Historical Context for Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's Life

- Born in 1797, in London England
- Her father was a political writer and a philosopher
- Mother was a famous feminist, died when Mary was very young
- Had an older half-sister, Fanny
- Mary was never educated because her step mother and her did not get along well at all
- Her father disowned her when she fled England with Percy Shelley
- In 1815 the couple lost their first child
- She lost her half-sister to suicide and then Percy's wife shortly thereafter
- After the death of Percy's wife, the two married
- Many people thought that Percy published Frankenstein in 1818 because he wrote the introduction, Mary published it anonymously
- The two did not have a great relationship, and the lost two more of their children; only one, a son, lived to see adulthood
- Percy drowned in 1822 while sailing, widowing Mary at age 24
- She died at age 53 from brain cancer


Around the time of the publication of the novel or shortly before, the War of 1812 was going on as well as the Napoleonic Wars.

(http://www.biography.com/people/mary-shelley-9481497#later-years)

The Eureka Phenomena - Asimov Essay Reflection

Have you ever had a "Eureka" experience? Does Asimov's account of the phenomenon help you to understand it? Write about your experience with reference to Asimov's essay.

I can not say that I have ever made a wonderfully important or influential discovery that has in some way changed the course of society forever. It has been decided, while talking in small groups during class, that a Eureka moment as Asimov references, can happen to anyone and could be the smallest victory- the tiniest realization. Asimov compares the discovery of Archimedes' principle, and other scientific revelations, to his own writer's block that he experiences in his life on a regular basis. As an author he often found that while, "...writing a great deal of fiction, there wold come, once in a while, moments when [he] was stymied." His discovered solution to fix this block was to occupy his mind with non-intellectual action movies. In this personalized example he explains the Eureka moment as simply a discovery made while in a way not volunteering to think. This happens to me all the time. I spend hours on hours sitting at my piano practicing other people's amazing and prodigious compositions, which often inspire my own musical innovations. But I find that I rarely can write an acceptable piece of music when trying to be creative. It is only when I am in random places or when simply improvising that I come up with a melody that blossoms into a piece that is personally acceptable.

Introduction of Literary Critique

I am mainly interested in critiquing Frankenstein using a moral critical approach. Analyzing the humanity behind a piece has always been something that I would like to do. I may also use a Darwinian approach as well, scientifically looking at the biological processes that may influence character decision. The main question I am interested in answering is: How moral is it to create someone and then forsake them, and is there a human reason behind these actions?

Moral / philosophical critics believe that the larger purpose of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues.
Advantages: This approach is useful for such works as Alexander Pope’s “An Essay on Man,” which presents an obvious moral philosophy. It is also useful when considering the themes of works (for example, man’s inhumanity to man in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn). Finally, it does not view literature merely as “art” isolated from all moral implications; it recognizes that literature can affect readers, whether subtly or directly, and that the message of a work--and not just the decorous vehicle for that message--is important.
Disadvantages: Detractors argue that such an approach can be too “judgmental.” Some believe literature should be
judged primarily (if not solely) on its artistic merits, not its moral or philosophical content.
Critical Questions:What enduring truth is revealed in the theme of this work?
How are the actions of the protagonist rewarded and the actions of the antagonist punished?  (http://teacherweb.com/KY/BallardHighSchool/LivesayAPELit/Literary-Criticism-Overview.pdf)

I did some research and found this interesting point of view form Mary Shelley's husband:

In his 1821 A Defence of Poetry, English poet Percy Shelley proposed the idea that
imagination is the well-spring of compassion: “A man, to be greatly good, must imagine
intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many
others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own. The great
instrument of moral good is the imagination” (1904, 34). Such a moral imagination is our
ability to try to understand another, to make a good faith effort to inhabit anotherʼs
viewpoint— even someone quite unlike us. This idea of putting ourselves empathetically
into othersʼ shoes, of trying to see others as they might see themselves, is at the heart of
many of the worldʼs great ethical formulations, such as the biblical Golden Rule.
Literature, Shelley believed, offers us a particularly rich chance to practice that moral
projection  (http://apewiki.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/51798592/Moral%20Criticism%20for%20Students.pdf)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Educators once justified excluding women from schools on the grounds that they were intellectually inferior. How does Wollstonecroft unravel the logic of this position?

Mary Wollstonecraft does an excellent job of defending women's rights in this essay excerpt from her book. She uses logical arguments to claim that women are not inferior to men in the aspect of intellectualism. In the first paragraph she supports her claim with transitions like, "It is acknowledged that..." -These transitions make her argument much stronger, as they imply that she is not a radical thinker, or at least she is not the only one who feels this way. One of her main claims is that society has created a restriction on the intellectual and physical development of women by forcing them to concentrate their time on attracting males, which she makes clear in her reference to marriage being the only way a woman can rise up. She also claims that women are not even considered human beings according to society, but rather "insignificant objects of desire." Wollstonecroft acknowledges that women must rely on men for some aspects of life because they are truly inferior in strength of body. She exposes this argument as a slippery slope fallacy stating that because men are physically superior, they are stronger in all ways. She then directly attacks mean, a fallacy in itself, claiming that if men worked to gain better values such as women, then society would be more equal for women would have opportunity enough to become equals intellectually. She ends her essay by stating that women are not only innately smarter but that this advantage will ultimately rule over physical strength because, "intellect will always govern."