Feminist analyses of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein have yielded fruitful interpretations that make sense of what might otherwise be considered inessential details in the narrative. Specifically, the anxieties and politics of birth and motherhood have been brought forward as central concerns of the novel. However, given the influence of the liberal, Marxist, and radical strains of feminism in the period that laid the foundations of feminist Frankenstein scholarship (the 1960s-80s), most of this work has focused on the burdens of motherhood, the bonds of womanhood, or the oppressive structure of the family, in some cases accusing Shelley of offering a defense of patriarchy. These influential strains of feminism were themselves influenced by the most dominant theories in philosophical ethics, deontology and utilitarianism, both of which emerged from the same Enlightenment intelligentsia that included Shelley's parents, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. However, in the 1980s, a line of feminist inquiry began to yield an alternative to influential moral theories: the ethics of care. In contrast to the dominant theories, which tend to laud principle- or calculus-based ethical reasoning that assumes interchangeability of moral subjects, the ethics of care emphasises particular relationships and the fact that people are not interchangeable, having different vulnerabilities, dependencies, and dependents. Most importantly, care ethics accuses traditional ethics of ignoring children altogether, creating the illusion that the paradigmatic moral subject is neither dependent nor obligated in non-voluntary relationships. The ethics of care presents challenges for some strains of feminism, particularly in that it takes as given certain natural differences between all people in terms of abilities and circumstances rather than seek to eliminate such differences, and that it argues in favour of the same self-sacrificing values that many feminists have argued have contributed to women's oppression. Because of this dissent, I have decided to approach Frankenstein from the ethics of care, reading it as a criticism of the masculinist values and assumptions embedded in the emerging moral theories of Shelley's period. I will argue that Victor is emblematic of the detached individualistic ethical reasoner valued by masculinist theories and criticised by care ethicists. The Frankenstein family and the DeLaceys both provide examples of caring relations as contrasts to Victor's behaviour. The Creature, offspring of an incomplete moral theory, is both victim and perpetuator of masculinist individualistic, calculus-based moral reasoning. He is more aware than Victor of the necessity of caring relations, but he follows an ethic of retribution inspired by principle-based theories. He knows he needs a partner, but speaks of her in the language that Victor speaks of him—as property. The glimmer of hope in the novel lies with Walton, who, unlike Victor, is willing to engage in dialogue across difference, and finally to set his high aspirations aside for the well-being of his crew.

This essay challanges one of the worlds most famous horror story, Mary Shelley'sFrankenstein.Who is the monster in this novel? People know the story but they often tend to blend the two head characters, Victor Frankenstein and his creature. Based on the psychoanalysis, founded by Sigmund Freud, this essay argues that Victor Frankenstein is not the nice guy he seems to be. Appearances are not always what they seem and Victor Frankenstein turns into a "monster of the soul" due to suppressed feelings. His creature never stands a chance without any guidence and love. The creature is instead turned into a "monster of the body" since it is constantly badly treated from the start

The Sentimental/Gothic myth, which dominates much of English and American literature during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, represents a cultural attempt to achieve unity, but the attempt is foredoomed because the essence of the myth is division. The myth's metaphor is sexual. The division that forms the acknowledged basis of the myth is that between two modes of being, seen as sexual modes: masculinity (power, aggression, violence, energy, dominance, etc.) and femininity (attraction, passivity, submissiveness, etc.). The unity sought by the myth on its acknowledged level is domestic harmony, the infusion of masculine strength into feminine passivity, the taming of masculine power by feminine submissiveness. Thus the myth regardsmarriage as the perfect state and the family as the perfect model of cultural unity. But the myth itself is flawed by a further division, of which the masculine/feminine division is actually a reflection: this is a division of the conscious, Sentimental myth from the largely unconscious Gothic myth. The Gothic, reversing the acknowledged direction of the myth (or carrying it full-circle to its inevitable conclusion), seeks the destruction of femininity by masculinity, the throwing off of feminine submissiveness by masculine violence. Thus it regards death(the "marriage" of murderer and victim) as the perfect state, and sterility, the blasted family, as the perfect model of unity.Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reflects both mythic divisions and their close interrelationship. Its hero seeks to establish his Sentimental masculinity and to achieve domestic unity, but in doing so creates the Gothic Monster who destroys the creator's beloved, his family, and finally drains life from the hero himself. Frankenstein, in form, themes, and characterization, reflects the ironies by which the Sentimental/Gothic myth is divided against itself, and shows the tragic consequences of its divisions.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has frequently been interpreted as a cautionary tale of the dangers of medical science and its ambitions. However, by comparing the different narratives in the novel the essay will show that the intention of the novel is quite different. The essay will show that while Frankenstein himself comes to believe that science is the culprit, the narratives by Walton and the creature qualify that view, showing rather that the problem is not science as such but Frankenstein’s abandonment of his creation. The essay begins with a brief introduction to the historical background of the novel, followed by an analysis of the three distinct narratives given by Walton, Frankenstein and the creature, and conclude with a discussion of the findings when comparing their narratives. / Mary Shelleys Frankenstein har ofta tolkats som en varnande berättelse om farorna av medicinsk vetenskap och dess ambitioner. Men genom att jämföra de olika berättelserna i boken så kommer uppsatsen att visa att syftet med boken är ganska annorlunda. Uppsatsen kommer att visa att medan Frankenstein själv tror att vetenskapen är den skyldige, Waltons och varelsens berättelser berättigar denna uppfattning, så är problemet inte vetenskap som sådan utan det faktum att Frankenstein övergav sin skapelse. Uppsatsen börjar med en kort introduktion till den historiska bakgrunden av boken, följt av en analys av de tre distinkta berättelserna från Walton, Frankenstein och varelsen och uppsatsen avslutas med en diskussion av resultaten när man jämför deras berättelser.

Reading a literary text can be rewarding in many ways, for example the text can open up the reader's imaginations, awaken thoughts or create emotions. What is also interesting about literary works is that they can be interpreted and analyzed in different ways.In this study, you will find out the results of a group of boys who attend their third year in Swedish gymnasium and their choice of analysis methods. Students have read and analyzed the famous horror novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley. This research compare students' analysis, to investigate whether it is possible to discern any specific and whether it is possible to see similarities in their results. The results of the students' analyzes show that a large majority of the students choose to analyze the characters based on different aspects. The students show understanding of the monster and its actions, several of the students also defend the monster's actions and explain why the monster acted as it did. / <p>Slutgiltigt godkännandedatum: 2022-01-11</p>

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

The aim with this paper is to study the different portrayals of evil as seen in Mary Shelley ́s Frankenstein. The analysis of the material is supported by two theories of evil, to further establish an objective aspect to the main subjective interpretation of the content. The analysis is conducted with the support of Claudia Card ́s theory of evil from the book The Atrocity Paradigm, as well as Arne Johan Vetlesen ́s theory of evil from the book Studies of evil. Card ́s theory of evil takes the rains in determining whether or not a deed should be deemed as evil or just unethical. Meanwhile, Vetlesen ́s theory focuses more on determining the causes of evil and what motivates evildoers to commit acts of violence towards other people. These two theories work well together to better understand the abstract and concrete shapes of evil in the novel. The conclusion drawn in the paper is that both Frankenstein and his creature are capable of evil deeds. The creature does do more evil deeds than Frankenstein, but nevertheless, they both commit acts of evil according to Card ́s criterium for atrocities. Furthermore, while the creature seems to lack Vetlesen ́s articulated cultural symbols, Frankenstein seems to lack in a sense of responsibility and growth. Since neither Card nor Vetlesen claim to be able to determine whether or not a person is predominantly evil or good, this paper will not try to answer that question, but rather discuss the characters as a whole based on the results from the analysis.