical hang ups with absolute definitions, aesthetic distinctions, and clear segregation between Literature and literature. It is an all inclusive, all accepting, welcome to the world attitude. In many ways this serves as an attack on the dominant culture—the institutional culture of the academy.
In Against Theory, Knapp and Benn attack the very idea of academic theoretical criticism:
“Some theorists have sought to ground the reading of literary texts in methods designed to guarantee the objectivity and validity of interpretations. Others, impressed by the inability of such procedures to produce agreement among interpreters, have translated that failure into an alternative mode of theory that denies the possibility of correct interpretation. Our aim here is not to choose between these two alternatives but rather to show that both rest on a single mistake that is central to the notion of theory per se. The object of our critique is not a particular way of doing theory but the idea of doing theory at all” (2492)
However, by making theory a subject of criticism, are they not simply furthering the theoretical approach, further expanding the hierarchies of literature, criticism, and theory? Are they not simply creating a new cultural matrix that includes theory?
Frankenstein can be read as a metaphor for Shelley’s ‘birthing’ a novel, that the act of creating a monster is in effect similar to writing a book. In reading the text as a metaphor for writing, Shelley is serving as a theorist constructing a critique of the mode of production of literature. She creates a monster after all, which should say something about literature. But if her literary creation results in this monster, is she suggesting a corruption of the process similar to Knapp and Benn’s insistence that the fault of theory is theory?
While the classical theorists seemed set on a single consideration, aesthetics or rather how aesthetics define and distinguish literature, the postmodern era is about dualities and pluralistic approaches. Contemporary to this is an interest in the alternative voices and an interest in minority literature—racial, gender, sexuality, non-western, non institutionally dominant culture. Postmodern theory too considers not canonical literature, but pop culture, pop art, mainstream, mass production, advertising, disposable media—it is an era that casts aside the classical hang ups with absolute definitions, aesthetic distinctions, and clear segregation between Literature and literature. It is an all inclusive, all accepting, welcome to the world attitude. In many ways this serves as an attack on the dominant culture—the institutional culture of the academy.
In Against Theory, Knapp and Benn attack the very idea of academic theoretical criticism:
“Some theorists have sought to ground the reading of literary texts in methods designed to guarantee the objectivity and validity of interpretations. Others, impressed by the inability of such procedures to produce agreement among interpreters, have translated that failure into an alternative mode of theory that denies the possibility of correct interpretation. Our aim here is not to choose between these two alternatives but rather to show that both rest on a single mistake that is central to the notion of theory per se. The object of our critique is not a particular way of doing theory but the idea of doing theory at all” (2492)
However, by making theory a subject of criticism, are they not simply furthering the theoretical approach, further expanding the hierarchies of literature, criticism, and theory? Are they not simply creating a new cultural matrix that includes theory?
Frankenstein can be read as a metaphor for Shelley’s ‘birthing’ a novel, that the act of creating a monster is in effect similar to writing a book. In reading the text as a metaphor for writing, Shelley is serving as a theorist constructing a critique of the mode of production of literature. She creates a monster after all, which should say something about literature. But if her literary creation results in this monster, is she suggesting a corruption of the process similar to Knapp and Benn’s insistence that the fault of theory is theory?
Yearning is the word.
"Yearning is the word," says bell hooks in "Postmodern Blackness." "Specifically, in relation to the post-modernist deconstruction of "master" narratives, the yearning that wells in the hearts and minds of those whom such narratives have silenced is the longing for critical voice" (2513). There is no question that hooks is right; those who have been silenced yearn for a critical voice. Does that not cut to the core of the monster as we know him to be? The creature in Frankenstein wants a father, a creator, to belong. Does not a father and creator act as a critical voice? Is that not the most important critical voice in development from immaturity? Society- no, life- is nothing but rules of what can/cannot, should/should not be done. The patriarchical role is that of laying down rules. As the monster is rejected by his creator/father, his only parenting is done through societal experience. The monster is literally raised by the society with which he surrounds himself.
This 'longing for a critical voice' may be a reaction to postmodernism in "that many groups now share with black folks a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding even if it is not informed by shared circumstance" (2513). Working under the basic assumption that the monster is an "other," albeit lacking the racial ties to 'black' or white,' he most definitely shares this sense of alienation and uncertainty, a "loss of a sense of grounding" (2513). Maybe the feelings bell hooks touches on are reactionary to more than merely "postmodernism." Yes, postmodernism critiques identity, but I don't think it threatens or closes down the discourse and practice of those who suffer (2513). Being suspicious of postmodern techniques arriving at the same time that many "subjugated people feel themselves coming to voice" is a little paranoid, at least to me. I find the reading to be incredible, but working under the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude that gets in the way of her analysis, more often than not- more often than in any other reading I can immediately recall.
Fighting Against the Death of the Subject
Jameson writes in Postmodernism and Consumer Society that "there is another sense in which the writers and artists of the present day will no longer be able to invent new styles and worlds--they've already been invented" (1851). To apply this postmodern text to Shelley's Frankenstein, one cannot help but notice that two of the novel's prominent characters have forged a rather "pastiche" existence: Walton, the ship captain who is searching for a passage through the arctic some 200 years after earlier explorers found that no such passage exists, and Victor, who is pursuing the "elixir of life" long after science deemed it to be nothing more than myth.
I don't wish to argue however that these characters have conceded the death of the subject, and are thus undertaking there own pastiche projects just as Jameson writes Roman Polanski turned to the past to create Chinatown. Instead, I believe Walton and Victor are natural 'partners' because of their shared belief in the subject: they are unwilling to abandon their faith in the "unique individual."
Walton and Victor share the same "lack of keeping" that drives them deeper into their endeavors with an undeniable passion. It is a distinctly pre-corporate "ardour" that these two men suffer from; an ailment, perhaps, not suited for the world of "bureaucracies" that Jameson speaks of. Their quest to save the subject drives them literally, as we've said in several different weeks now, to the margins of humanity.
This thought project has left me with several questions:
1) By picking up texts from the past--In Walton's case, old books of voyages, and Victor's antiquated alchemy books--are the characters pursuing pastiche projects that actually confirm the death of the subject? In other words, they seek novel innovations, a passage through the arctic and the secret to human animation, but by picking up an abandoned past are they really doing anything 'new' to validate the subject? (Seems like a question Greenblatt would enjoy)
2) Are these characters reacting to a world that fell out of love with the subject long before Jameson proclaimed its death? This week's readings have made our relation to the author and his or her intent more ambivalent than in previous weeks when it was completely forbidden, so I'll ask another question: did Mary Shelley foresee the death of the subject in the increasingly corporate environment of industrial age? If so, what do the pursuits of Walton and Victor ultimately say about the subject?
I don't wish to argue however that these characters have conceded the death of the subject, and are thus undertaking there own pastiche projects just as Jameson writes Roman Polanski turned to the past to create Chinatown. Instead, I believe Walton and Victor are natural 'partners' because of their shared belief in the subject: they are unwilling to abandon their faith in the "unique individual."
Walton and Victor share the same "lack of keeping" that drives them deeper into their endeavors with an undeniable passion. It is a distinctly pre-corporate "ardour" that these two men suffer from; an ailment, perhaps, not suited for the world of "bureaucracies" that Jameson speaks of. Their quest to save the subject drives them literally, as we've said in several different weeks now, to the margins of humanity.
This thought project has left me with several questions:
1) By picking up texts from the past--In Walton's case, old books of voyages, and Victor's antiquated alchemy books--are the characters pursuing pastiche projects that actually confirm the death of the subject? In other words, they seek novel innovations, a passage through the arctic and the secret to human animation, but by picking up an abandoned past are they really doing anything 'new' to validate the subject? (Seems like a question Greenblatt would enjoy)
2) Are these characters reacting to a world that fell out of love with the subject long before Jameson proclaimed its death? This week's readings have made our relation to the author and his or her intent more ambivalent than in previous weeks when it was completely forbidden, so I'll ask another question: did Mary Shelley foresee the death of the subject in the increasingly corporate environment of industrial age? If so, what do the pursuits of Walton and Victor ultimately say about the subject?
The Creature's Body as a Symbolic Act
According to Fredric Jameson in "The Political Unconscious," "the 'interpretation' of the unique facial decorations of the Caduveo Indians--the starting point will be an immanent description of the formal and structural peculiarities of this body art; yet it must be a description already pre-prepared and oriented toward transcending the purely formalistic, a movement which is achieved not by abandoning the formal level for something extrinsic to it--such as some inertly social "content"--but rather immanently, by construing purely formal patterns as a symbolic enactment of the social within the formal and the aesthetic."(1828)
Trying to tie in Jameson's quote with last week's discussion regarding ethnic and cultural studies, I was wondering if the creation of the body of the Creature from multiple parts of unknown human bodies could be interpreted as Victor Frankenstein's way of turning the Creature's physical form into a symbolic representation of Ethnic or Cultural "Otherness." By making his body a human physiological pastiche, the Creature could be reflective of two things: a) He could be representative of the schizophrenic nature of the all-encompassing view of the individual in what we will later recognize as the modern and postmodern world. b) He could be representative of the Western world's view of the all-encompassing other. If he is the latter, it could be said that Frankenstein's repulsion towards the Creature is the West's attitude towards anyone outside of their world, making the society come off as a isolationist. If he is the former, then Mary Shelley not only succeeded in creating the first work of science fiction, but she may have also succeeded in creating the first postmodern man.
Trying to tie in Jameson's quote with last week's discussion regarding ethnic and cultural studies, I was wondering if the creation of the body of the Creature from multiple parts of unknown human bodies could be interpreted as Victor Frankenstein's way of turning the Creature's physical form into a symbolic representation of Ethnic or Cultural "Otherness." By making his body a human physiological pastiche, the Creature could be reflective of two things: a) He could be representative of the schizophrenic nature of the all-encompassing view of the individual in what we will later recognize as the modern and postmodern world. b) He could be representative of the Western world's view of the all-encompassing other. If he is the latter, it could be said that Frankenstein's repulsion towards the Creature is the West's attitude towards anyone outside of their world, making the society come off as a isolationist. If he is the former, then Mary Shelley not only succeeded in creating the first work of science fiction, but she may have also succeeded in creating the first postmodern man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)