Brian Fitzpatrick writes a poignant article about Mary Shelley and Frankenstein. He makes MANY arguments in this article. READ IT carefully. Make a list of all of his arguments, large and small. Choose one and develop that argument further. For example, the following is a quote from the article:
"Though Frankenstein is a tale of terror, the original philosophical themes that actually make it terrifying have been forgotten. Insipid terror has largely replaced intellectual terror, and thus has Mary Shelley’s avant-garde masterpiece been reduced to a banal monster piece."
Because I have read and studied Frankenstein, I would choose this particular line and develop an argument about how the literary work has been minimalized into a simple "monster piece". I would develop and thesis and argue my point that this work is an avant-garde masterpeice.
You have not yet read this novel. Fitzpatrick tells you in this article about all of the very important topics that are contained in its pages. Choose one. Talk about it. Develop and argument about it. NO REPEATS. There are plenty for everyone, if you read it carefully.
Fitzpatrick wrote an interesting article which contains many individual arguments concerning Frankenstein. He begins by arguing that the womb and the tomb are a parallel in which a child is born into a new life. He then goes on to compare the modern Prometheus creates monsters and defies the supernatural while the mythic Prometheus creates man and defies the natural. He continues to argue that art is the opposite of science and that art can perfect nature while science can pervert it. Fitzpatrick argues that Frankenstein is a rebel by creating the monster in his image and likeness and that he held too much power in this creation. He also explains that Frankenstein created the monster in his image and likeness just as God has created humans in His. He argues the difference between a perfect creator and an imperfect creator which leads to the results of a "child of divine love", and "a monster."
ReplyDeleteThough their are many arguments throughout the article, I would like to expand the argument that science and art are opposites and that art can leads to perfection and science leads to a perverted nature. I can agree with the fact that art and science are opposites. I can partially agree with the argument. As Fitzgerald proposes, " Art has everything to do with emotion, inspiration, and sacred mysteries. Science has nothing to do with any of these things, dealing instead with comprehension, investigation, and material calculations." He then states that art can perfect nature and science can pervert it. First, nothing a human can make in this world is exactly perfect because only God can create perfection. Art is very emotional and expressive which can truly benefit our society through the spreading of cultural ideas and the idea of people expressing themselves. Science can pervert nature just how we have been seeing in our society today. For example, the Ted Talk for the blog last week contained many ways the use science has perverted nature in medical experimentations and the how there are many issues with ethics. For example, assisted suicide or experimentation with embryonic stem cells. When relating this to the book "Frankenstein", it is apparent how science has perverted nature by creating the monster because it is something very unnatural and it is as creature that has not been created by God. On the other hand, I would consider the monster as a piece of art as well because he was sculpted by Frankenstein who expressed his ideas to create the monster which in turn has perverted nature. Frankenstein used science to create an art which is supernatural. "The Antipsalmist screams, “For thou didst form my inward parts… I curse thee for thou art foolish and wicked. Wicked are thy works!” Frankenstein mirrors the wicked and foolish art describes from this article. Art can lead to many beautiful creations and science can bring about many beautiful creations as well, but they both have the chance of being distorted by humans and they both have been throughout history.
I think that you are correct in saying that both have been distorted by humans and that there are many examples in history. But I think I disagree with Fitzpatrick when he said that art and science are opposites. There is so much art that goes into science that people do not realize, and I think that there is a certain amount of science in art, too. They are very different, but I think they both aid each other in what makes them wonderful, or destructive. I like how you tie that into your blog with regards to Frankenstein.
Delete
DeleteI agree with your argument and I even said something about how Fitzpatrick talks about the creation of the monster as being perverted nature.
In the Book of Genesis, the creation story is told. According to the first account of creation, on the third day God saw that what he was doing was good. He continued to see how good his creation was everyday afterward. He created mankind in His own image, therefore mankind was also good. God had all the power to create whatever He so desired, and He created all of us. He did not have to do that, in fact, without humans the world God created would still be perfectly in tact. God's compassion and made Him able to create humans, but Frankenstein did not have the same characteristics that made God an amazing creator. According to Sean Fitzpatrick's article, "Frankenstein assumed too much power in an act of cadaverous creation, while failing to assume the compassion and responsibility that creation demands." Although this novel was written in the 1800s, this message still holds true. In creating a life in the laboratory, Frankenstein had a power he was not intended to hold. Life was not supposed to be made in test tubes, but rather God meant for life to be created by the coming together of a man and a woman. When Frankenstein created the "cadaverous creation" he abused the power he had, and he created a monster. Ultimately, the monster was not created in the image and likeness of God because it was forged out of sinful acts. This blasphemous act can be compared to many things in society today such as abortion. As Catholics, we believe that once there is life, it must be respected no matter how it was created, but we have to understand that the breakage of our unity with Christ is being damaged by all of the sinful acts associated with not having procreation as God wanted for us. When we do so, we have been blessed and hopefully we can have the "compassion and responsibility" that Frankenstein lacked. Creating monsters, in the sense of that Frankenstein did, distorts the reality that God wanted us to enjoy. In the world today, scientific advances are becoming more and more like a mirror to the monster that Frankenstein created. Yet some how many people are still blind to the issue at hand, even after foreshadows such as Frankenstein's monster. The TedTalk on bioethics shows that we are already altering life in many ways and we are also creating life in test tubes. Through this we are assuming way more power than we were intended to hold which can cause mass confusion in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI think your blog is successful because of all the sources you brought into it. It was very helpful that you included catholic beliefs, the Bible, ethics, and our previous TedTalk on bioethics.
DeleteI really liked how you brought in last weeks TedTalk about bioethics, that was a good resource to use! Good work Hannah!
DeleteHannah, I believe saying that God only made good really exemplifies why the life of Frankenstein just simply does not work. I think you did an excellent job at explaining that.
DeleteBrian Fitzpatrick writes about the story of the Frankenstein monster and how it relates to the ethics of modern day situations. Fitzpatrick argues that Victor Frankenstein is a modern Prometheus. He argues that the monster is perverting nature. He argues on many different arguments that creating a being is not correct. He argues that Victor was both a rebel and a victim. He argues that the monster was created in the likeness of his creator just as people are. One argument in particular is that Fitzpatrick says "The mythic Prometheus is famous for creating men. The modern Prometheus is infamous for creating monsters." Without reading the book I know that this statement is accurate. All the legends of Prometheus tell that he created people and they had stuffer for his wrong doing. In the case of Victor Frankenstein and his monster the story is the same. The story is not interpreted this way however. Today if you were to talk to someone about Frankenstein they would think about the monster not the person. Everyone thinks of the story as how the monster was created. In reality, the monster was a created being just like the ones created by Prometheus. The monster was also hated and payed for the wrong doings of its creator similar to the ones created by Prometheus. People are wrong when they see these stories as two different things. The story of Frankenstein is not about the monster, it's about the creation of the monster. The book is wrongfully interpreted and takes away from the meaning and purpose of the story. In modern day a new meaning of the book has come about and that is not necessarily a bad thing. A new purpose has come about in the story of the book that the author never intended. It is good that people have grown to see the story as they have but it is unfortunate that so many people fail to see the actual meaning behind the story. The ethics of whether or not it was right to create the monster is a largely debated topic and that is what the story is truly about. The purpose of the story was to show how creation coming from anywhere other than God is bound to fail. Instead it is looked at as a scary story about a scary monster. The part that should be scary is that a being was created not that there is a monster.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blog and how you brought in the ethics of different modern day situations. That was very interesting!
DeleteI like how you said that the creation has paid for the wrong doings of the creator. I think that really explains why natural life is perfect because God is perfect. Unnatural life is perfect because aside from being made from God no man is perfect.
DeleteI enjoyed the explanation of how people do not think of Frankenstein in the right way, always thinking about just the monster. It is very symbolic of how people blame others for problems and not the creator of the problems. People just assume something is always as meets the eye.
DeleteFitzpatrick wrote a very intriguing article on Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein." In it he explains many different topics related to the book and relating the book to real life. Some major topics brought up in this article were the process of creating life, and the animation of a corpse. I would like to expand on the topic of animating a corpse. A prevalent ethical problem is at hand with the process of bringing a human being back to life after death. Although, it is important to note that the modern medical professionals of the world already do this with people who are DOA to the hospital. They do it because the person's organs are still somewhat functioning, and no doubt because God lets it happen. In this case it is viewed more as the saving of a life. The animation of a corpse is a significantly different matter. The catholic faith states the belief of the undead is sinful. So the creation of the undead is deemed just as, if not even more sinful. This is what animating a corpse is essentially doing. It takes a body which is dead, and has been dead for some time, and uses science to experiment and bring that corpse to life for moments, maybe even minutes. This is already practicable with some animals. Not only is this procedure disturbing, but is has the potential to be used on humans. This would in tern be creating a monster or a zombie of some sort. And as science in this field progresses, it may have the ability to render these animations life for years. This gets into a huge question of ethics. Why would anyone need to animate a corpse? There is no real reason other than having the satisfaction that that person possesses the power to bring a person or animal back to life. This is like playing God. God takes a life when it is time and creates a life in the same matter. Any tampering with this system God has planned is a serious sin. Frankenstein created a monster, which is very similar to animating a dead corpse because the monster was made from the parts of dead people. It should never be acceptable to bring a person or animal back to life after death. God may not ever let it be possible, but trying is just as sinful. Any creation of life or the bringing back of life is not what God intended for us. He is the creator of life and the taker of life because what God creates and takes is good and planned. He does not want animated zombies or monsters created by the fallible man possessing life in our world. Some may think that bringing someone back to life is good because they can live happily again, but if they are dead their time has come and we are not to tamper with God's plan. It is an unnatural and very disturbing practice. It should only ever be left in the hands of God. And ethics must always prohibit the creation and animation of any life
ReplyDeleteI like how you explain the difference between bring someone back to life after they have been declared dead and starting a new life. You successfully brought in the Catholic faith and scientific research to defend your blog.
DeleteI think you did a fabulous job of relating this issue of bringing the dead (very dead) back to life with our Catholic faith. It is only God who should be able to choose whether we live or die, and messing with God or acting as God is a huge sin in itself. But in our society today, we are not so much concerned with God's laws, but rather with how far we can take science before science starts to take us.
DeleteBrian Fitzpatricks story, Frankenstein, talks about how it relates to the different situations of today, and the arguments that involved Frankenstein. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is a novel written by English author Mary Shelley that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. First she starts off talking about the womb and the tomb. He goes on to say how babies are buried alive in their warm mothers’ girth. He also talks about how Frankenstein is considered a classic to many people, but now a days are finding it to be more thrilling to have the hell scared out of them. One major thing that he argues is the difference between men and monsters he says that it is "nothing more than the difference between happiness and misery." "If it were not for the infinite goodness and compassion of our Creator, mankind would be nothing more than a race of monsters whose universal cry would storm heaven with the words of Frankenstein’s monster: “I was alone. I remembered Adam’s supplication to his Creator, but where was mine? He had abandoned me, and, in the bitterness of my heart, I cursed him.” This part of the article was very important because in Frankenstein, electricity serves as the very tool which creates life, which creates the monster. Frankenstein is to the monster a reverse mirror image of humanity’s relation to the supernatural effect. This is exactly true because the story is all about creating a monster, which is scary. A quote from the book says that "As I fixed my eyes on the child, I saw something glittering on his breast. I took it; it was a portrait of a most lovely woman. In spite of my malignity, it softened and attracted me. For a few moments I gazed with delight on her dark eyes, fringed by deep lashes, and her lovely lips; but presently my rage returned; I remembered that I was forever deprived of the delights that such beautiful creatures could bestow and that she whose resemblance I contemplated would, in regarding me, have changed that air of divine benignity to one expressive of disgust and affright." This is a huge part of our modern day problems. In this case the monster is upset that normal people won't treat him with the kindness and respect that he deserves just because he isn't attractive.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that maybe the argument that electricity is the center of life in the story of Frankenstein could relate to some of our problems today with our reliance on electricity and computer-based devices? Also, I like that you pointed out how our society doesn't want anything to do with things/people that aren't pretty. In all reality, pretty is a false and nonexistent idea. Nobody is "pretty enough", everybody has flaws, but our society disregards anything/one that isn't "perfect".
DeleteThe author of this article, Sean Fitzpatrick, states that "Frankenstein is an imperfect creator and the implications of this run very deep, giving traitorous birth to a traitorous child that eventually destroys his true family. The tale is a tragedy rooted in the essential role of perfection in the act of creation." Fitzpatrick is arguing that one of the main reasons for tragedy in this story is that Frankenstein is not God. God is the only perfect creator, and because of this, any life as a result of a faulty creator is faulty in its own and can only result in chaos and defiance. Is argument of Fitzpatrick develops on the idea that God should be the one and only creator of life, for man alone is faulty in his works and cannot successfully create another man without tragic consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe duty of man is to serve his creator. In our case, we must do our best to serve God. God is the one and only perfection, and only He can do everything that we cannot, and more. When Frankenstein created another "man" (the monster), he essentially stole the role of God, but he is not perfect as god was, resulting in a faulty creation of the man. The man, or monster, is rebellious against his creator because the creator is imperfect. Man cannot be a creator because he is imperfect himself. If man can rebel against man his creator, than any creation of the rebellious has the ability to defy against his creator, the original rebel, creating a sort of paradox in its own in which no man can be the true creator or leader of his creations for anything created has all the same abilities as the creator.
It can be related to enslavement. The purpose of a slave was to serve his master. Over time, the slaves revolted against their masters for freedom of their own. The situation of Frankenstein would be as if the freed slaves then owned slaves of their own and expected them to serve him just as he had served his master. It doesn't make sense. The idea of man as a creator is a paradox in itself that will never seem to work out in the end.
This argument about the perfection necessary in a creator can also relate to the blog that we did last week on bioethics. Frankenstein created his monster, disregarding any and all standards of ethics. This disregard of ethics created chaos for Frankenstein because he was not a perfect creator and he is not God. Though Frankenstein is a fictional work, many lessons should be taken from it when contemplating bioengineering and creation of new creatures alongside the morals and ethics that should be followed. In a way, scientists of this age are just a new Frankenstein, and though some of these new scientific findings may be helpful, something somewhere that a scientist created is bound to cause a new problem for our world, rather than fix any problems that the creation was originally intended for.
Life is a gift from God. Life was created through God's compassion and love. On the contrary, it can be seen in the book by Mary Shelly called Frankenstein, that life made from one's pride is monsterous. This topic is just one argument that Sean Fitzpatrick used in his piece "Frankenstein by Mary Shelly." Fitzpatrick also argues that the book has lost its once "avant-garde" qualities and has now been reduced to a story of a monster. He also argues that life and death when created naturally are both related because they both bring new life. Fitzpatrick goes on to say that the shift from art to science has makes the story almost pervert nature. These are all arguments presented in the article. Although these are powerful arguments, the argument that I believe embodies some of the other arguments is located in the first paragraph talking about wombs to tombs. This part of the text sculpts an image in the mind, an image of true life. Fitzpatrick describes the development of babies as being "buried alive in their warm mothers’ girth." He then describes death as being "buried in their cold Mother Earth." This a truly remarkable mirror image because at first these two seem to be totally unrelated. There seems to be no correlation between the two. They almost seem to be the opposite, but Fitzpatrick shows that they are actually quite related. He does this through the words, "The former are born to live for a span; the latter will be reborn to live for an eternity." This line is truly remarkable. It represents the unity that all natural life has with each other. Life made naturally will always be alive either spiritually or physically on Earth. That is why Frankenstein should not work. The monster is not made naturally. Rather, it was made from the pride of a man. Life not made naturally, such as Frankenstein, is doomed to a life of unhappiness and despair, rather than happiness and fulfillment. Fitzpatrick describes the life of an unnatural being as "breeding a bloodline of hatred and death." This is a statement that alludes to the "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" as the book does so often. This statement may seem harsh, but it is reality that life needs the touch of God in order to be good because God created good and nothing but good. That is why I believe his argument about the womb and the tomb is so powerful.
ReplyDeleteI like the connections you made. The connection to the Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner was very good. I also really like the topic you choose to expand upon the wording in that sentence is very good and really bring your argument alive same as it did for Fitzpatrick.
Delete