tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post9056248851059738929..comments2024-03-26T22:47:45.276-07:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: The Theory of Love in Mary Shelley’s FrankensteinAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-30222126661799055812012-01-20T19:12:03.282-08:002012-01-20T19:12:03.282-08:00I'm excited to see you focus on love; I am les...I'm excited to see you focus on love; I am less excited to see you do a bait-and-switch, by indicating in the title that you have a "theory" of love, but immediately switching to a "theme" of love: they are very different things!<br /><br />You make the bold claim that all the characters in the novel are searching for love. Then you only talk about the monster!<br /><br />I actually very much like the idea that we can get some kind of theory of love out of the monster himself. Is it a theory of love based on how parental love should work, and what happens in its absence? Is it a theory about natural love, in the absence of ordinary human contact? Is it about God's love (not an easy argument, but I actually believe, without easily being able to prove, that the novel owes at least a small debt to the Gospel of John - so I'm not opposed to the argument)? <br /><br />By generalizing your claims about the monster and love to other characters, though, you only get yourself into trouble. Does Victor seek love? That's a tough argument to make about him (and in fact, could be the source of a devastating attack upon him). Walton arguably seeks love - but doesn't he want fame more, or at least first? <br /><br />I think you would have been better served, first, by focusing on the monster, then, having done so, actually figured out what *theory* of love one could get out of thinking through the details of the monster's character (including, dangerously but temptingly, your idea about the gospel of John - a high risk / high reward approach), rather than chickening out and writing about a more obvious and less interesting "theme" about love which doesn't even hold true for all characters.<br /><br />Erika's parellel point that you could focus on the monster's relationship with the De Lacey's is correct, and a fine approach in its own right - it also should make clear that you had more than enough to tackle by clearly focusing on and arguing about the monster himself.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-35613992649526528762012-01-19T09:25:21.344-08:002012-01-19T09:25:21.344-08:00Everything you said is interesting and relevant to...Everything you said is interesting and relevant to the theme of love in Frankenstein, but I'd like to elaborate. I think your idea that "the implementation of love is vital for the benevolence of people" is a very astute observation, but needs to be expanded. In your post, you concentrated on the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster, which is arguably the most important relationship in the novel, but there are other interesting relationships and loves to be examined. <br />The most interesting to me, is the relationship of the monster to the DeLacys. So far as we have read, he has not confronted them or exposed his existence to them, but yet he feels a great connection and affection for them. This, then, is where i feel there is a hole in your theory. You say that love "can only be found through human connections". While it is true the monster longs for a deeper relationship with the DeLacys through human contact, he does not need this contact to love them, repeatedly referring to them as “my friends”. <br />This contact may be needed for reciprocated love, but for love at its most elementary level, this human interaction is not necessarily needed. Indeed, the monster felt love and affection for the DeLacys before he could even decipher their language. This type of love is also evident in the DeLacy's love of Safie, for she did not speak their language when she came to them, and only spoke to Felix before through an interpreter.<br />The relationships of Victor to his family and friends is also up front and obvious in the novel. In all the letters to which the reader is privy, the language is rich and affectionate. “My dearest cousin” (61), “My dear Victor,” (70), and “your affectionate…father” (73), are all common occurrences in these correspondences and these phrases also permeate the characters’ speech. Perhaps Shelley is setting up the overly affectionate life of Victor Frankenstein in an attempt to further juxtapose him with the monster, and also provide a source of confusion and lack of understanding for the monster’s emotional distress.Erika Zimmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02868482484611010466noreply@blogger.com