{"id":584,"date":"2012-11-12T20:41:01","date_gmt":"2012-11-13T01:41:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.briancroxall.net\/lit-tech\/?p=584"},"modified":"2012-11-12T20:41:01","modified_gmt":"2012-11-13T01:41:01","slug":"a-feministic-undertone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.briancroxall.net\/lit-tech\/2012\/11\/12\/a-feministic-undertone\/","title":{"rendered":"A Feministic Undertone?"},"content":{"rendered":"

From our last reading, Bellocq\u2019s Ophelia,<\/em> we saw the importance in knowing someone\u2019s background, ranging from the author to his or her characters. Once one acknowledged the characters backstory, new ideas arose from the characters interactions and the author\u2019s intentions. Considering this fact, one must acknowledge Mary Shelly\u2019s background, most importantly the mother that raised her. Mary Shelly\u2019s mother was Mary Wollstonecraft, whom of which is one of the most important feminist philosophers in history. With this in mind, innocent remarks to the female gender are now weighed with more importance, since they are more than likely to have feministic intentions.<\/p>\n

The most pivotal scene where this is seen is when Victor makes the triumphant remark that \u201cno father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve their\u2019s\u201d (80-81 Shelly). This idea that the conception of this \u201cchild\u201d is greater than that of a normal one reveals a very misogynistic undertone. Unlike a normal child, this being is a creation made by man and only man, untainted by the imperfections of a woman. Furthermore, Victor\u2019s comment comes out as a condescending statement, since he feels that a man could not truly be proud of an offspring, because a female was required to make it. Not only that, but Victor\u2019s act strips away a blessed trait of the female gender, the making of life. With all these notions brewed together, Victor \u201cunintentionally\u201d seems to be trying to do away with the female gender in general. Although the argument may seem too extreme, Victor still seems to see his creature with more respect than a regular infant, since \u201cno other father could claim \u2026 his child so completely\u201d (Shelly 80).<\/p>\n

Retrospectively, had Shelly\u2019s background gone untouched, Victor\u2019s statement would be nothing more than a joyful remark. Still, there are other scenes of old sexist beliefs \u201cI desired to discover\u2026 she sought to people with imaginations of her own\u201d (Shelly 66) and \u201cbut she did not interest in the subjects [natural philosophies]\u201d (Shelly 69), both of which show women\u2019s apathy toward the complicated arts, but interest in simplistic duties. Though these are important, Victor\u2019s joyous remark highlights, what I believe to be, Shelly\u2019 feministic undertone.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From our last reading, Bellocq\u2019s Ophelia, we saw the importance in knowing someone\u2019s background, ranging from the author to his or her characters. Once one acknowledged the characters backstory, new ideas arose from the characters interactions and the author\u2019s intentions. Considering this fact, one must acknowledge Mary Shelly\u2019s background, most importantly the mother that raised<\/p>\n