The Frankenstein has remained in popular consciousness in the twenty-first century, thanks to numerous film versions and derivatives. Partly because of its celebrated position in popular culture, and partly because of the extraordinary circumstances in which it was born, Frankenstein has attracted a...
The Frankenstein has remained in popular consciousness in the twenty-first century, thanks to numerous film versions and derivatives. Partly because of its celebrated position in popular culture, and partly because of the extraordinary circumstances in which it was born, Frankenstein has attracted a particular kind of criticism. There exists a plethora of theories and interpretations, psychoanalytical, feminist, anthropological, historicist and so on. There seems to be a vein of disbelief behind many criticisms: a disbelief that can be expressed by the question Mary Shelley herself asks in her 1831 'introduction': 'How I, then a young girl, came to think of and to dilate upon so very hideous an idea?' Attempting to answer this question, we have to consider psychoanalysis of Frankenstein the character, or psychoanalysis of Frankenstein the real person he would have been had he not been a character, or Mary Shelley's biography, or psychoanalysis of Mary Shelley. And also we thought about how they related with each other in unconsciousness part of mind. Gilbert and Gubar suggested that we are obliged to confront both the moral ambiguity and the symbolic slipperiness which are at the heart of all the characterizations in Frankenstein. It is probably these continual and complex reallocations of meaning, among characters whose histories echo and re-echo each other, that have been so be wildering to critics. Like figures in a dream, all the people in Frankenstein have different bodies and somehow, horribly, the same face, or worse the same two faces. But if we pay more attention, we can find that there is one person who is hidden behind all characters. The person is Mary Shelley herself. Two side of feeling, love and hate, about her father, rejection from social society where she want to be belong to, sexual desire, success desire and so on, all characters are applicable to Mary Shelley. Mary Bonaparte referred to these phenomenon as self-division and these phenomenons are peculiar features of Gothic literature. This article also focus on to divide metal area into id, ego, super-ego and to come into conflict with all characters. We found many samples of conflicts with the daemon, Frankenstein and other people in Frankenstein . These conflicts between them, detected in the two protagonists of Frankenstein, was also a ruling conflict in Mary Shelley's life at that time. We have met Frankenstein and the daemon as super-ego and id, or narcissists, or the origin of prejudice where we become the evil inscribe. This article may account for some of the wilder variations, and so help us to understand how such a variety of different critical views can exist, concerning Frankenstein. It may also helps to account for what could be called the impurity of most Frankenstein criticism. All critics brought reading ideas from Mary Shelley's biography and putting them into the novel. Perhaps this is because of the directness of the author's own question above. The question all of our critics have striven, to a greater or lesser extent, to answer; perhaps also, it is a natural consequence of both the celebrity and the luridness of Mary Shelley's early life-history, which cries out to be a significant factor for her novel.
The Frankenstein has remained in popular consciousness in the twenty-first century, thanks to numerous film versions and derivatives. Partly because of its celebrated position in popular culture, and partly because of the extraordinary circumstances in which it was born, Frankenstein has attracted a particular kind of criticism. There exists a plethora of theories and interpretations, psychoanalytical, feminist, anthropological, historicist and so on. There seems to be a vein of disbelief behind many criticisms: a disbelief that can be expressed by the question Mary Shelley herself asks in her 1831 'introduction': 'How I, then a young girl, came to think of and to dilate upon so very hideous an idea?' Attempting to answer this question, we have to consider psychoanalysis of Frankenstein the character, or psychoanalysis of Frankenstein the real person he would have been had he not been a character, or Mary Shelley's biography, or psychoanalysis of Mary Shelley. And also we thought about how they related with each other in unconsciousness part of mind. Gilbert and Gubar suggested that we are obliged to confront both the moral ambiguity and the symbolic slipperiness which are at the heart of all the characterizations in Frankenstein. It is probably these continual and complex reallocations of meaning, among characters whose histories echo and re-echo each other, that have been so be wildering to critics. Like figures in a dream, all the people in Frankenstein have different bodies and somehow, horribly, the same face, or worse the same two faces. But if we pay more attention, we can find that there is one person who is hidden behind all characters. The person is Mary Shelley herself. Two side of feeling, love and hate, about her father, rejection from social society where she want to be belong to, sexual desire, success desire and so on, all characters are applicable to Mary Shelley. Mary Bonaparte referred to these phenomenon as self-division and these phenomenons are peculiar features of Gothic literature. This article also focus on to divide metal area into id, ego, super-ego and to come into conflict with all characters. We found many samples of conflicts with the daemon, Frankenstein and other people in Frankenstein . These conflicts between them, detected in the two protagonists of Frankenstein, was also a ruling conflict in Mary Shelley's life at that time. We have met Frankenstein and the daemon as super-ego and id, or narcissists, or the origin of prejudice where we become the evil inscribe. This article may account for some of the wilder variations, and so help us to understand how such a variety of different critical views can exist, concerning Frankenstein. It may also helps to account for what could be called the impurity of most Frankenstein criticism. All critics brought reading ideas from Mary Shelley's biography and putting them into the novel. Perhaps this is because of the directness of the author's own question above. The question all of our critics have striven, to a greater or lesser extent, to answer; perhaps also, it is a natural consequence of both the celebrity and the luridness of Mary Shelley's early life-history, which cries out to be a significant factor for her novel.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.