Both Edmund Burke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau undoubtedly influenced Mary Shelley. Rousseau profoundly influenced the political thought of her father, William Godwin, as well as the educational theories of her mother Mary Wollstonecraft. She read Rousseau during the year before she conceived of Frankenstein.
Burke must have been a more general influence. He was a prominent opponent of both Godwin and Wollstonecraft. But he articulated important ideas about the Sublime, which was the subject matter of Mary Shelley's circle, and especially of her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley.
Now that you have read some of both these thinkers, please respond in a paragraph or so to this topic:
How do Burke OR Rousseau's ideas about Humanity and Nature emerge in Frankenstein?
Does an awareness of the thought of EITHER Burke or Rousseau alert us to things in the book we might not otherwise notice, or help us to understand the book better?
As I'm trying to indicate, you're requested to address only one of these authors.
Edmund Burke writes that when we are able to confront something terrifying from a comfortable distance, out of harm's reach, we tend to take a certain bizarre delight in it. Our emotions are a combination of fear, awe, respect, and admiration. We find this object of fear beautiful. Triggers of this sublime feeling may include things like looking into the vastness of space, contemplating the unknown such as the beginning/end of time, or even riding a roller coaster. I have had such an experience on multiple occasions driving over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which feels to me a bit like driving into the clouds. This may also help explain our fascination with horror film and/or literature. This genre allows us to stare into the eyes of death at our convenience, and return safely to our warm beds. The book Frankenstein allows us to delight in themes such as death, murder, mortality, and the overcoming of mortality.
ReplyDeleteWithin the novel, a similar scene is played out for the character Victor Frankenstein. As a young student he takes great pleasure in studying the most morbid of subjects. His fascination with the ideas of beating mortality and creating life border on the giddy. He takes a sublime pleasure in his studies. His interests remain within the realm of the sublime, that is he remains at a safe distance from the simply terrifying, right up until the moment that his creature comes alive. At this moment, his studies have crossed a line, and there is no longer any delight to be taken from them. They are not fun or interesting. They are only terrifying. Edmund Burke writes "When danger or pain press too nearly, they are incapable of giving any delight, and are simply terrible..."
The idea of the Sublime isn’t new, and starting from this point, I personally would say that the text assigned about Burke’s theory about the sublime isn’t impressive. I honestly see the text missing a very important component – examples - especially on the first part of the text. Here follow my concerns, which I will divide in two parts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when talks about pain and danger, presented as positive pleasure, which excites the delight, and it is called sublime, I would love to see the world adrenaline being used by him. Well, I’m pretty sure the world adrenaline didn’t exit at that time, he wrote his theory, but I would say that the sublime is a “sounds better” word for adrenaline (Check Autonomic nervous system).
Second, Burke says that the sublime is “the productive of the strong emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.” In other words, our mind has to feel danger or pain in a positive way. I can’t agree with that! I don’t think that I can feel pain with my brain, but with my body. I can’t feel in danger with my brain, but with my body. My brain receives the information and my body responds. For example, as a graffiti writer, I experience tons of dangerous situations while in places where I don’t suppose to be, and it fell amazing. Was my body the fuel for me to experience the sublime, or was my brain just experience, and not feeling, the danger of the moment? The mind can’t feel, but can see the danger.
Finally, Burke talks about something obvious: Obscurity, terror, power, infinity, magnificence, loudness, and sudden, which there is no doubt that anybody who experience any of these properties, definitely can feel in different place. I would finish my critic about the text saying that, the sublime or adrenaline, is an unknown moment, is inexplicable.
Rousseau's thoughts, in particular about the nature of mankind, are undeniably contained in the text of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. As is common, philosophical discourse presents a particular view by proposing observations that support a certain argument. In the case of Rousseau's description on the inequality of men, he supports a view that all men are wicked because of the society which we have formed around ourselves. This argument was hotly debated in the 18th century and continues in the Frankenstein story. The question of man's nature, the hypothetical 'natural man' is in the form of the monster, made into existence without the experience of growing into adulthood. The monster is thrust into a society, ignorant of it's customs and regarded cruelly by the society's members. The monster's creator comes from a privileged section of society & so reflects a similar idea of a civilization which creates a selfish person because of the luxuries provided to him. Further, the monster as a representation of the 'natural man' has uncomplicated desires, to eat, to have a mate & a place of shelter. These desires become unattainable when the monster is forced to deal with man's society so as to attempt at having them.
ReplyDeleteRousseau's philosophy about the natural inequality of man is present throughout Frankenstein. The monster is created out side of nature, but the laws of nature and inequality are still pushed upon him. Through Rousseau's philosophy, the inequality of man dates back to the foundation of society, however, Frankenstein's monster isn't part of the existing society, and has no ancestors so he is separate from natural inequality until it is pushed upon him by the rest of that society. Rousseau views inequality as the source of all of man's vices including knowledge Frankenstein's creature is representative of knowledge as a vice caused by inequality. The creature was neither good nor evil originally but was turned evil b the natural inequality of man.
ReplyDeleteThere are many remote landscapes described throughout the book that could be described as Sublime. The natural power of these landscapes and terrains could be considered sublime. They can give us an overwhelming feeling of awe and terror simply because we cannot wrap our minds entirely around it. The way Shelley describes some of the terrains gives the reader a visual of the power of nature:
ReplyDeleteThe abrupt sides of vast mountains were before me; the icy wall of the glacier overhung me; a few shattered pines were scattered around; and the solemn silence of this glorious presence-chamber of imperial Nature was broken only by brawling waves . which, through the silent working of immutable laws, was ever and anon rent and torn, as if it had been a plaything in their hands.
(Frankenstein, P.90).
Burke writes that things that suggest the idea of danger can cause this feeling of sublime. Nature can be a destructive force and is uncontrollable to us. Shelley uses nature as a way to create this feeling at specific moments in the story. Such as when the creature is spotted by Walton in the icy landscape. This feeling of awe from the landscape carries over to the creature which we know to be monstrous. The sensation is combined together. Shelley's writing and knowledge of the sublime helps to give us similar sensations when visualizing the scenery and the creature within it.