Project # 2

Melanie Mavins

February 22, 2010

Professor Meehan

“For Nothing Grows Without a Seed”

Though many readers have viewed Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” as a simple story about the creation of a monster, an intertextual connection to Paracelsus, emphasizes that there is a greater value of old science that people have lost with the emergence of the modern day science.  This lost value is demonstrated through the main character, Victor.  His conversations with his professors and his opinions of old science lead to the creation of Frankenstein and reveal that older science has worth. Shelley is demonstrating to her readers through an intertexual connection for example Paracelsus, that not only this novel is about a creation of a monster, but it is about how this monster’s master created him through the influence of the works of older science that discusses about miracles and making individual discoveries.

Victor has a heart gripping passion and love for science.  He starts this passion off with trying to understand the laws of nature. This passion leads him to stumbling across the works of Cornelius Agrippa (A German physician and occultist).  He enjoyed these works so much that he decided that pursuing science was his “fate” (46).  Shelley adds this discovery of Cornelius Agrippa to demonstrate how the works of older science influenced Victor to further his education.  To readers this intertexual reference show that it was the basics of science that brought insight and a “new light” (46) to Victor and what he wanted to do with his life.  He then enlightened his mind with more works of old science studies as well as Paracelsus and Albert Magnus.  Victor viewed these works of old science as giving him “the secrets of nature” (47).  Shelley puts this information of his love for these old sciences to show that older science has worth compared to modern day science.  It was the “seed” (204) of the field of science that encouraged him to make these discoveries.  Modern day science now is viewed as investigating and solving problems, but old science is the “root and soil” (204) of making discoveries.  Towards the end Victor creates his own monster based on his encouragement of old science, not the modern day science of his time.  Paracelsus directly discusses about creation, so Shelley reveals that Victor came across his idea of “perform[ing] miracles” from these works of old science.  In my view, Shelley has this metaphoric window of this intertexual reference to Paracelsus of revealing that older science inspired Victor to create Frankenstein.

When Victor continues his education at Ingolstadt he meets two professors that answer his questions about science.  While he was having a conversation with one of his professors, professor M.Krempe, a professor of natural philosophy, he discusses his love for the ancient science, but instead of getting encouragement for studying these works, his professor spites him.  His professor doubts that this old science has any significance to learn from because it was “entirely exploded” (46), and the modern science “possessed greater powers…”(46).  This professor thought of this ancient science as “exploded systems and useless names” (52).  Shelley uses this professor as a metaphor about the views of the old science compared to the new modern day science.  But, how can this knowledge of the old science be “useless” if it is the foundation of modern science.  Old scientists that made extraordinary discoveries and that answered a lot of questions about the earth cannot just be forgotten.  Those scientists in the past that dedicated their life to science have to be acknowledged and continued on to be remembered.  Their works are the “heart … [and] fruits” (204) of this field, according to Paracelsus.

Paracelsus argues that there cannot be a middle or an ending without a beginning.  The “seed” (204) determines if the fruit will grow or become rotten.  Relating this back to the value of older science, older science is the beginning that brought upon the great successes of modern science.  Older science created the initial discoveries that emerged science as a field in general. Shelley did not put background information on Victor’s love of science or how he came across it to entertain or inform the readers about how Frankenstein was created but; rather she put it there to make a statement. This statement was about how people of today value the works of new discoveries and solved problems but simply forget the works of the past when it comes to science.  Yes, old scientists like Cornelius Agrippa are in the textbook in order to respect their contributions to science, but what is being in a textbook compared to having companies named after them or even statue models built for them?  In this novel Shelley is quietly taking a stand against this lost value and is making a note of it through her novel.  She wants her readers to understand that professors like M. Krempe cannot discourage students like Victor of the right to let the works of old science influence their life. Shelley shows that Victor is influenced by old science by showing that he created Frankenstein as a reaction to the readings of old science.

After listening to Professor M. Krempe, Victor refused to take account of his opinion of this ancient science.  Victor sought for something to let him know that this science was not useless and for someone who agreed to the significance of this ancient science.  Professor M. Waldman was the hope that Victor was looking for.  In one of his lectures he explained the importantance of tracking down the discoveries that made today’s modern science possible.  This history of science “performed miracles” (53), and opened a door for what is known today about the world.  Paracelsus would agree with this professor’s view that, “elementary [science]” (53), is the reason why modern science is so successful today.   Science had to start somewhere from scratch in order to turn something from simple to complex.  This reassuring lecture from this professor opened Victor’s eyes to his own “Frankenstein” of a new creation within himself.  A creation of taking his knowledge and applying it to being successful.  Shelley wants readers to understand that “nothing grows without a seed, nothing is born without a seed, nothing multiplies without a seed, and in all fruits of the earth the seed is the most precious” (204).  This is a revelation that Shelley wants her readers to see about old science.  Forgetting old science is like forgetting where a person originated from, a person’s struggles and triumphs that directly makes them who they are today.  Old science is the key that created this “Frankenstein” of modern day science.

In this novel by Mary Shelley by intertexual connection to the works of old science like Paracelsus and Cornelius Agrippa, she wants her readers to view her novel as a window to understanding the lost value of old science compared to modern day science.  This author wants her readers to recognize the appreciation of old science from her novel.  People cannot cut off the root of old science because as long as people cherish the new modern day science they are actually cherishing old science because the root is the key that interconnects all of the discoveries of old science versus modern day science as one.

Reflection:  I think that in this essay I progress more with my argument and getting my point across.  I think this essay is a representation of me advancing on my To Do List and showing that I am following it.  For the next project I should work more on my quote integration.

I pledge my word of honor that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while completing this assignment. M.M.

Bibliography

1.)         Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd-edition. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. 44-211. Print.

Frankenstein Equals Confusion

In this complicated novel there are many twists and turns when it comes to the creation of this old tale of Frankenstein.  This author, Mary Shelley, puts together different letters, characters, and references to other works in order to make this novel seem worthy to  be read, but did she put too much effort towards it?  A novel do not have to consist of complexed spelling words, multiple references to different works, or lengthy chapters in order to get a point and story across.  Reading is a task that is suppose to be enjoyable and inspiring.  I think  Gerald Graff would agree to this opinion as well, no one gains any type of lesson from literature that is  boring to them.  Reading is suppose to be interesting and straight to the point.

This novel begins with an introduction from the author then to letters from Walton to his sister about a story of Victor Frankenstein and his path to creating his monster.  After Walton tells his sister about this creature then the creature becomes the narrator and tells his side of the story.   With each letter there is a story that has a whole different view point and plot inside of it.  The format of the novel is too complex for its meaning.  Yes, the author is trying to portray a story through literature of an old tale but why should it be a puzzle to understand?  Why should readers have to flip the page back and forth and try to understand the for example, “paradise Lost” is a refrence that she is trying to put in the story.

Another point in this novel  where the author is trying to make the plot of the novel critical is  Victor Frankestein’s monster in general.  This monster is looked as a horrifying creature, but in this novel Shelley makes this monster have not only feelings for how people are scared of him but somewhat “educated.”  For example, in chapter 10 the monster is arguing  with Victor about “how [he] must be hated” (93) amongst the people.  This author turns this tale of this creature into a tale of a creature that recognizes not only what people think of him but also efficient syntax and grammer.

In conclusion, Shelley produced too much critical perspective into this novel in order to make it contemporary.  If the novel was less complex it would of had more of the exploration to the point  she was trying to reach.

Frankenstein

In this novel, “Frankenstein,” by Mary Shelley; the value of modern science and old science is revealed.  In the beginning chapters of this novel the main  character, Victor, leaves his home in Geneva to go to school in Ingolstadt.   All his life he had a love to investigate “the hidden laws of nature” (44), and questioning why things in the world happens.  Natural Philosophy led Victor to study the works of Cornelius Agrippa ( A German physician and occultist), in order to fulfill his “thirst for knowledge” (44).  Through his discovery of the laws of science, Victor had a lot of people doubt his study of this ancient science.  While going to pursuit  his education in Ingolstadt, he meets these two professors that will  answer the questions he was seeking about science.  But, before these professors, Victor’s father was the first to have an influence on Victor when it comes to learning’s of this ancient science.  His father doubted that this science had any significant to learn from, it was “entirely exploded” (46), and the modern science “possessed greater powers…”(46). Another person would agree to Victor’s father doubt to this ancient science, professor M.Krempe, a professor of natural philosophy.

This professor thought of this ancient science also as “exploded systems and useless names” (52).  This ancient science could not possibly be worthless to us today?  Victor refused to take account of  his father and professor M.Krempe opinion of this ancient science.  Victor seeked for something to let him know that this science was not useless and for someone who agreed to the significant of this ancient science.  Professor M. Waldman was the hope that Victor was seeking for.  In one of his lectures he explained the important of tracking down the discoveries that made today’s modern science possible.  This history of science “performed miracles” (53), and opened a door for what we know today about the world.

I agree with this professor, “elementary [science]” (53), is the reason why modern science is so successful today.  I believe that you have to start someone from scratch in order to turn something from simple to complex.  I believe that this reassuring lecture from this professor opened Victor’s eyes to a “Frankenstein” of a new creation within himself.  A creation of  taking his knowledge and applying it to being successful.  A knowledge that he is not no longer afraid of having.

Project # 1

Melanie Mavins

February 2, 2010

Professor Meehan

Creative Works of Reading

As I was growing up from a young child into a teenager, I have always been forced to read works that may not necessarily excite or interest me.  I was forced to read old literature that bore me with its language and style.  Sven Birkerts, a writer of “The Gutenberg Elegies,” believes that this type of literature of Henry James, Shakespeare, or Ellison is filled with “diction and syntax” (Birkerts 19), that students should read, but other works are not.  In my experience however, reading creative types of literature rather than old literature like Shakespeare or Ellison, I have had a positive response of gaining the same type of values and meanings as I would with these old literature.

In eleventh grade I was introduced to creative works of poetry by Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, and novels for example,  Huckleberry Finn.  These works made me enjoy reading about people’s experiences, whether if it was fiction or non-fiction.  These are the types of exciting readings that help you connect academic learning to your life.  These works were teaching me more than understanding concepts and language, they were teaching me the meaning of the joy and hardships in life.  These creative works did not have a main focus on educating students on the style of reading, but educating them on living in this world.  Now, Birkerts may disagree to students reading these types of creative works because he believes that if you cannot gain history from these works then they give their readers” an absence of any strong vision …or [a] collective future” (Birkerts 27).  Well, after reading these creative works during that class back in high school, I realized that some of these works are actually history, a history of experiences that these authors’ readers can learn from.  For example, Maya Angelo is an author that writes about some of her experiences on love, life, etc. that really inspires students to have goals and be successful in life.  Even though, these are not the types of history that Birkerts would recommend for students, it still is helpful.   It is helpful because it can lead students on the right path of understanding their self as well as their choices in life, like how these works helped me when I was in the eleventh grade.  These works guided me with their experiences on how to live my life correctly by talking about the effects of negative acts, for example, violence. We have history in order to learn from our mistakes and our experiences or other people’s experiences in the past in order to make a better future. Also, besides there being history within these experiences there are depth within these readings than Shakespeare and Ellison.  These readings are not just the use of proper grammar or complete sentences, they are readings of inspiration.  Another experience that I can protest to this is when I compare reading literature from my ninth grade year to my eleventh grade year of high school.  In ninth grade, the teachers made you read novels and plays to get you prepared for upper level English, but those novels and plays never made me excited or interested to go to class.  When I got into eleventh grade and  read more depth of creative readings, I was the first one up out of bed in my family ready to go to school; waiting all day until seventh period; the period of “open-mindedness and creativity.”

Birkerts believes that the young generation does not slow down to fully understand the language of old literature making it seem more boring to students. Through my experience different types of modern literature is simply what students prefer. According to Gerald Graff, one of the authors of “They Say I Say,” students can read works of a “nonacademic interest” (Graff, and Birkenstein 148), and still gain the same type of values that Birkerts wants them to gain from old literature.  Personally to me, old literature has no connection to me because there is nothing that I can gain from it.  These authors lived in different time periods that were very different from now.  I want works that are recent and that can help me with what is going on in the world today and that have variety.  Graff sees that the young generation can apply the same concepts of  “how to make an argument [and] weigh different kinds of evidence…” through modern literature (Graff, and Birkenstein 145) as they would with reading Shakespeare or Ellison.

Graff believes that Birkerts should not label students based on their different reading interest and to that opinion I agree.  I used to think of reading as a purposeless process back in ninth grade but ever since eleventh grade year of high school year, my views have change.  So, Birkerts can label me as having “an absence of any strong vision” (Birkerts 27) because of my choice of modern day literature, but from my experience I know for a fact that reading is more than just finding meaning within the text.  Reading is gaining something within you from each and every word.  Reading enlightens your mind.  Birkerts “privacy” of reading only certain novels and pieces actually limits him to understanding the real world and how much of a beauty and pain it can be.  From my experiences, I protest against Birkerts that reading is more than understanding the literature; it is feeling the literature within your heart.

Bibliography

1.)    Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies. New York: Faber and Faber Inc., 1999. 19-27. Print.

2.)    Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say I Say. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. 145-148. Print.

Self Reflection: I think that with this essay I could of used more analysis and made my thoughts a little more clearer.  I have to work on expanding my ideas and getting my point further across to my readers.

Honor Code: I pledge my word of honor that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while completing this assignment.