Iâm sure many will have seen the furore stirred up in social media, particularly among Gothicists, by the Sunâs article on Frankenstein, which screams, âSNOWFLAKE students claim Frankensteinâs monster was a misunderstood victim with feelingsâ. I donât think itâs altogether true to reply, as some (understandably) have done, that the sympathy with the creature is the whole point of the novel (see here). Mary Shelleyâs greatness lies in setting up a cluster of questions and arguments, not in didactically pushing one viewpoint.
Frankenstein itself is ambivalent. The sympathy for the monster is crucial. The claims for recognition and human rights (something the Sun clearly wants to undermine) are central. Yet the monster is a cruel and cold-blooded killer; his crime all the worse because he is sentient, cultivated to an extent, and shares the potential for nobility of human beings. But he has been unjustly exiled from all community and social life and his rebellion is justified. (The Sun isnât notably a fan of just revolt.)
I havenât read all of Prof. Groomâs new introduction (which is quoted from in the article). Itâs almost certainly quoted in a way that distorts its meaning. He seems to be saying that students may be one-sided in their âsentimentalâ response and to have missed the crucial ambivalence. Thatâs what academia is forâto restore the complexities that either/or thinking wants to efface. Yet the studentsâ sympathy is not untrue to the book either and their concern for rightsârights which the Sun isnât noted for endorsingâis not to be dismissed lightly. David Barnett in the Guardian defends the need for such empathy in our atomised, asocial world.
Sun journalists probably know that the novel shows sympathy to the creatureâtheyâre well-educated, just cynical and manipulative and contemptuous of their readers. They have had a privileged education and earn high salaries. They serve and often belong to the very elite that they are so fond of casting as monstersâthat is, the real elite, those who have wealth and power, not those deemed elite just because they have had the opportunity to cultivate knowledge. The article is based on an article in The Times which is slightly more subtle, though still announcing its contempt for young people (or âmillennialsâ). The Times, of course, has always been the voice of the ruling classes; they canât even aim at the fake demotic credentials of the Sun.
The Sun article is in a wider context of right-wing attacks on students, on academics, on expertise itself. But, as quite a few social media commentators have pointed out, it takes on extra significance at this moment when university staff are strikingâa strike motivated in part by a resistance to those forces which seek to degrade academic life.
There are those who read Frankenstein as a counter-Enlightenment tract, warning against the hubris of science and progress. I would say that itâs more a novel that explores the consequences of an Enlightenment project that (as the philosopher JĂŒrgen Habermas claims) had halted. I argue here that âthe Modern Prometheusâ of Shelleyâs subtitle is a Prometheus whose pursuit of knowledge has become distorted by capitalism and who no longer serves human ends. That project is in urgent need of defence from the new counter-Enlightenment which scorns critical thinking and progressive politics, hurls insults at academia and âexpertsâ, and lies behind the destruction of universities that strikers are fighting against at this very moment.
Yikes! I’m glad I read this but it sounds like others around me are enduring the stress I was going through in 2016. A fellow craft-woman and I were chatting yesterday about how so many now blame the youth for so much, or millennials or snowflakes without quite addressing the understanding of, “Well, who raised these kids and how were they raised?”
I picked up on “Frankenstein” fairly well through various versions. Sometimes the created-man was a dim-witted monster, other times he was cognizant of what he was which propelled him into spells of lunacy. We, ourselves, might get a little lost in the same way trying to go through our genealogical records.
I’ve often been stunned I turned out as well as I did with how I was raised (or not raised as the case may be). The more time goes on the more grateful I am for how I was raised in comparison to the confusion I’m seeing these days in those younger than I am. (Or with my elders trying to follow a scrambled lead.)
Much social media is quite dastardly for not promoting good social skills. I’ve found the less time I spend on it the better I feel. I noticed a lot of lovely plants, trees, and wildlife today I almost completely forgot about due to social media. And I have pen friends again now. Perhaps the lesson here is quite “Frankenstein” in scope: Remember to be human, be in physical space, smell the flowers, marvel at tranquil spots. Use technology gently and sparingly. Perhaps, that’s it. I like the sound of it anyway! đ
Excellent post. You are completely right about journalists often knowing that they are writing provocative nonsense, but simply not caring because they are a service – an echo-chamber for their self-selecting audiences. Many more don’t know AND don’t care. Depends on the paper and the individual. Not sure which is worse, frankly.