Monday, April 03, 2006

Frankie- Isn't that the monster's name?

Ok, well if you don't know the answer to that question, then you need to do some more reading. Frankenstein is the novel that you were suppose to have read on your own. I know that many of you read it and others Sparked it. Regardless, you had to open the book at sometime and see what was going on. As we come to a close on this novel, weigh in on one of the following questions. Feel free to Google it and find intelligent answers. Give some good reasons that make me believe you have some knowledge about the book. Be sure to include the number of the question you choose.

1. Compare the novel to a Greek tragedy, especially as it develops the themes of ambition, overreaching, hubris ("overweening pride"). Which characters display these "epic" flaws?

2. In classical and neoclassical doctrine, the "greatest of all contests" was the struggle of reason to control passion. In the nineteenth century, passion began to rise in esteem against reason. Feelings were more important. Yet the contest seems to continue. What elements of that struggle do you find in the novel? The characters of Victor and the monster are especially relevant to look at.

3. "Mary Shelley in Frankenstein clearly comes down on the side of nurture in the Nature-versus-Nurture controversy." Attack or defend.

4. "Victor Frankenstein and the monster share the same personality. Like father, like son." Attack or defend.

Questions from Harris, Robert. Virtual Salt. "Ideas for Analyzing Frankenstein." Version Date: June 18, 2000

5 comments:

SuzanneS5 said...

Number three. Mary Shelley definetly comes down on nuture over nature because Frankenstein has a good heart but he is corrupted because other people are that way to him. He has a great heart but since no one will love him and he has no human companionship he is turned evil. Which could happen if everyone hated something or someone they would eventually grow to hating everyone around them. If he had love or compassion in his life he wouldn't have killed other people.

calliek3 said...

The Nature vs. Nurture topic is a good topic to discuss in Frankenstein. If the Monster had be nurtured by Victor, his creator, then maybe he would have a better outlook on life and would not have had so a horrible outlook on life. Maybe if he had been nutured at the beginning he could learn like a child and maybe would have been able to be taught right from wrong. Nature taught the monster that people are repulsed by what is not normal and that he would never be accepted in society. But even if Victor had shown compassion for the monster and showed compassion he would have still resented society because they still would not have accepted him.

maxg3 said...

Frankenstein and the monster share some of the same aspects in their personalities, and they are also a bit different. The monster was made unnaturally, with parts of deceased humans. Frankenstein was made the natural way, although I'll skip the detail on exactly how. They are both outcasts however. They both like to learn too. The monster desires a companion and is always denied. Frankenstein marries his sister or whatever. They are a bit alike, and a bit different.

Zer0 said...

In Point Number Four I can say that they can't be expressed just like a father and his son, because they are more than that, they are two separated parts of one, so if you can see this you have to see that they don't have the same personality. I think that they are oppositives personalities.

Leeb3 said...

Frankenstein and the monster share many of the same characteristics such as alienation. Both of them cannot relate to other people because of their differences. Nature vs. nurture is a good topic to discuss in Frankenstein. If the monster had been nurtured in the beginning he might not have been alieanated.