Hi, my teacher for twelfth grade Honors English wanted us to write a reaction paper to a critique of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and we were asked to keep it concise and easy to understand. I'd appreciate any advice on how to make the paper more simplistic, and if possible, shorter and more well written. You don't need to have read Frankenstein or the critique, but I wrote the essay as if you (the audience) had. We were given no actual prompt, but we were told to summarize the article first paragraph, and provide commentary and our opinion in the second. Thanks! :D
Mary Poovey's critique of Frankenstein, entitled "The Lady and the Monster" deals largely in the concept of egotism and imagination, and how these are affected by a lack of familial bonds. Poovey claims that Shelley makes the point that overly lofty goals and ambitions are allowed to grow unchecked if one has no companions to control the imagination. She uses Victor as an example of this, stating that his detachment from society led to an appetite for knowledge, which, in turn, led to the creation of the monster. Poovey claims that Shelley also uses the monster as an example of the dangers of isolation, in that his detachment from society led to the same sense of unchecked imagination that sent him on the path of evil.
Poovey's assertion that the imagination is a force that must be kept in check by society and personal relationships implies that she is in favor of society's regulation on people's behavior and a small degree of conformity, due to the fact that this seems to be the most effective way to hinder the destructive aspects of one's imagination and egotism. She also seems to make the assumption that this uninhibited growth of egotism is doomed to result in a destructive and harmful endeavor, and makes no mention of the many achievements that have come about due to a reclusive nature and an uninhibited imagination, including the works of Emily Dickinson and the innovations of Leonardo Da Vinci. Poovey also makes the claim that the monster's evil actions were caused by his imagination, claiming that he literally killed Frankenstein's loved ones because "Frankenstein figuratively murdered his family" (256). In my opinion, Poovey's argument is weak. Though I believe that Shelley does make a statement about the dangers of ambition, I do not believe that Frankenstein or his monster committed their sins because of an overactive imagination or an egotistical desire to prove themselves. Though Frankenstein did seclude himself from society, this was a symptom, rather than a cause of the true problem: an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, which was evident in Frankenstein from a young age, even when he had yet to seclude himself from society. I also believe that the monster's murders were not an act of vengeance for an imaginary family built up in his mind, but rather anger over being denied any sort of companionship. This would make the murders an act of frustration over being denied a basic human need, rather than the death of a family that never existed.
Mary Poovey's critique of Frankenstein, entitled "The Lady and the Monster" deals largely in the concept of egotism and imagination, and how these are affected by a lack of familial bonds. Poovey claims that Shelley makes the point that overly lofty goals and ambitions are allowed to grow unchecked if one has no companions to control the imagination. She uses Victor as an example of this, stating that his detachment from society led to an appetite for knowledge, which, in turn, led to the creation of the monster. Poovey claims that Shelley also uses the monster as an example of the dangers of isolation, in that his detachment from society led to the same sense of unchecked imagination that sent him on the path of evil.
Poovey's assertion that the imagination is a force that must be kept in check by society and personal relationships implies that she is in favor of society's regulation on people's behavior and a small degree of conformity, due to the fact that this seems to be the most effective way to hinder the destructive aspects of one's imagination and egotism. She also seems to make the assumption that this uninhibited growth of egotism is doomed to result in a destructive and harmful endeavor, and makes no mention of the many achievements that have come about due to a reclusive nature and an uninhibited imagination, including the works of Emily Dickinson and the innovations of Leonardo Da Vinci. Poovey also makes the claim that the monster's evil actions were caused by his imagination, claiming that he literally killed Frankenstein's loved ones because "Frankenstein figuratively murdered his family" (256). In my opinion, Poovey's argument is weak. Though I believe that Shelley does make a statement about the dangers of ambition, I do not believe that Frankenstein or his monster committed their sins because of an overactive imagination or an egotistical desire to prove themselves. Though Frankenstein did seclude himself from society, this was a symptom, rather than a cause of the true problem: an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, which was evident in Frankenstein from a young age, even when he had yet to seclude himself from society. I also believe that the monster's murders were not an act of vengeance for an imaginary family built up in his mind, but rather anger over being denied any sort of companionship. This would make the murders an act of frustration over being denied a basic human need, rather than the death of a family that never existed.
