Fear the Subaltern.

Spivak uses the word "subaltern" to describe the Other in her postcolonial critique from this week's reading. "A subaltern, according to the dictionary, is a person holding a subordinate position," the book notes, also noting that it was originally used to describe a junior officer from the British army (2111). Let's remove that latter half, shall we? The "term's nuances" is what Spivak draws out- the unorganized mass caught between the "detested superiors" and "feared natives" (2111). "The "subaltern" always stands in an ambiguus relation to power- subordinate to it but never fully consenting to its rule, never adopting the dominant point of view or vocabulary as expressive of its own identity" (2111).

Ok, now I want you to picture the monster as an example -GET THIS!- of a subaltern. ( I know. you didn't think I'd go there. But I did, and so we continue. ) "Because subalterns exist, to some extent, outside power, theorists and advocates of political transformation have consistently looked to them as a potential source of change" (2111). It's hard to picture the future of the novel Frankenstein within the diegesis that Shelley sets up, and I'm completely sure that this was done on purpose. Does the monster kill himself? Does he move to the tropics anyway, by himself? Does he entertain himself by continuing his murderous hobby? Does he move to Russia and join the circus? Essentially, none of the answers to these questions matter- it is the fact that these questions come up at all that Shelley drives for. But I digress.

The reason I bring up the "subaltern" is to not only place the monster under its light, but to also draw out whether or not he is a "potential source of change." Obviously, he has "potential" to do something- he's affected more lives than just Victor's- but I feel that the only "change" he is the source is for more security. I don't think De Lacy or Feliz ever realize the monster's responsibility for the firewood, nor the extent to which the monster watched them. They never went into the room that the monster lived in! As soon as they met the monster, they abandoned their home in fear.

We haven't spoken too much in class about it, but fear is what motivates and influences people to the greatest extent. At least to me, it is fear that motivates more than... love, per say. Fear of another holy book's influence on its people in another country. Fear of terrorism for more airport security measures. Fear of someone else's sexuality because you don't understand the science behind it and feel that they'll rub off some of their gayness on you... but again, I digress.

In this light, the monster is influential. Now, it seems that he does not completely live up to his "subaltern" potential, or he does outside of the text of the novel. Nevertheless, the subaltern is one who "should be" feared, for it is the subaltern that exists outside of the power structure. It is out of control. This touches on the greatest fear of all time, what humans fear the most: not being in control.

Now, there are too many of us here on planet Earth for there to be no control- no country borders, no laws, no society, no classes, no races, no religions. And so the subaltern reigns.

The Global Creature

Because post-colonial studies “overlap with those of race and ethnicity studies,” one is able to view Frankenstein through the combination of theories and critiques employed in both schools of thought (Norton 28).

Indeed, it appears to be a study that shares many familiar concepts with our conversations surrounding Frankenstein as “it aims to describe the mechanisms of colonial power, to recover excluded or marginalized ‘subaltern’ voices, and to theorize the complexities of…identity; national belonging; and globalization” (Norton 27).

It is of great interest to imagine that Shelley created a character facing these exact issues itself. The creature does experience being a “marginalized” voice and also questions his identity, not only nationally, but globally! In 17__, the creature had a global perspective: a concept that the twenty-first century reader is wholly familiar with, but one that would have been a hard sell in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It could not identify with any other creatures on the globe because it was not of them, however, its “Otherness” instilled within it a global frame of reference so as to grasp its global place.

How does Frankenstein go against the usual “representations of third world countries” and “the political interests of their makers” (27)?

Reality A & Reality B

Thought some of you might be interested in the article "Reality A & Reality B," which appeared last month in the New York Times. Haruki Murakami is a Japanese novelist whose work (in translation) has done fairly well in the US. I read his novel, After Dark, a couple of years ago and it is interesting in that it represents the "chaos," to use his word, of a single night in a strictly linear narrative. In some ways I think you could say that it is this very rigid linear structure that creates the sensation of chaos, which is sort of odd. It also uses what I remember as a "camera angle" feel to distance the reader from the narrative and keep our perception of the story very tightly focused. This close-up framing leaves the reader very much aware of what you are unable to see and creates an interesting tension with the images that are revealed.

Anyway, I digress and it has been a while since I read the novel so maybe I'm remembering it wrong. In any case, give the article a look. I think it fits in nicely with our readings this week.

Chris

Edited to note that my response to the readings is on Blackboard.

Edited again because I'm procrastinating writing my paper and thought this was interesting, too: "If an Island State Vanishes, Is It Still a Nation?" Now, no more internet! Back to work!

Victor's Vision - Ultimate Colonialism

While reading about Post-Colonial theory, I began to wonder if we might interpret Victor as the Ultimate Colonialist. Rather than having to resort to “cultural obliteration [that is] made possible by the negation of a national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs” (Fanon, 1440), etc., Victor plans to create a new race with no culture to speak of. A tabula rasa to be molded and controlled from the ground up. Consider: “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley, 32). Of course this all goes wrong, as we know, but we might say that Victor is driven by an extraordinarily strong and yet suppressed colonial drive.

Dan

New Methods of Approaching Language and Literature

The New York Times had an article about new methods being used in looking at language in texts; the researchers are taking a quantitative approach and analyzing texts digitally. Relying on text scans, they looked at the frequency words appeared during the Victorian era. I thought it interesting that "Christian" falls over time while "science" rises in frequency.

Analyzing Literature by Words and Numbers

I find this to be completely relevant to our class discussion.

New Historicism and Frankenstein

In a week on New Historicism, obvious questions emerge about the history surrounding Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The introductin in the Norton says that "New Historicists study literary tex not as autonomous objects but as material artifacts made in interaction with specific social, cultural, and political forces" (30). What are the "specific social, cultural, and political forces" that surround and circulate through Frankenstein? To briefly name a few, these include the French Revolution and its aftermath, the abolition of the slave trade (1807), the growth of the British Empire, debates over the rights of man. How do these play out in the novel? Because I am doing my final paper through the lens of race and ethnicity studies, I'm curious if anyone has any ideas on ways that race and imperialism make their way into Frankenstein. In my research, I stumbled upon an essay by Anne K. Mellor that offers some insight into the way the French Revolution makes its way into the novel. In the essay, "Why Women Didn't Like Romanticism: The Views of Jane Austen and Mary Shelley," Mellor argues that Shelley responds to the French Revolution by showing what happens when one does take responsibility for his creation: "In her novel, she represented the havoc wrought by the French Revolution in the gigantic and misshapen body of Frankenstein's creature...Frankenstein's creature -- like the French Revolution -- originated in the idealistic desire to liberate all men from the oppression of tyranny and mortality. But the Girondist Revolution, like the monster, failed to find the parental guidance, control, and nurturance it required to develop into a rational and benevolent state" (284). This ties in with our determining last week that ultimately, Frankenstein is a novel about responsibility -- taking responsibility for one's creation, one's actions, and, in this case, one's political ideals.

I know New Historicism came about in response to the New Criticism that was prominent in the 1960s, but in a way I feel like it still focuses on the text. In "Against Theory," Knapp and Michaels argue against approaching literary works through theory. They argue that "criticism is an activity that cannot be governed by transcendent principles; rather, it is a 'practice,' prior to and not determined by any guiding theory" (2489). I like this idea because it brings the focus back to the text. I am an advocate of close reading and basing my analysis on the text rather than the theory, but I do like New Historicism. This is because you look at history through the text and try to determine how historical events may have constructed the work, but you still have to focus on the work. And I really do believe that literary works are socially constructed, which I suppose is why some of our critics for this week were Marxists.

So I guess my overall question up for discussion this week is, what social forces went into the construction of Frankenstein? And where do we see these played out in the novel?