WHOLE ASSIGNMENT HELP WITH WHAT YOU CAN

Reflect on the further implications and consequences of said conclusion. 6 PARAGRAPHS/ KEY POINTS FOR ME TO WRITE PAPER The thesis statement for this paper will be: (a) Frankenstein can be read as a political allegory, one that embraces a homely and domestic vision as an ideal of human life, while rejecting as unrealistic and utopian all heroic, manly quests (such as those of R. Walton or V. Frankenstein). (b) Consequently, Mary Shelley comes closer to Edmund Burke, the great antagonist of her two parents (Wollstonecraft and Godwin), and we thereby confirm her status as the true author of this feminine, alternative vision. DISCUSSION As at least one critic has noted: Frankenstein is subtitled The New Prometheus, but it might easily be called Men without Women (Day, Circles, p. 139). Furthermore, some people have suggested that Frankenstein could not have been written by a girl like Mary (and, hence, must really be the work of her older husband, Percy). I strongly disagree. I think that once we understand what the book is really about (and take seriously what some see as mere subplots, i.e., those concerning Justine and Safie), that this is a book which could not have been written by her husband. So, then, what is this book really about? I claim the following: The fundamental fantasy is of a man creating (giving birth to) another man, all on his own, without the assistance or intervention of woman. (Take note of the fact that the creature is mature and fully formed, and certainly is not the result of how babies are normally made.) Now, lets take that idea and really run with it. Heres my idea of a future and perfect society, founded on properly Frankensteinian principles: In the future, we will have conquered disease and death. Of course, as physical bodies will still be prone to injury and wear, our immortality will be ultimately guaranteed by having the same individual cloned again and again, when further repair is useless (our minds will be uploaded to a central repository and downloaded into our replacement clones, as necessary). There will be no children everyone will be fully formed and there will be no women, as their capacities for extended gestation are no longer required and because mankind cannot bear their irrational mood swings (due to a fixed, monthly, hormonal cycle). Because the population will not change over, in each succeeding generation, there will be no need for education and mankind will start to make real progress. There will be no call for governments, courts, the police, or armies as the society will be composed exclusively of mature, cultivated men pursuing their rational capacities to the fullest. Sex will be abolished, along with crime, war, famine, greed, and all other ills. Life henceforth will be orderly, peaceful, and calm, only for grown-ups. Sounds great, huh? Guys? Oh, guys? (Where did everyone go?) Oh, wait a minute, ... this isnt actually, um, my idea of a future utopia. Rather, it is William Godwins idea, Mary Shelleys father (although as dressed up, and thoroughly updated, by me). (He really wanted a monotonous, asexual, anarchistic utopia, composed only of men and devoted solely to progress. You have to realize that the 1790s were like the 1960s: a revolutionary period in which all things seemed possible.) But some have suggested that Godwins views simply would not have been appealing to his daughter: ... his abstract, overly philosophical, and thoroughly male-oriented vision of the coming utopia is hardly something his daughter could have been expected to embrace. Godwin's utopia is public, political, and messianic. It foresees the salvation of the human species as a correlative of the coming state of anarchism. Restraining institutions will be dissolved and oppression will come to an end. Humanity will be reborn socially and physically. Mary Shelley parodies these heroic hopes in the quest of Victor Frankenstein. So, Frankenstein can be read and understood as a disguised contribution to a political debate, where she uses the occasion to reject the worldview of her parents and their generation: Mary Shelley was the daughter of two of England's foremost intellectual radicals, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. For a number of reasons ... she rejected her utopian and radical heritage and opted for a more conservative and pessimistic view of the world ... Her gravitation toward conservatism was more overt and explicit later in her career. But it is already in her first novel, Frankenstein, which was written in 1816-17, just after the beginning of the Restoration. [More here.] Supplement You dont need consider any of the following if you think you have a grasp of the final paper. Everyone might, however, review the second portion Part B just to be sure. Part A: A crazy way into the topic. I like crazy ideas. Heres one. The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein is a 2007 book written and published by John Lauritsen, in which the author argues that the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, not his wife Mary Shelley, is the real author of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818), that the novel "has consistently been underrated and misinterpreted", and that its dominant theme is "male love". The Amazon blurb says: John Lauritsen debunks the myth that Frankenstein was written by a teenaged girl, Mary Godwin (later Mary Shelley), who took part in a ghost-story contest in Geneva, had a nightmare, and was inspired to write a story "which would frighten my reader as I myself had been frightened that night!" Lauritsen examines the Frankenstein text, along with works that Mary Shelley wrote entirely on her own, to demonstrate that she was a weak and sentimental writer, incapable of writing Frankenstein. He takes a long, hard look at the extra-textual evidence that has been used to argue for her authorship, and shows that none of it stands up to scrutiny. In reality, Frankenstein is not just a scary story, but a work of profound and radical ideas, written in poetically powerful prose by one of the greatest poets in the English language, Percy Bysshe Shelley. For personal reasons he chose to conceal his authorship. (If you want more of this line of argument but dont want to read the book look here.) However, this is a little too crazy even for me: Im asking you to help confirm Mary Shelleys authorship by considering the question of the storys true subject matter: what is it about? Part B: The complexity of the thesis statement. The thesis statement for this paper is actually a CONDITIONAL statement with two distinct parts: an ANTECEDENT (or HYPOTHESIS) and a CONSEQUENT (or CONCLUSION). IF (Hypothesis) (a) ... [it is possible to read] Frankenstein ... as a political allegory, one that embraces a homely and domestic [and, hence, stereotypically 'feminine'] vision as an ideal of human life, while rejecting as unrealistic and utopian all heroic, manly quests (such as those of [the polar explorer] R. Walton or [the natural scientist] V. Frankenstein) ... THEN (Conclusion) (b) ... [our (true) author] Mary Shelley [surely] comes closer [not to Jean-Jacques Rousseau but] to Edmund Burke, the great antagonist [and traditionalist opponent] of her two [radical] parents (Wollstonecraft and Godwin), and we thereby confirm her status as the true author of this [conservative] feminine, alternative vision. I have been asked to figure out if you can construct arguments to support a thesis and thereby confirm a conclusion. Part C: A crazy way out of the topic. Here's a completely irreverant "take" -- it might help (but, than again, it might not). YMMV. Mary Shelley's parents were disgusting hippies. They were radicals who believed in open marriage and free love and other nonsense. Mary's sulking in the corner, wearing a MAGA hat. Her father has a lot of "issues," including with her because, you see, Mary killed her own mother in the process of being born (a common occurrence in those days). Godwin now finds himself a single father, all alone with two girl children to raise (and the other isnt even his!). So he spends his time coming up with science-fiction fantasies about a future, sexless, all-male utopia (yikes!). Mary, of course, when she grows up, does feel a bit guilty about her mother and decides to try and take seriously her father's ideas: what if men could (using test tubes) create other men? (Would that solve some of our problems, like little girls killing their mothers?) Nope, an attempt to make things better would only make things much much worse. Consequently, better to stick to the tried and true ways (with all their shortcomings) and, instead of imagining a better world, come to terms with the realities (and limitations) of our ordinary, "domestic" prospects for happiness. It may be a bit boring (and it is surely not perfect) but, in the end: "there's no place like home." Be happy with what you have, enjoy the simple pleasures of life, and dont try to improve things: you are just as likely to mess things up as succeed. This advice is, after all, as old as the Epic of Gilgamesh. I strongly recommend it: Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created man, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands. Gilgamesh, fill your belly. Day and night make merry. Let days be full of joy, dance and make music day and night. And wear fresh clothes. And wash your head and bathe. Look at the child that is holding your hand, and let your wife delight in your embrace. These things alone are the concern of men.