Frankenstein = Class Struggle?

[Bear MacMillan]

I finished reading the original text for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and thought that mabye the doctor and the monster are kind of allegories for the bourgeoise and lumpenproletariat, respectively. I'm lead to believe this because of some passages in the text:

"I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic. My ancestors had been for many years counsellors and syndics..."

I think this passage makes the Dr. bourgeois (or mabye even aristocratic) because it prooves his family inherets their wealth hereditarily.

I believe the Monster represents the lumpenproletariat because it is shunned and rejected by the Doctor as a failed creation (possibly the bourgeoise's ambition to create the perfect working class) I think he also represents the opposite of bourgeois views on the lumpenproletariat (he speaks eloquently and poetically); He also learned to speak from a peasant family, in stark contrast to Doctor Frankenstein, who attended university.

I think the Monster's loyalty to the Doctor while the Doctor rejects the Monster at the same time represents the lumpenproletariat's sometimes loyalty to the bourgeoise in the hopes of riches (in this story, a female Creature) while the Doctor rejects it much as the bourgeoise rejects and sometimes even denies the existance of the poor (Like how Frankenstein is forced to denie the Monster's existance when Justine is about to be executed.)

"All men hate the wretched; how then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us!"

I think that the biggest message from the book is that greed breeds poverty; Frankenstein's greed for dominance over the natural world results in the Monster's wretchedness. But then again, I could be wrong.

What do you think?

[davidbrooke]

Somehow I don't think that was a theme that Shelly had intended for. Shelly wasn't really interested in "revolutionary politics" and the book was written before words such as "proletariat" and bourgeoise", so I'd say a definite no.

But I'm going to use some of the idea's and try and push that as a possible theme to my Eng Lit class.

[Mandos]

Somehow I don't think that was a theme that Shelly had intended for. Shelly wasn't really interested in "revolutionary politics" and the book was written before words such as "proletariat" and bourgeoise", so I'd say a definite no.


There are a number of prominent Marxist readings of Frankenstien, and next to feminist interpretations, the Marxist reading may be the most common. You might want to check out Raymond Williams and also Warren Montag for well received Marxist critical interpetations of Frankenstein.

[Bear MacMillan]

Somehow I don't think that was a theme that Shelly had intended for. Shelly wasn't really interested in "revolutionary politics" and the book was written before words such as "proletariat" and bourgeoise", so I'd say a definite no.

But I'm going to use some of the idea's and try and push that as a possible theme to my Eng Lit class.

Just because the words "proletariat" and "bourgeoise" were used in revolutionary politics after the book was written doesn't mean people weren't aware that things like class struggle existed, let alone the relationship between the rich and poor.

[crimsonzephyr]

The fact is that it is gothic literature, had what some would call, leftist ideas. Such as the anti-hero and byronic heroes. Neither are leftist but can be. Such as Robin Hood and Frankenstein's creature- "You are my creator, but I am your master."

[Zurdito]

why do you say that the mosnter is the lumpenproletariat and not simply the proletariat? the proletariat is the grave digger of the borugeosiie after all, not the lumpenproletariat. if the story were on some level an expression of bourgeois anxiety (or of an ambiguous fascination about a society "creating a mosnter" on the part of Shelley), then it would make more sense for the mosnter to represent the one class truly cpaable of damaging that whcihc reated it.



I think the Monster's loyalty to the Doctor while the Doctor rejects the Monster at the same time represents the lumpenproletariat's sometimes loyalty to the bourgeoise in the hopes of riches


workers can enter cross-class alliances too.

[Mujer Libre]

I think Frankenstein can certainly be read as a class analysis on some level, as can many gothic novels, particularly as class and knowledge relate to 'real life' relationships and such.

Essentially Frankenstein's class privilege of an abstract theoretical education, and his singleminded pursuit of that education (at the expense of interpersonal relationship, or any contact with real life) led him to create the monster. Frankenstein created for science, and for his own glory, without any regard for the long-term consequences of his actions, and it came back to bite him on the arse.

That said, I think speaking specifically about the monster being a direct symbol of the lumpenproletariat is a long bow to draw.

[Kropotesta]

Shelly wasn't really interested in "revolutionary politics"
well her father was the anarchic philosopher William Godwin, who taught her about 'radicalism' and his other works, and her mother was Mary Wollstonecraft- a feminist. She also married the Romantic poet and philosopher Percy Shelley.......so to say that she was devoid of any revolutionary politics is abit stupid.

[icrushpapertigers]

I like the idea. When I first read the book, I had no real class consciousness. Now, I can see parallels. Interesting take, though.

[Bastable]

I finished reading the original text for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and thought that mabye the doctor and the monster are kind of allegories for the bourgeoise and lumpenproletariat, respectively. I'm lead to believe this because of some passages in the text:

"I am by birth a Genevese, and my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic. My ancestors had been for many years counsellors and syndics..."

I think this passage makes the Dr. bourgeois (or mabye even aristocratic) because it prooves his family inherets their wealth hereditarily.

I believe the Monster represents the lumpenproletariat because it is shunned and rejected by the Doctor as a failed creation (possibly the bourgeoise's ambition to create the perfect working class) I think he also represents the opposite of bourgeois views on the lumpenproletariat (he speaks eloquently and poetically); He also learned to speak from a peasant family, in stark contrast to Doctor Frankenstein, who attended university.

I think the Monster's loyalty to the Doctor while the Doctor rejects the Monster at the same time represents the lumpenproletariat's sometimes loyalty to the bourgeoise in the hopes of riches (in this story, a female Creature) while the Doctor rejects it much as the bourgeoise rejects and sometimes even denies the existance of the poor (Like how Frankenstein is forced to denie the Monster's existance when Justine is about to be executed.)

"All men hate the wretched; how then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us!"

I think that the biggest message from the book is that greed breeds poverty; Frankenstein's greed for dominance over the natural world results in the Monster's wretchedness. But then again, I could be wrong.

What do you think?

I don't think there really is a right and a wrong interpretation, just different ones.

But yes, a very interesting point, i havn't read it since i became class conscious, and it's put me in the mood to reread it...

[Ultra-Violence]

I LOVED THAT STORY!

when i read frankenstein i fell in love with that book very well written and i like how in the book you cant help but fall in love with the monster and end up hating "frankenstien" well at least i did the story of the monster in the french country side and how he would just watch the people in the house and how he went to the blind person who accpeted him but when his family came back they chased him off!

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! GREAT GREAT GREAT STUFF!

now is frankenstien revolutionary? ehhhhhhhh i guese you could make that arguement but why? you could make that arguement about anthing i rememver their being a thread here were Commrade marcle made the conection between ninja turtles and anarchism? whats the point just leave frankenstien alone please

[luxemburg89]

Whatever it Takes: Of course you can read it that way. Literature now is, like it or not, studied from a Post-Modern perspective. This means that, you may not take a Post-modern view of the book but it allows for multiple readings of the text. You could read it in a Marxist sense or you could just read it from a stylistics point of view it doesn't really matter so long as you can justify it using evidence from the text. For example, 'oh rose thou art sick' by William Blake can be read as a diseased flower, nothing more; a sick woman corrupted/raped by man; the innocence of children corrupted by the world, and so on and so forth. I think your reading is excellent but it is far too emphatic, you have to say 'could be seen as this' and try not to use 'I' too much, it implies that you are the only person to think these things. Otherwise, fantastic I agree with most, if not all, of what you said.

[nvm]

why do you say that the mosnter is the lumpenproletariat and not simply the proletariat? the proletariat is the grave digger of the borugeosiie after all, not the lumpenproletariat. if the story were on some level an expression of bourgeois anxiety (or of an ambiguous fascination about a society "creating a mosnter" on the part of Shelley), then it would make more sense for the mosnter to represent the one class truly cpaable of damaging that whcihc reated it.

I agree with Zurdito, why lumpenproletariat? They are the scum of the earth as Marx said. If you have said proletariat or just poor i would agree with your interpertation.

[luxemburg89]

I agree with Zurdito, why lumpenproletariat? They are the scum of the earth as Marx said. If you have said proletariat or just poor i would agree with your interpertation.

Oh, our lord said it, well it must be true then...

[nvm]

Oh, our lord said it, well it must be true then...

Well our Lord did not just say it, he used arguments to support his view
more info here
http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-lumpen-proletariat-t74516/index.html?highlight=lumpen+proletariat

[Bear MacMillan]

I agree with Zurdito, why lumpenproletariat? They are the scum of the earth as Marx said. If you have said proletariat or just poor i would agree with your interpertation.

Because the Monster doesn't actually work, or do anything to increase the Doctor's wealth; he is merely an unwanted by-product of the Doctor's greed, much like the lumpenproletariat.

[MaverickChaos]

Well since Shelley was a Romantic author, wasn't it pointing out the horrific and immoral nature of Science, as well of raising the debate over the sanctity of life? I can see where you are coming from with the class struggle, but I thought the Science vs Humanity idea was the dominant message.

[Ell Carino]

That was no way Shelley's intention. The Enlightenment period saw a new found curiousity into human biology; Galvon's laboratory. It also deals with repression of rationality and subconsciousness... der doppelganger.

[davidbrooke]

Just because the words "proletariat" and "bourgeoise" were used in revolutionary politics after the book was written doesn't mean people weren't aware that things like class struggle existed, let alone the relationship between the rich and poor.

But it's a very much romanticist book. OKay my previous comment was silly (I was drunk), but I was referrring to the idea that she wasn't thinking along the lines. Your entitled to your opinion, but I myself have a difficult time accepting Marxist interpretations of Romanticist books.

The key was the over-reaching of science, and the attack of it's own empirical way of thought, rather than a society as a whole. For me Victor never "exploits" the monster, in the same way the ruling class does with the proletariat. And it doesn't insist on a rebellion, only until the monster feels himself rejected,a specific emphasis on the individual.

[davidbrooke]

There are a number of prominent Marxist readings of Frankenstien, and next to feminist interpretations, the Marxist reading may be the most common. You might want to check out Raymond Williams and also Warren Montag for well received Marxist critical interpetations of Frankenstein.

I'll check those out, when I have the time.
But I've heard quite a few Marxist interpretations of Frankenstein and they seem to really lack a fully rounded analysis, often containing flaws and ignoring certain aspects.