✎✎✎ The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein

Friday, October 08, 2021 10:35:42 PM

The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein

For The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein I had deprived myself of rest and health, I had desired it with and ardour that far exceeded moderation: but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and disgust filled my heart. Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde Character Analysis proof reads for both Byron The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein Percy The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. For I have Analysis Of Jamie Oliver Speech been fond of gothic tales, Personal Narrative Essay: The Mann Lake Adventure of fantasy and mystery, The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein occult, with the secrets of supernatural and magical forces. And then there is the poet Shelley. According to him, the conception of The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein cosmos as a static mechanism had dominated Western thought since the time of Plato and is The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein well represented by The Great Chain of Being The The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein five years of world history have Pga Tour V Martin Case Summary nothing The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein not Open Document. Two years later, as I started structuring this thesis about that book, The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein things were The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. He succeeds and creates a monster that The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein to deal with living again.

Everything you need to know to read \

Historien er filmatisert flere ganger, blant annet i en. Boris Karloff stars as the screen's most memorable monster in what many consider to be the greatest horror film ever made. Frankenstein Colin Clive dar.. Filmen forteller historien om vitenskapsmannen dr. Frankenstein dares to tamper with life and death by creating a human monster out of lifeless body parts Perfect for Halloween! In this child-friendly retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, scientist Victor takes on his biggest laboratory experiment ever—crea.. I, Frankenstein is a science fantasy action film written and directed by Stuart Beattie, based on the digital-only graphic novel by Kevin Grevioux. Victor Frankenstein er en amerikansk skrekkfilm fra Filmen er en modernisert versjon av Mary Shelleys roman Frankenstein fra Hovedrollene spilles av Leon Vitali og Per Oscarsson..

That was one legacy of the movie that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein couldn't shake. Victor Frankenstein is still robbed of his arc This greatest of all Frankenstein movies begins during a raging thunderstorm. Frankenstein er en skrekkroman av Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. This is the original Frankenstein. The old horror films had no music, only dialogue. So, I added a score of my own. Breakdown of Movie Delays , and When They Will Hit Theaters Frankenstein might have been great for the time, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I personally only ever found it to be okay The Ghost of Frankenstein was the fourth film in the series, and the first not to feature Karloff as the monster.

Lon Chaney Jr. While the movie picks up where Son of Frankenstein left off, it contains none of that film's sense of fun or intelligence Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell. Search movie times, buy tickets, find movie trailers, and view upcoming movies. At a castle in the Bavarian mountains, Dr. Henry Frankenstein played by Colin Clive and his hunchbacked assistant Fritz Dwight Frye succeed in piecing together a human body out of parts stolen from various corpses. As they prepare to give it life through the application of electricity. A List of Movies Based on Frankenstein, Since a complete list of films based directly or indirectly on Frankenstein would run into the thousands, it's convenient to exclude films with only a tangential relationship to the original novel: those, for instance, with only a mad scientist, a raising-from-the-dead theme, or a Creature cameo.

This chronological list includes most of the. The gags come thick and fast and the humour is very dry at times. But - that is all to the good and the movie just flies along. Cloris Leachman is superb as Frau Blucher, whose name terrifies the horses. Even without Universal's upcoming horror-free slate of monster movies, audiences around the world are in the midst of a Frankenstein-asance, and Mary Shelley's greatest accomplishment will. Victor Frankenstein Release Date: When was it released?

Victor Frankenstein was released in on Wednesday, November 25, Nationwide release. There were 2 other movies released on the same date, including Creed and The Good Dinosaur. Scarlett Johansson will play the Bride of Frankenstein in a new movie from Sebastian Lelio, Apple, and A24 Frankenstein, the title character in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel Frankenstein, the prototypical 'mad scientist' who creates a monster by which he is eventually killed. The name Frankenstein has become attached to the creature itself, who has become one of the best-known monsters in the history of film. Movies: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein A young doctor fatigued by the hopelessness of fatal cases decides to defy death by creating life, but not in the kinky, fun way Frankenstein, el vampiro y compania - Mexicansk film fra Aaron Eckhart stars as Dr.

Due to this peculiarity, it is difficult to accomplish an organized and sequential analysis of images one by one. It is often necessary to refer back to images already mentioned or to anticipate comments about those not yet studied. Similarly, images can contain other images within them such as the image of the Creature contains those of Adam and Satan and, at the same time, interfere with the signification of one another. This work is an argumentative thesis, presented in three chapters. The first chapter is divided into two sessions. The second chapter, with a brief introduction and two sessions, exposes the theoretical basis behind this thesis.

The introduction comments on how English literary criticism has dealt with Romantic prose and on the most important critics and theoreticians whose studies have contributed to the development of this work. The first session of chapter two briefly examines the most relevant influences operating in the writing of Frankenstein as well as a very small portion of the most relevant artistic production it has influenced. The session is intended to function as a contextualization of the main issues the novel puts forth. It deals with intertexts that lead to Frankenstein and with intertexts that develop out of it.

Here I scrutinize the way in which images refer to other images in and out of the text, in an intertextual interface, and how they embody the feeling and thinking of English Romanticism. I intend to demonstrate, in this chapter, that many of the images created by Mary Shelley are common to the movement and to other contemporary poets and, in that sense that they are universal, archetypical, and Romantic. In the end of the work, I hope to validate the thesis that the images presented in Frankenstein grant it the right to be placed among the great Romantic novels of the English canon. And, since it is a work about images, I have collected some to present in the annexes: images of places visited by Mary Shelley before or while she was writing Frankenstein, and that are described in it; and other relevant images that bear some kind of intertextual relations to the novel.

The technical norms employed in this work conform to the ABNT rules, except for the issues of punctuation and other details that would hinder the reading of the English text. In such moments, I followed the MLA parameters instead. I guess a word about the difficulties I faced during this research is not out of place here. Although Frankenstein is currently accepted as part of the canon, and Mary Shelley a celebrated author, they have not found their place within academic study in Brazil.

The small quantity of academic studies by Brazilian authors available in libraries is also surprising. The majority of the works about Frankenstein come from Europe and the United States. The absence of studies about Frankenstein in Brazil seems to me emblematic of the inappropriate treatment I argue the novel has had along literary history. In her Introduction to the edition of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley tells her readers that she was often asked how such a young girl came to think of such a hideous story. So many forms of prejudice seem to be implicit here: the fact that she was a woman and women were not supposed to write books; the fact that she wrote prose in an age of poetry; the creed, sometimes alluded to, that her husband was the real artist behind the creation of Frankenstein.

But, most of all, this report tells us the novel possesses aesthetic and literary values its contemporaries did not know how to deal with. This is what I propose to investigate, trying to clear up, as much as possible, the shadow which such prejudice has thrown upon Frankenstein. Have I a cold heart? But none need envy the icy regions this heart encircles. And, at least, the tears are hot! Mary Shelley, The Journals of Mary Shelley The contribution of Russian Formalism has taught us what harm can be done when critics rely too strongly on the biography of the author of a given work of art.

Mary Shelley and her two famous literary companions, Byron and Shelley, are themselves instances of the damage provoked when the reading public concludes that only filth and immorality can come from a filthy and immoral author. First published in Access on 8th, June, Available at Courses. My aim is to highlight events that can shed some light on Frankenstein and on the personality of its author.

A few hours after having given birth to Mary Shelley, her mother fell ill. A retained placenta caused her generalized inflammation and great pain so that, within ten days, she died. Access on 19th February, This was a collection of tales with illustrations commissioned from William Blake, not yet widely known at that time. When Mary Shelley was seventeen years old, she was already acquainted with the philosophical and political writings of her parents. The death of her mother is dramatized in the novel through the theme of motherlessness.

Sophie and Elizabeth are also motherless. In the case of Elizabeth, she became an orphan thrice: her first family entrusted her care to a second family that again delegated the responsibility towards her to a third one. The only character who has a mother is Justine. However, hers is not the ideal mother: she does not exactly love Justine and does not treat her as well as her other children. She only wishes to have her daughter close to her when she is nearly dying. The only real mother in the story is a flawed one. Curiously enough, the book seems to be motherless too, as it was published anonymously. Because of the intense intellectual life of her parents, Mary Shelley was familiar with many prominent figures of the English cultural scene of the time. They only met again and started a relationship in After a few days in Brunnen, Lake of Lucerne, complete lack of money forced them back to England, to where they arrived on September 13th, Two things occur to me that relate this entry to her first novel: 1 Like Dr.

These are only two among the many passages in the novel that display images that find an echo in the life of the author. The famous episode of the contest from which Frankenstein originated only happened two years later, in June Los Angeles: University of California Press, , p. It is undeniable that the period the Shelleys spent with Lord Byron impressed Mary Shelley to the point of imprinting clear, deep marks on her novel. However, all the investigations that have been carried on by both biographers and scholars are not enough to disclose everything that happened during those days, and especially during those nights, in a way that some episodes remain uncertain. The text is full of emotion, and seems more of a romanticized narration than an objective account of the facts: there is no word, for example, about the fact that Claire Clairmont, Mary and Percy Shelley had visited, in , a region of Germany where the ruins of Castle Frankenstein picture Appendix B, p.

There is no word either about several thinkers whose ideas she clearly makes use of, such as Rousseau, Locke, or her own parents. This pressure apparently caused the dream she claims to have been the initial inspiration for writing. It is described thus: I saw — with shut eyes but acute mental vision — I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion. Frightful must it be, for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.

I opened mine in terror. The idea so possessed my mind that a thrill of fear ran through me, and I wished to exchange the ghastly image of my fancy for the realities around. Mary Shelley, It is on this passage of the Introduction, and not on chapter five of Frankenstein, that most films base their accounts of the scene of the creation of the Monster. The passage provides a sort of other version of the image of creation, and in this sense, the passage is not an appendix to, but a part of the novel. The year was remarkable for Mary Shelley. On January 24th, her son William was born.

It was a comfort for both parents to have another child to cherish after the one they had lost. On May 3rd, the Shelleys and Claire, for the second time, left London for Switzerland where they remained up to August 29th. It was during this year that the Shelleys and Claire spent the summer with Lord Byron. But, differently from what is commonly thought, they did not stay at his Villa Diodati Picture Appendix E, p. The events of those days and the scenery of the region impressed her deeply. She claims to have found inspiration for her novel in the atmosphere of the meetings at the Villa Diodati to which Claire Clairmont and John William Polidori were also present.

The area seems to have provided Mary Shelley with several ideas for the settings of her novel. The vividness of the descriptions of places are emblematic of the impact the scenery caused Mary Shelley. Almost every single place described in the text was known to her. A brief look at a map of the region shows names of places familiar to the readers of Frankenstein: a little to the south of Geneva is Plainpalais, the place in which the Creature commits its first murder. Besides that, the place was also chosen as the scenery for the mythical first meeting of creature and creator. For her, who had lost her mother and, more recently, her first child, this theme must have been of much interest. The idea of bringing back to life the beloved people she had lost must have influenced her psychology.

The second fact of importance to the novel is a trip made by Mary, Percy Shelley and Claire Clairmont down the Rhine river in and which is echoed by the trip Frankenstein and Clerval undertake in chapter eighteen. In the region the Shelleys visited, lay the ruins of a Castle Frankenstein, where an alchemist named Konrad Dippel once lived. Dippel carried on several alchemical experiments. What he had actually made was a liquid with blood and bones that was considered by physicians of that time to be able to cure illnesses. Her daughter Clara, born in , died in William, the child to whom Mary Shelley had been most attached, died one year later, the same year in which Percy Florence, her only child to survive her, was born.

After three years of apparent peace, in , a miscarriage nearly costs her life and Shelley drowns in the Gulf of Spezia, a loss from which she would never completely recover. Polidori, who had become her friend, commited suicide in and Lord Byron dies of a kind of fever in Greece in Mary Shelley knew that her mother had died in giving birth to her, that Harriet Shelley had committed suicide because her husband had deserted her, that Fanny Imlay killed herself because she felt so miserable and lonely, and that the miscarriages she had had killed her children inside her. Of course, she could hardly have done anything to prevent these incidents, but the probability that she felt indirectly guilty and saw herself as a monster exists.

For a person who was born and raised among literary celebrities, writing should have been a very natural activity. The death of her friends and the feeling of guilt led Mary Shelley to intense loneliness in such a way that her life seemed to be a series of several Romantic images. The images of death, guilt both direct and indirect and loneliness recur in English Romantic poetry and in Frankenstein. The high number of deaths in the novel seems to echo the high number of deaths in her own life.

Actually, it plays a crucial role in the story because, would it not torment the Creature bitterly, its violent potency might never have been released and the structure of offence, revolution and revenge that supports the novel would crumble. But images of Romantic loneliness, of man secluded from society and having nature for his only companion, are some of the most impressive: Often, after the rest of the family had retired for the night, I took the boat and passed many hours upon the water. Sometimes, with my sails set, I was carried by the wind; and sometimes, after rowing into the middle of the lake, I left the boat pursue its own course and gave way to my own miserable reflections.

An account of these images, therefore, might not follow a rational and linear path. At the age of twenty-seven, Mary Shelley had lost her mother, her half sister, her husband, four children and some close friends. Despite so many distressing events and lack of money she managed to make her living as a writer and to provide for her only surviving child. Her situation was only improved by his death in She had to provide not only for herself and her son, but also for her father, whose financial failure and debts increased constantly.

By the time of his death on April 07th , William Godwin was almost entirely dependent on his daughter. The idealized image of the romantic, generous, almost feminine and angel-like poet we sometimes have of him is partly due to her efforts in portraying him thus. Her other main concern was to see Percy Florence happy in life, and she seemed to be pleased when he decided to marry Mrs. Jane St John, a twenty-four year-old widow. Percy Shelley was never referred to as Sir because his father, who possessed the title, outlived him. From very early in childhood, Mary Shelley showed an intellectual independence and an anti-conventional behaviour that permitted her to elope with a married man and to become a professional writer.

She extended to her life all the artistic liberty of the Romantic writer she was, creating her own laws and living regardless of many social conventions, although not unconnected to them. However, a succession of disastrous events, lack of money, and social seclusion led her, towards the end of her youth, to behave less like a revolutionary. Although she never gave up writing, at the end of her life, Mary Shelley somewhat gave in to the standards of the proper lady of the time.

However, one more reason leads me to include it here. Today, those versions are known even by people who have never read the book. It follows that what these people know is a basic plot-structure: a man makes a creature, the creature turns evil, it runs amok. It has been so much diffused that facts and rumours often blend. For that reason, what the general reader usually knows is a sort of version of her life. These elements are often mingled with others borrowed from several different contexts: Romanticism, mythology and philosophy, for instance.

In this topic, I intend to provide an outline of the English Romantic Movement that will stand as the background of the analysis of Frankenstein I present in chapter three. I briefly comment on its differences from the preceding period and on the historical conditions that helped produce it. Today, it is consensual that the literary period now called English Romanticism appeared as a reaction against the literary standards of neoclassicism and that the Preface to Lyrical Ballads is its founding manifesto in England. He proposes a radical change in poetical language, which, he claims, should be 11 The preface written by Wordsworth for the first edition of Lyrical Ballads was a short one, which did not occasion much repercussion.

The text which became celebrated as the founding document of English Romanticism is the preface he wrote for the second edition The edition of the Preface to Lyrical Ballads that I refer to and make use of here is the second. Paradoxically, he claims to find inspiration in Edmund Spenser and John Milton, masters of perfection in the use of sophisticated language. It is symptomatic of the contradictoriness inherent to the Romantic Movement as a whole that Wordsworth actually ends in good neoclassicism when he requires the general language of humanity.

This explanation from his Biographia Literaria shows how Coleridge shares the concepts of both Wordsworth and later Shelley about poetry, and is concerned with the shift in poetic practice which is taking shape at the time. One of the most important theorists writing in English during the Romantic period, it is Coleridge that introduces in England the work of the German Romantic theorists, specially the brothers Schlegel. His great contribution is his theorising of issues of much importance for the English Romanticism, namely, the reconciliation of opposites, the definition of imagination much in accordance with Wordsworth and Shelley , the notion of the organic whole and the distinction between symbol and metaphor according to WELLEK, b.

All further references to this text are from this edition. They will be abbreviated BL and will be incorporated to the text. Biographia Literaria. IN: Wellek, b, p. It seems remarkable that the poet often remembered as the wildest and most romantic of all English writers, the creator of such poetic personae as Childe Harold, Manfred and Don Juan, declares himself resolutely in favour of neoclassical patterns. MacCarthy, It is known that none of the Romantics knew that they were forming such a powerful literary aesthetic statement that would, decades later, be labelled as the Romantic Movement.

However, it becomes evident from the reading of their work that they were aware of the change in literary fashion. Byron, although he wrote little critical or theoretical work, was certainly aware of this shift. But, in my view, the ultimate instance of this ambivalence is the predominance of the image of Prometheus in Romantic art throughout Europe.

Being Romanticism a reaction against neo classicism, it is expected that images derived from classical Greek mythology ought not to be favoured. Lettersand Journals, ed. Lord Prothero London, , Prometheus seemed then to embody the spirit of the age. Eighteenth and nineteenth century painting is full of representations of the Titan, and even Beethoven, an exponent of pre-Romantic music, composed inspired by the image of Prometheus. Its influence in the literature of the time has been tremendous: it is present in works by Voltaire, Goethe, Lord Byron and Shelley, whose Prometheus Unbound has been said to be his masterpiece. Of course such a powerful metaphor for the historical moment did not escape Mary Shelley. After such observations, I come to the conclusion that it is peculiar of the English Romanticism that it often slips back into neoclassicism.

That, I believe, happens because the artists of the time are not entirely and consciously free from neoclassical thought. This is certainly true, but does not mean that they were not attentive to the changes occurring not only in art, but also in most spheres of society. This, I believe is what Wellek means. The English Romantic Movement reflects, in its literary production, the ambiguity of a time when the word of order or at least one of them was transition: transition in artistic standards, in scientific conceptions, in moral values and in the way of viewing the world. The contradictions inherent to the English Romantic Movement are, thus, well justified. Having said a word about the paradoxes of Romanticism, I now comment on its terminology and definition.

It has ceased to perform the function of a verbal sign. When a man is asked … to discuss romanticism, it is impossible to know what ideas or tendencies he is to talk about. Romanticism: Points of View. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, , p. This is symptomatic of the difficulty of dealing with the term Romanticism and of its occasional controversies. This helps support my option of considering Romanticism in England as the period that goes from to There has been general agreement that the year of the publication of Lyrical Ballads stands as a suitable mark for the flourishing of romantic literature in England.

Romanticism Reconsidered. New York: Columbia University Press, , p. This edition is particularly important because, for its publication, Mary Shelley adds a few alterations to the text which became, let us say, the official version of the novel; the text is hardly ever read outside academic circles. It is an appendage, however, that works like a Derridean supplement since its adding of what the story lacks — origin, authority and meaning — does more than supply extra details. In any case, I have quoted this passage because it hints at the dialogue Frankenstein keeps with the literary movement that produced it, a dialogue that is not always evident. But, if I am to talk about Romanticism, I need to make clear what the emerging movement is founded upon.

William Hazlitt, in his The Spirit of the Age, also claims that the spirit of the Romantic age was very much influenced by the changes previous and subsequent to the French Revolution. This rebellious aspect of the movement can be felt in most poets and poems of the period, sometimes explicitly and sometimes through metaphor, symbolism or imagery. But to say that Romantic literature is revolutionary does not suffice; we better comprehend the changes by observing that they are revolutionary in relation to the previous aesthetic conceptions of literature and literary creation.

In the case of the English Romanticism, the previous concepts can be said to be those of the Age of Dryden and of the Age of Pope, in which the classical spirit in English literature reached one of its highest points. The poetic genius of the age was seen as coming from reasonable, lucid and perfect formulations of the mind and expressed itself through grandiloquent language and elevated themes. Hence the shock caused by the publication of Lyrical Ballads. A Defense of Poetry. Authoritative Texts and Criticism. New York: W. In all my writings I have consistently argued for a period concept which allows for the survival of former ages and the anticipation of later ones. My emphasis The common treatment of imagination, nature, symbol and myth given by Romantic poets to their work suffices, so Wellek argues, to establish the Romantic Movement throughout Europe as a historical and literary period in its own right, with its distinctive features, principles and ideology.

These are the categories through which I intend to provide my analysis of Romantic imagery in Frankenstein with some order and structural unity. However, these categories are not to be found loosely floating through Romanticism or through any given work. I want to argue here that they are organised by the unifying principle of organicism. This term was first theorised by A. According to him, the conception of the cosmos as a static mechanism had dominated Western thought since the time of Plato and is very well represented by The Great Chain of Being The notion of the great chain of being implies that the world is a machine running perfectly, with each part executing its function and into which everything in the universe fits perfectly and exists independently.

Peckham explains that the current metaphor then was that of a machine, a clock most of the times, and that within this paradigm, You will think of everything in the universe as fitting perfectly into that machine. Your values will be perfection, changelessness, uniformity, rationalism. TTR, p. Now, in face of the cluster of revolutions that shook the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, this epistemological framework became worn out, cracked and was turned inside out.

The image of the clock ceased to be representative of the system of thought of the time. The new metaphor, Peckham states, is that of a tree, in which the parts do not exist independently from the structure and from one another. In a tree, the leaves grow out of the branches, which have grown out of the trunk, which 22 Peckham refers to the book The Great Chain of Being, by Arthur Lovejoy, published in The book is a study of the history of the idea of the great chain of being. The new form of conceiving the cosmos is a biological one; the mechanicals of the former system gives way to the dynamism of the new one. Thus, one by one, the values of the new epistemological framework took the place of the former ones.

As an organism grows, there is no space for perfection, because perfection is static. In a world that is alive with dynamism imperfection, change and novelty become positive concepts, and they leave no room for immutable laws. This immediately affects artistic production because without immutable laws the artist is free to imagine, to express his or her feelings and ultimately, to create. Without immutable laws, authority and repression become unacceptable; rebellion and transgression become laudable.

This is the enthusiasm with which the English Romantic Movement comes forth. The paradoxical implication of the poem is to be discussed in chapter three. In this, his thinking is akin to that of Rousseau, who put into practice the claim that writing should be guided more by feelings than by 23 The concept of genius has existed since Ancient Rome and has had several different meanings. During the Romantic Movement, in England, the term was given much emphasis. It came to characterize the Romantic artist. To be a genius, in the Romantic sense, means to have great powers of creative imagination. Both Schopenhauer and Kant have written about the term.

Access on In his The Social Contract , the philosopher presents revolutionary ideas that propose an inversion of the current political theory. Tyranny, therefore, promotes a break of this contract that grants the people the right to rebel. This claim, which had its ultimate expression in the French Revolution, is at the heart of Prometheus Unbound. In chapter two, I comment on the ambiguity regarding how she felt towards Rousseau, truly admiring his philosophy but never accepting the fact he had abandoned his children.

Wollstonecraft developed the topic of the pamphlet in A Vindication of the Rights of Women, published , which pleaded, among several other issues, for equality between sexes in education. However, differently from Locke, who considered the right to property to be natural, Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Among Mankind , claims that it is the possession or not of property that marks social inequity. The reading of Volney makes the Creature realize that The strange system of human society was explained to me.

I heard of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty; of rank descent and noble blood. The words induced me to turn towards myself. I learned that the possessions most esteemed by your fellow creatures high and unsullied descent and riches. A man might be respected with only one of these advantages, but without either he was considered, except in rare instances, as a vagabond and a slave. And what was I? Of my creation and creator I was absolutely ignorant, but I knew that I possessed no money, no friends, no kind of property.

The changes in literary fashion described here actually began to appear in English literature slightly before the Romantic Movement, with the rise of the gothic novel. Gothic features, of course, have existed in literature long before that. Mario Praz mentions the existence of gothic traits in Shakespeare and other Elizabethan poets, and Anne Williams goes even farther and speaks of the presence of Gothic elements in Beowulf. It became then a great liberator of feeling. It acknowledged the non-rational — in the world of things and events, occasionally in the realm of the transcendental, ultimately and most persistently in the depths of the human being. Heilman, p. According to Anne Williams , the affinities of Gothic fiction with the Romantic Movement had been denied by a biased view of literature, on the part of conservative critics, that dominated the first three quarters of the twentieth century, and considered the Gothic as popular prose fiction and Romanticism as great poetry.

Williams mentions F. Leavis, Ian Watt and Wayne Booth as instances of this critical view, and argues that their critical work has been of much importance in establishing Realism as a standard of values in literature and keeping Gothic fiction away from what was, in their times, regarded as fine literature. By briefly showing how deep historical and artistic changes gradually manifested themselves in the Romantic literature, I have demonstrated that it has indeed its unifying principles and that its unity is the more authentic because it does not emerge out of clear consciousness.

Romanticism emerges organically out of its own history and society. The ambiguities I have considered inherent to Romanticism, far from disclaiming its legitimacy as a literary movement, add complexity and artistic strength to one of the most polemical periods in the history of Western literature. Hayden White, Tropics of Discourse The theoretical basis behind this work is, like the web of images in Frankenstein, composed of several threads. This chapter aims at reviewing some of English literary criticism concerning Romantic prose and the main issues set forth by Frankenstein.

An important part of contextualizing Frankenstein within the Romantic Movement is to observe the treatment given to prose works of the period. My work will have achieved all of its goals if it demonstrates that Frankenstein is the first Romantic novel in English and the most outstanding to have been written within the Romantic Movement.

That certainly does not mean Jane Eyre cannot be Romantic or that it is less Romantic than Frankenstein. What I want to argue is that the first Romantic English novel is Frankenstein. The fact that most of the Romantic production in England consists of poetry becomes a problem when one wants to analyse a novel on the grounds of its Romantic features. Almost the totality of critical and theoretical work on Romanticism focuses on poetry; the analyses and interpretations of images and symbols are derived from and exemplified with poems.

One of the few critics who does not focus exclusively on poetry when working with images and symbols is precisely Northrop Frye. This is one of the reasons that justify my choice of basing my research upon his studies. Perhaps because an amazing majority of the literary production of the period consists of poetry, Frankenstein, as a literary work of art, may have remained hidden by the shadow of the great poets of the time. Their ironic use of the gothic fashion indicated that the form, closely related to Romanticism, was in decline.

However, Romanticism itself was at its highest: Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron and Keats were alive and writing and yet, none of the three novels mentioned can be classified as Romantic, in the sense of presenting the aesthetic characteristics of the movement. Jane Austen, through her sharp analysis of human behaviour is closer to the Neoclassic tradition than to the Romantic literature of Percy Shelley and Lord Byron. It has not often been said that the prose works of the period are not Romantic. None of them, though, wrote their prose works in accordance with the shifts in literary fashion that dominated the artistic production of the time and yet, they are often remembered. It strikes me that the novel that was really written within this paradigm is not If we exclude critical works dedicated exclusively to Frankenstein which did not start appearing before the second half of the twentieth century , compendiums, outlines and surveys of English literature hardly ever mention the name of Mary Shelley.

The inadequacy in the treatment of the author and her most famous novel reaches its most absurdist moment in English Romantic Writers, by H. Battenhouse, which mentions Mary Shelley exclusively as the wife of Percy Shelley and does not say a word about her being a writer, much less about her being the author of a world famous novel. It brings, though, fourteen pages about Walter Scott 26John Burgess Wilson, in English Literature, argues that these writers wrote criticism and not literary texts. They specialised in literary criticism. It is this improper treatment I intend to diagnose and reassess in this work.

The two sections that follow develop these ideas. The three critics understand the Romantic period as a recognisable literary movement in its own right that keeps constant dialogue with the periods preceding and following it. For this purpose, the three critics plunge into the socio-historical context they believe has helped shape the movement. Everything is true in its own time, place, circumstance, and untrue outside of its own place, time, circumstance. If you try to nail anything down, in the novel, either it kills the novel, or the novel gets up and walks away with the nail. It is frequently used today to refer to any experience that might run out of the control of its performers or to anything considered violent, frightening and of horrible appearance.

It has become an element of Western culture that is deeply rooted in popular imagination. In Jungian terms, it can be said to belong to the Collective Unconscious of our Western society. The novel, once considered of bad taste, is now part of our cultural tradition. Trying to account for its insertion in Western culture as a myth of modernity, I came to think of it as a simultaneously converging and diverging centre. Frankenstein became such a vivid modern myth because it is a novel for whose composition a number of elements were amalgamated history, philosophy, biography and several other texts in a way that it originated a great amount of cultural production literary criticism, films and books.

Its functioning as a converging and diverging centre, as I claim, made it circle through most spheres of society and thus the story became popularised. Thus, it provided a powerful metaphor for subsequent artistic production. In this contextualizing chapter, I intend to offer a quick survey of the elements that influenced the writing of the novel as well as of a small portion of the immense production it has occasioned. Philosophy is also an important facet of Frankenstein. Literature in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, In Political Justice, Godwin states his belief that All control of man by man was more or less intolerable, and the day would come when each man, doing what seem right in his own eyes, would also be doing what is in fact best for the community, because all will be guided by the principles of pure reason.

Cambridge: Icon Books, In the bare-chested sword-and-sorcery epics of Robert E. Howard, for instance, the female. As previously pointed out, one of the most tried-and-true movie poster concepts of all time shows the monster—whether it be a BEM bug-eyed monster from This Island Earth or the mummy for Hammer's remake of the Universal film—striding through the darkness or the smoking ruins of some city with the body of an unconscious lovely in its arms. Beauty and the beast. You are in my power. It's that primal rape scene again. And the primal, perverse rapist is the Vampire, stealing not only sexual favors but life itself.

And best of all, perhaps, in the eyes of those millions of teenaged boys who have watched the Vampire take wing and then flutter down inside the bedroom of some sleeping young lady, is the fact that the Vampire doesn't even have to get it up to do it. What better news to those on the threshold of the sexual sphere, most of whom have been taught as certainly they have been, not in the least by the movies themselves that successful sexual relationships are based upon man's domination and woman's submission? The joker in this deck is that most fourteen-year-old boys who have only recently discovered their own sexual potential feel capable of dominating only the centerfold in Playboy with total success.

Sex makes young adolescent boys feel many things, but one of them, quite frankly, is scared. The horror film in general and the Vampire film in particular confirms the feeling. Yes, it says; sex is scary; sex is dangerous. And I can prove it to you right here and now. Siddown, kid. Grab your popcorn. I want to tell you a story. Enough of sexual portents, at least for the time being. Let's flip up the third card in this uneasy Tarot hand. Gaze, if you dare, on the face of the real Werewolf. His name, gentle reader, is Edward Hyde. Robert Louis Stevenson conceived Dr. Hyde as a shocker, pure and simple, a potboiler and, hopefully, a money machine. It so horrified his wife that Stevenson burned the first draft and rewrote it, injecting a little moral uplift to please his spouse.

Of the three books under discussion here, Jekyll and Hyde is the shortest it runs about seventy pages in close type and undoubtedly the most stylish. If Bram Stoker serves us great whacks of horror in Dracula, leaving us, after Harker's confrontation with Dracula in Transylvania, the staking of Lucy Westenra, the death of Renfield and the branding of Mina, feeling as if we have been hit square in the chops by a two-by-four, then Stevenson's brief and cautionary tale is like the quick, mortal stab of an icepick.

Like a police-court trial to which the critic G. Chesterton compared it , we get the narrative through a series of different voices, and it is through the testimony of those involved that Dr. Jekyll's unhappy tale unfolds. It begins as Jekyll's lawyer, Mr. Utterson, and a distant cousin, one Richard Enfield, stroll through London one morning. As they pass "a certain sinister block of building" with "a blind forehead of discoloured wall" and a door which is "blistered and distained," Enfield is moved to tell Utterson a story about that particular door. He was on the scene one early morning, he says, when he observed two people approaching the corner from opposite directions—a man and a little girl. They collide. The girl is knocked flat and the man—Edward Hyde—simply goes on walking, trampling the screaming child underfoot.

A crowd gathers what all of these people are doing abroad at three A. Hyde is a man of so loathsome a countenance that Enfield is actually obliged to protect him from the mob, which seems on the verge of tearing him apart: "We were keeping the women off as best we could, for they were as wild as harpies," Enfield tells Utterson. Moreover, the doctor who was summoned "turn[ed] sick and white with desire to kill him. Hyde they seem to have found the genuine article-although Stevenson is quick to tell us, through Enfield, that outwardly there appears to be nothing much wrong with Hyde. Although he's no John Travolta, he's certainly no Michael Landon sporting a pelt above his high school jacket, either.

Hyde, Enfield admits to Utterson, "carried it off like Satan. Although Enfield won't tell, we find out in due course that the signature on the check was that of Henry Jekyll. Enfield closes his account with one of the most telling descriptions of the Werewolf in all of horror fiction. Although it describes very little in the way we usually think of description, it says a great deal—we all know what Stevenson means, and he knew we would, because he knew, apparently, that all of us are old hands at watching for the mutant:.

He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarcely know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point. He's an extraordinary looking man, and yet I can really name nothing out of the way. And it's not for want of memory; for I declare I can see him this moment. It was Rudyard Kipling, years later and in another tale, who named what was bothering Enfield about Mr.

Wolfsbane and potions aside and Stevenson himself dismissed the device of the smoking potion as "so much hugger-mugger" , it is very simple: somewhere upon Mr. Hyde, Enfield sensed what Kipling called the Mark of the Beast. Utterson has information of his own with which Enfield's tale neatly dovetails God, the construction of Stevenson's novel is beautiful; it ticks smoothly away like a well-made watch. He has custody of Jekyll's will and knows that Jekyll's heir is Edward Hyde. He also knows that the door Enfield has pointed out stands at the back of Jekyll's townhouse.

A bit of a swerve off the main road here. Hyde was published a good three decades before the ideas of Sigmund Freud would begin to surface, but in the first two sections of Stevenson's novella the author gives us a startlingly apt metaphor for Freud's idea of the conscious and subconscious minds—or, to be more specific, the contrast between superego and id. Here is one large block of buildings. On Jekyll's side, the side presented to the public eye, it seems a lovely, graceful building, inhabited by one of London's most respected physicians.

On the other side—but still a part of the same building—we find rubbish and squalor, people abroad on questionable errands at three in the morning, and that. On the other side, Dionysus prances unfettered. Enter Jekyll here, exit Hyde there. Even if you're an anti-Freudian and won't grant Stevenson's insight into the human psyche, you'll perhaps grant that the building serves as a nice symbol for the duality of human nature. Well, back to business. The next witness of any real importance in the case is a maid who witnesses the murder which turns Hyde into a fugitive from the scaffold.

It's the murder of Sir Danvers Carew, and as Stevenson sketches it for us we hear echoes of every nasty murder to hit the tabloids in our time: Richard Speck and the student nurses, Juan Corona, even the unfortunate Dr. Herman Tarnower. Here is the beast caught in the act of pulling down its weak and unsuspecting prey, acting not with cunning and intelligence but only with stupid, nihilistic violence. Can anything be worse? Yes, apparently one thing: his face is not so terribly different from the face you and I see in the bathroom mirror each morning.

And then all of a sudden he broke out in a great flame of anger, stamping with his foot, brandishing the cane, and carrying on. The old gentleman took a step back, with the air of one very much surprised and a trifle hurt; and at that Mr. Hyde broke out of all bonds and clubbed him to the earth. And next moment, with ape-like fury, he was trampling his victim under foot and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered and the body jumped upon the roadway. At the horror of these sights and sounds, the maid fainted. Stevenson further informs us that "The stick with which the deed had been done, although it was of some rare and very tough and heavy wood, had broken in the middle under the stress of this insensate cruelty; and one splintered half had rolled in the neighbouring gutter.

This is inside evil with a vengeance, and it is no wonder that clergymen of Stevenson's day hailed his story. They apparently knew a parable when they read one, and saw Hyde's vicious caning of Sir Danvers Carew as the old Adam coming out full blast. Stevenson suggests that the Werewolf's face is our face, and it takes some of the humor out of Lou Costello's famous comeback to Lon Chaney, Jr. Chaney, playing the persecuted skin-changing Larry Talbot, mourns to Costello: "You don't understand. When the moon rises, I'll turn into a wolf. At any rate, Carew's murder leads the police to Hyde's Soho flat. The bird has flown the coop, but the Scotland Yard inspector in charge of the investigation is sure they'll get him, because Hyde has burned his checkbook.

We have nothing to do but wait for him at the bank, and get out the handbills. But Hyde, of course, has another identity he can turn to. Jekyll, at last frightened back to reason, determines never to use the potion again. Then he discovers to his horror that the change has begun to occur spontaneously. He has created Hyde to escape the strictures of propriety, but has discovered that evil has its own strictures; in the end he has become Hyde's prisoner. The clergy hailed Jekyll and Hyde because they believed the book showed the grim results of allowing man's "baser nature" more than the shortest possible tether; modern readers are more apt to sympathize with Jekyll as a man looking for an escape route—if only for short periods—from the straitjacket of Victorian prudery and morality.

Either way, when Utterson and Jekyll's butler, Poole, break into Jekyll's laboratory, Jekyll is dead. The worst horror of all has occurred; the man has died thinking like Jekyll and looking like Hyde, the secret sin or the Mark of the Beast, if you prefer which he hoped to conceal or to Hyde, if you prefer stamped indelibly on his face. He concludes his confession with the words, "Here then, as I lay down the pen and proceed to seal up my confession, I bring the life of that unhappy Dr. Jekyll to an end. It's a moral tale, sure, but it seems to me that it's also a close study of hypocrisy—its causes, its dangers, its damages to the spirit. Jekyll is the hypocrite who falls into the pit of secret sin; Utterson, the book's real hero, is Jekyll's exact opposite.

Because this seems important, not only to Stevenson's book but to the whole idea of the Werewolf, let me take a minute of your time to quote from the book again. Here's how he introduces Utterson to us on page one of Dr. Hyde: Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of rugged countenance that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty, and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary and yet somehow lovable. He was austere with himself; drank gin when he was alone to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theater, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years. About the Ramones, an amusing punk-rock band that surfaced some four years ago, Linda Ronstadt is on record as saying, "That music's so tight it's hemorrhoidal.

He's a Victorian prig of the first water, of course, and one would fear for a son or daughter brought up by the old man, but Stevenson's point is that there is as little of the hypocrite in him as there is in any man living. The difference between Utterson and Jekyll is that Jekyll would only drink gin to mortify a taste for vintages in public. In the privacy of his own library he's the sort of man who might well drink an entire bottle of good port and probably congratulate himself on not having to share it, or any of his fine Jamaican cigars, either. Jekyll does not want to mortify any of his tastes. He only wants to gratify them in secret. Jekyll in the late fifties, and that was a sad comedown for one of the original Mad Doctors, a figure that most horror buffs view with a great deal of affection.

March won an Academy Award for the role, earning him the distinction of being the only actor ever to win the award for Best Actor as a result of his efforts in a horror movie. But remember that what we're talking about here, at its most basic level, is the old conflict between id and superego, the free will to do evil or to deny it. This old struggle is the cornerstone of Christianity, but if you want to put it in mythic terms, the twinning of Jekyll and Hyde suggests another duality: the aforementioned split between the Apollonian the creature of intellect, morality, and nobility, "always treading the upward path" and the Dionysian god of partying and physical gratification; the get-down-and-boogie side of human nature.

If you try to take it any further than the mythic, you come damn close to splitting the body and mind altogether. It's hard to picture the guy sitting on the fakes with a newspaper. If we look at the Jekyll and Hyde story as a pagan conflict between man's Apollonian potential and his Dionysian desires, we see that the Werewolf myth does indeed run through a great many modern horror novels and movies. Perhaps the best example of all is Alfred Hitchcock's film Psycho, although in all deference to the master, the idea was there for the taking in Robert Bloch's novel. Bloch, in fact, had been honing this particular vision of human nature in a number of previous books, including The Scarf which begins with those wonderful, eerie lines: "Fetish?

You name it. All I know is that I've always had to have it with me. These books are not, at least technically, horror novels; there is nary a monster or supernatural occurrence on view. They are labeled "suspense novels. In short, Bloch has written a number of Werewolf novels in which he has dispensed with the hugger-mugger of the potion or the wolfsbane. What happened with Bloch when lie ceased writing his Lovecraftian stories of the supernatural and he never has, completely; see the recent Strange Eons was not that he ceased being a horror writer; lie simply shifted his perspective from the outside beyond the stars, under the sea, on the Plains of Leng, or in the deserted belfry of a Providence, Rhode Island, church to the inside.

It may be that someday these three novels, The Scarf, The Deadbeat, and Psycho, will be anthologized as a kind of unified triptych, as were James M. Cam's The Postman Alway Ring Twice, Double Indemnity, and Mildred Pierce—for in their own way, the novels that Robert Bloch wrote in the s had every bit as much influence on the course of American fiction as did the Cain "heel-with-a-heart" novels of the s. Psycho, the best known of the three, deals with Norman Bates—and as played by Anthony Perkins in the Hitchcock film, Norman is about as tight-assed and hemorrhoidal as they come. To the observing world or that small part of it that would care to observe the proprietor of a gone-to-seed backwater motel , Norman is as normal as they come.

Charles Whitman, the Apollonian Eagle Scout who went on a Dionysian rampage from the top of the Texas Tower, comes immediately to mind; Norman seems like such a nice fellow. Certainly Janet Leigh sees no reason to fear him in the closing moments of her life. But Norman is the Werewolf. Only instead of growing hair, his change is effected by donning his dead mother's panties, slip, and dress—and hacking up the guests instead of biting them.

As Dr. Jekyll keeps secret rooms in Soho and has his own "Mr. Hyde door" at home, so we discover that Norman has his own secret place where his two personae meet: in this case it is a loophole behind a picture, which he uses to watch the ladies undress. Psycho is effective because it brings the Werewolf myth home. It is not outside evil, predestination; the fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves.

We know that Norman is only outwardly the Werewolf when he's wearing Mom's duds and speaking in Mom's voice; but we have the uneasy suspicion that inside he's the Werewolf all the time. Psycho spawned a score of imitators, most of them immediately recognizable by their titles, which suggested more than a few toys in the attic: Straitjacket Joan Crawford does the ax-wielding honors in this gritty if somewhat overplotted film, made from a Bloch script , Dementia Francis Coppola's first feature film , Nightmare a Hammer picture , Repulsion.

These are only a few of the children of Hitchcock's film, which was adapted for the screen by Joseph Stefano. Stefano went on to pilot television's Outer Limits, which we will get to eventually. It would be ridiculous for me to suggest that all modern horror fiction, both in print and on celluloid, can be boiled down to these three archetypes. It would simplify things enormously, but it would be a false simplification, even with the Tarot card of the Ghost thrown in for good measure.

It doesn't end with the Thing, the Vampire, and the Werewolf; there are other bogeys out there in the shadows as well. But these three account for a large bloc of modern horror fiction. It is also undeniable that filmmakers seem to return again and again to these three great monsters, and I think that in large part it's because they really are archetypes; which is to say, clay that can be easily molded in the hands of clever children, which is exactly what so many of the filmmakers who work in the genre seem to be.

The homonymous film it inspired released in and Anna V. Forklift Systems, Inc. by Ivan Passar contains further allusions to other The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and traits of the Romantic Movement. A List of Movies Based on Frankenstein, Since a complete list of The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein based directly or The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein on Frankenstein would run The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein the thousands, it's convenient to exclude films with only a tangential relationship to the original novel: those, for instance, with only a mad scientist, a raising-from-the-dead theme, Erick Eriksons Stages Of Psychosocial Development a Creature cameo. Our focus will turn to towards the author as an increasingly important The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein within the work and the ties The Best-Known Archetypes In Mary Shelleys Frankenstein heroism and agency.