About a month ago, I was going to do this really cool postmodern thingy for the final paper. The kind of thing Debbie talks about, with non-fiction narrative interweaved with critical analyses of some cultural texts. But after I began research (the topic was going to be the American Diner), I couldn't find much pertinent texts and the ones I did find were from Summit and have since been recalled. Further, I am supposed to write a thesis and pass a language exam this semester, so while the paper may have been interesting to write, I think it would have caused more headaches then I needed. So I began rethinking.
Since my thesis is on the horror film, I have done a lot (at least it feels like a lot) of research on monsters, ghouls, torture, and violence. While I don't want to double dip the research, I really just kind of what to double dip the research. Which does not mean that I will just turn in the thesis for the seminar paper (because somehow I don't think torture porn, however far I stretch it, could meet the final paper criteria); however, what it does mean is that I would like to find someway to use some of the horror theory in conjunction with science stuff and narrative stuff to see what happens. The horror genre has its roots in the gothic tradition (i.e...the Castle of Otranto) and so I started thinking about literature from that era. When I was an undergrad I think I read "Frankenstein" every single year and so that immediatley came to mind. Not only is it about monsters and science, but it also has elements of horror. In rereading the novel last week these are a couple ideas I came up with.
1. Much of the scientific exploration done preceding the release of "Frankenstein" was done out of curiosity. We see a wild curiosity in Banks exemplified by his attempts to, um, collect almost everything and even in people like Blumenbach who were theorizing about the collections, I think, there is a sense of curiosity. A similar curiosity is found in Dr. Frankenstein. IN the first couple chapters there a number of examples where the Doc muses on his curiosity for the body and for life.
However, as the story progressed from literature to film, changes began happening. The narratives lost some of that curiosity and gained more elements of horror. What I was thinking about was first looking at the novel in the context of scientific exploration, understanding that inquiry almost always begins with curiosity, and then looking at the various film versions of the narrative, attempting to understand how Frankenstein has gone from being the doctor, to meaning the monster.
2. Larry's question what kind of theory can we derive from these texts instead of, what kind of theory can we apply to these texts, has really resonated with me this semester. So when I was reading "Frankenstein" I kept thinking about this. I have always been moved by the chapters where the monster tells his story the doctor about observing the cottagers and learning from them. But this time around, while still moved, I also was thinking about anthropological observations in general, recalling some of Cook's observations among others. So, thinking about Larry's question, what kind of theory of observation can be derived from the monsters example. I know he is eventually driven away by the cottagers, but while he is observing them he does so in pure hope of learning. He has no real ulterior motives other than to learn from them. Anthropological observation seems so wrought with intentions and the desire to change what is being observed, but the monster wants exactly the opposite. By comparing some of the historical anthropological observations with that of the monster's can a better model for observing be established?
3 comments:
Tim,
It's true: scarcity of time does focus the mind and dictate the energies. Don't worry, however, about double dipping. All your ideas about what you're reading are linked in YOU, so of course they will be part of everything you're writing, whatever formal (ie, a paper or a thesis or a journal entry) constraints you have to put on them. It sounds like an excellent idea to write on F as an inaugural moment in the horror film genre--I think there are over 80 adaptations of it on film and stage. I actually can send you some early reviews of the first stage version, which was right up there in terms of "horrifying" the audience. As for your research questions, both are interesting and worth pursuing. The first one would be more work--you'd have to establish the evidence of curiosity (you could use the readings for the course, as well as Leask's chapters I handed and in class), and then choose which film versions to explicate. However, this topic does seem to serve your thesis (you might be able to use some of the paper in your thesis intro, even), and since you are already thinking about such issues, it might be the one you want to work with. The second question seems more manageable for a 20 page paper because it deals with one methodology (anthropological observation) and one major scene in the novel (the cottagers) while still getting at some important "so what" questions.
I really like these ideas, Tim. I was particularly intrigued by your point that the monster (in observing the cottagers) does better than the humans. I wonder what the reason is? Is it a benefit from less time spent in society? Or maybe a comment on how we start out in life (pure, or with simpler intentions)? If you are arguing for the humanity of the monster (or, idealized humanity) that would be a really interesting parallel with your insight about the shifting representation when Frankenstein showed up in film. Because, either a stage or a film representation is kind of like an observation of the text, which has some of the anthropological ties you were dealing with. It seems like translating an original text to the stage/screen is very much like translating an original culture into an anthropological text/explanation/representation.
Tim,
This is an interesting post, and I can empathize with the sense of being overwhelmed by too many commitments.
I wanted to pick-up on a couple of ideas from your post. The first is the monster’s perspective. I wonder whether understanding this is related generally to perspectives of outsiders versus perspectives of insiders (members of an ‘ingroup’ or community). Do outsiders always see differently? How is being an outsider related to the observations that become travel narratives? Conversely (and this may be related to the horror genre generally), are the perceptions of insiders framed by possibilities of violence when they observe an outsider? The answer to this question might also tell us something about travel narratives.
The second idea is about the derivation of theory. Our theories (general explanations) must surely come from broad comparisons of texts (or phenomena). As we look at the horror genre, we might ask whether monsters display common features and try to identify a source for that possible commonality. But it may be that Romantic era monsters are different from those of the Victorians and different still from Edwardians and interwar monsters. I suppose I’m curious whether monsters/outsiders observe differently in different eras, which might require multiple theories.
Do you know John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’—a Marxist approach to observation and image, and one that is quite thought-provoking.
Post a Comment