tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post1766464406236130268..comments2024-01-11T21:53:16.420-08:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: Cast as both Victim and Villian: A Tragic HeroAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-19341376100841833922012-01-27T09:44:23.829-08:002012-01-27T09:44:23.829-08:00I love the OED deeply – but is this kind of histor...I love the OED deeply – but is this kind of historicizing, contextualizing definition of value here? Maybe it is – but I don’t quite get why simpler (less historicizing) definitions aren’t preferable here. Certainly it helps us to understand how the monster might be akin in some ways to figures, e.g, out of Greek mythology – but in that case you might want to say a little more about why the “Homeric” definition of hero is useful or relevant here.<br /><br />Regarding your discussion of Frankenstein’s villainy, you don’t pay much attention to the monster’s crimes (dismissing rather than arguing them away), and you also don’t pay any mind to Frankenstein’s own beliefs or motives – in other words, from the point of view of a progress-oriented scientists, what’s wrong with learning from graves? This isn’t to say that you’re wrong – just maybe that you’re oversimplifying a little, by not going into any *depth* where the moral problems of the novel are concerned.<br /><br />The last couple paragraphs seem to me to be increasingly conventional – a third lengthy definition was hardly necessary, and you’re mostly just summarizing the plot here.<br /><br />The main thing I want to emphasize here is that I *do* think there is merit in looking at the novel through a Homeric (or Latin, or whatever) understanding of what heroes and villains are. You do a fine job of explaining some reasons to understand the monster as a hero in that sense. What’s lacking for me is any sense of why this is important – what does it *mean* to define the monster’s heroism in terms of his capabilities rather in terms of morality? You confuse the issue further by talking about V’s villainy in moral (if rather conventional) terms. This seems to me almost like a contradiction – are we using two different yardsticks here? If so, why? Or do you just want to re-examine Frankenstein through a different understanding of what heroes are – in which case, what do we get out of doing so?<br /><br />I think Colleen’s reading supports the idea that the discussion of the monster-as-hero is the thing really worth pursing here.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-45495034997866609002012-01-26T10:19:18.807-08:002012-01-26T10:19:18.807-08:00I thought the way that you introduced the concept ...I thought the way that you introduced the concept of "hero" in the first paragraph was very interesting in the way that it suggested a link between being a man and being immortal. I think it would be valuable if you were to expand this paper to perhaps go more in depth into the idea of being a god, hero or superhuman in looking at the monster and even Frankenstein. You may be able to cut out some of the things that you say about the physical strength of the monster as it may be a little repetitive or add something about his psychological and intellectual capacities - as the monster is a two year old quoting the bible.<br /><br />Additionally you may want to bring up the fact that you were going to argue that Victor is a villian earlier in the introduction. Again this is another place you could take your paper if you were to expand it by comparing how the monster is a hero and Victor a villian - or how they both are change roles like we discussed in class.<br />Your third paragraph on revenge you may want to be a bit more concise with the summary and or connect your theory back to the idea of hero/villian. Do you think that the fact that the way the monster was acting out of revenge because he wanted compassion a heroic justification? Is intention what defines a person as good or bad? <br />Also I think that your conclusion specifically the concluding sentence was a bit confusing. The monster said he would end his life at the end but Victor also sacrificed the rest of his life to catch the monster and ended up dying in the end - so are they both heros? <br /><br />In summary, I think that you have a lot of great ideas here for a longer paper that you can definitely expand upon. You can go in a lot of different directions and definitely find more support from the book.Colleen Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04082233159912327915noreply@blogger.com