tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post2396731436684365067..comments2024-03-26T22:47:45.276-07:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: The Role of Frankenstein's MonsterAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-56313561221317168842012-01-27T13:26:58.475-08:002012-01-27T13:26:58.475-08:00I like the quote you open with - but I don't l...I like the quote you open with - but I don't like that you don't immediately use it, but instead begin with a highly general (and in a way, easy) introduction. It doesn't take a long paragraph to tell us what the monster is - this is space that could be used to articulate or justify that reading! The third paragraph, in fact, does the same work as the 2nd - it just does so more compactly, and uses details of the text to make its arguments.<br /><br />The 4th paragraph, where you argue that we can understand and sympathize with the both the monster and Victor, doesn't progress your argument at all. It's fine to say, at a high level, that we can sympathize with both - but what about the moment which challenge that supposition? Do you sympathize with Victor when he is silent, as Justine is on her way to the gallows, or when he simply walks away from the monster? Do you sympathize with the monster as he murders William? This isn't an argument that will work unless you engage with the moments in the text which can and should challenge it.<br /><br />In other words, to argue that both the monster and Victor need to be understood as victims, you should be able to show us that Victor is a victim when he *seems* to be a villain, and that the monster is a victim when he *seems* to be a villain - and to do that, you need to do engage with the text much more deeply than you have.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-7701543029184859762012-01-26T13:27:25.116-08:002012-01-26T13:27:25.116-08:00My first comment is unrelated to the content compl...My first comment is unrelated to the content completely. I would make sure you proofread your paper in the future because there are a few very simple typing errors in here. However, what you actually wrote about is highly similar to what I wrote about. I also believe that the monster was neither hero or villain, as most would. I argued that he was simply an antagonist to Victor, as opposed to a victim. Your argument for the monster being a victim is very compelling and definitely urged me to think a bit deeper about the argument. I still think that, because most of the story is told from Victor's viewpoint, I never really found the monster to be much of a victim. The narration from Victor's view, until the end, shows him being almost terrorized by the monster the whole novel. He is constantly frightened of what the monster may do to him or his loved ones. I am not saying that Victor is any sort of hero, but he does tell a large amount of the story that we are reading. The parts where the monster tells his story brings a level of sympathy to the reader for the monster, but he still commits multiple murders fueled by vengeance. Although I don't necessarily see him as a villain, it was hard for me to accept him as a victim due to the fact he was systematically killing Victor's loved ones out of anger. As you said, the reader is allowed to interpret these intriguing characters in any way they feel so I suppose I just felt differently about it, despite the fact your argument is very well constructed and led me to think about the issue more.Cody Wisniewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02038074007977044156noreply@blogger.com