Assignment Semester 4 : Dissertation Writing

 

Assignment Semester 4

Name : Pina Gondaliya 

Subject: Dissertation Writing 

Roll No. : 18

Enrollment No. :  4069206420210001

Submitted To. : Department of English 

 Ecocritical Reading of Frankenstein and The Last Man

Conclusion 

After  analyzing different elements of ecocriticism in Mary Shelley’s both novels Frankenstein and The Last Man we confirmed Mary Shelley used ecocritical thinking in her both novels Frankenstein and The Last Man.  How is nature represented in the novels? We can see that there are many natural elements used in the novel. For example, the setting of the novel in Mountains, Rivers and lakes, storms, and trees are the natural elements used in the setting of the novel so we can say that Frankenstein is a ecocritical novel. We can see these natural elements in the 3rd chapter. My second question is that  how is the setting of the novel related to the environment? So we can see that the whole setting of the  novel is surrounding nature. So the setting of the novel is related to the environment. How metaphors are used to represent nature? Metaphor of Mountains are used to describe the troubles of Monster and Victor Frankenstein. The Metaphor of  Arctic Ice describes the loneliness and sorrow of the Monster. According To Morton ,"Ecocriticism has not done much with Frankenstein”  I disagree with this argument because we can see that the setting whole novel  is surrounding in nature. So Ecocriticism was an important part of the novel. 

In this article "Acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment”: an ecocritical reading of the monstrous in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Patrick Ness’s A Monster Calls" by Mascha Hansen. He gave the concept of eco-friendly.  He said that the monster is vegetarian. I agree with him. According to me, that monster was eco-friendly because he lives in mountains or Arctic Ice and he has not eaten animal food. So he is not harmful to nature.  lives in nature, for example he lives in Arctic ice and in the mountains. So he lives surrounded by nature and he became eco-friendly so he is not harmful for nature or entertainment. 

Can we say that Victor was harmful to nature or the environment?? Yes According to me Victor is harmful for nature or the environment because he has created human beings and goes beyond 

nature. He uses his science and his knowledge to go beyond nature; it leads him to his failure.  If he is the creator then he knows that this is his responsibility to take care and make control on his 

creation. But here it was  not done. And society repeatedly rejected monster cases of his  looking. After he rejected his creator and society he became violent. So Victor and society are  responsible for his violence nature. If Victor has knowledge to give life to  human beings then he knows how to control his creation and If his creation becomes violent he has to know how to destroy his creation. So here we can say that Victor's science is harmful to nature or entertainment and he is responsible for the difficult conditions of the monster.

A recurrent device in Mary Shelley’s writing is the use of the sublime in Burkean terms. In the novels at issue, Frankenstein and The Last Man, the sublime does not function exactly for the same purposes, but they share some similarities in this respect. In the former novel, the sublime is mainly used to differentiate between both the characters of Victor and the creature on the one hand, and Victor and Clerval on the other. In The Last Man, the sublime is also employed to illustrate the difference between characters, especially Raymond and Adrian. Thus, it becomes clear that M. Shelley was employing Burke’s differentiation consciously to oppose the dissimilar personalities of the main characters.

Human activities have been shamelessly insensitive towards other living species in the environment.(2017). I agree with his argument because in the novel Frankenstein we can see how society and peoples behave with the character of a monster. Monster repeatedly rejected by humans and the society and he became violent. He himself said that he was not violent by birth and people made him violent.  In this novel Frankenstein we can clearly see how human activities have been shamelessly insensitive towards other living species in the environment or in society. 

A distinctive purpose of Nature employed in the novel of Frankenstein that is nearly absent in The Last Man is the use of nature as a healing entity. If following the Wordsworthian  tradition,  for the main characters of the novel Frankenstein, Nature has curative powers, moral and physical, especially for the main characters of the novel and, to a lower degree,  for the character 

of a creature,  who finds  consolation in Nature as well, although that occurs only before feeling rejected by human beings. On the contrary, this employment of Nature does not appear in The Last Man. As discussed above, probably the author’s personal circumstances, which were indeed 

hideous, may be a likely explanation for it. M. Shelley’s probable need to project her misfortunes led her to deprive the natural elements of their healing properties according to the romantic tradition.In relation to the various types of natural elements appearing in the two novels, both works share some similar characteristics but at the same time some differences are also spotted. Both texts are alike in the utilization of the iconic Mont Blanc and the glaciers. Thus, in these novels Mont Blanc plays a central role in the development of the plot. In Frankenstein, this mountain serves as both a means of denoting Nature’s majesty and of its unsurpassable limits. In The Last Man, Mary Shelley also employs Mont Blanc as a meaningful device, for a different purpose though. In this text, the Mont Blanc —and Mont Anvert— are used to portray desolation and despair.

Regarding the ecocritical approach, The Last Man presents an ecological apocalypse which provokes the haunting disappearance of the human race. From an ecocritical perspective, this can be regarded as Mary Shelley’s concern about the mismanagement of natural resources and as a plea for reconsidering the importance of Nature and knowledge. Hence, she is not just tackling Nature as an aesthetic technique, but M. Shelley is actually acting as a visionary. It could be argued that she is aiming at raising awareness of the Earth’s finite duration and resources. Although there is also an ecocritical approach to Frankenstein, its usage of natural elements from an ecocritical perspective works at a lower degree, as a means of cautioning the readers to respect the established natural order and to be aware of the supreme power of Nature.

After this analysis,  it becomes clear that the way in which Nature is employed in both novels corresponds with the Gothic tradition of Mary Shelley’s times,  but with significant differences.  Besides,  my initial hypothesis that Nature was employed rhetorically by the author is reasserted. Remarkably,  although the  two novels share some basic traits, some of the ways in which Nature 

is employed in Frankenstein and is absent in The Last Man. Coinciding with the author’s dramatic emotional situation,  Mary Shelley's apocalyptic novel presents a more gloomy and horrid use of the natural elements than her former work. For this reason,  Nature in The Last Man,  especially the glaciers and the plague, are more focused on portraying the character’s dreadful destiny with a strong ecocritical bias  even in the use of such a central Romantic device as the sublime. Thus,  although Nature maintains its rhetoric functionality, it seems that the literary use given to natural elements goes in its rhetoric functionality, it seems that the literary use given to natural elements goes in a more modern direction in this novel. 

The whole novel is based on an ecocritical setting, for example Mountains,  Rivers,  Lakes,  Arctic ice. Novel Mary Shelley used Natural elements in her novel Frankenstein and The Last Man so we can say that Frankenstein and The Last Man was an ecocritical novel.