高級 194 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course
Literature, and today we continue our discussion

of “Frankenstein”.
Oh, Me From the Past didn't even come to

school today. Isn't that fantastic? Well
we're going to learn something without him.

Last time we talked a little bit about the
Romantics, “Frankenstein” is often cited

as the definitive Romantic novel, but ehh…
let's get a little bit deeper into it.

Capital “R” Romantics don't have a lot
to do with lower case 'r' romantics, unless

your idea of romance involves like ecstatic
descriptions of nature and a revolutionary

spirit that often ends in bloodshed.
And if that's your idea of romance, don't

put it in your OK Cupid profile. However,
pro tip, do say that you're 6'3”.

Knowing more about the capital “R” Romantics will help you be better at lower case “r” romance so stick with me here.
[Theme Music]
So Romanticism was a movement originating
in the late 18th century and it's typically

understood as a reaction against both the
Industrial Revolution's devaluing of the

individual human spirit and embracing of like the soulless assembly line. And also the Enlightenment's
claims of scientific certainty.
Romanticism prizes intuition over rationalism,

and nature and wildness over classical harmony,
and emotions—especially difficult emotions

like horror and awe and terror and passion—are
preferred over intellect.

And there's an emphasis on the unconscious
and irrational part of humans. There's a

lot of talk of dreams and stuff.
So is “Frankenstein” a Romantic novel?

Well, if you take a course in Romantic lit
in college then you will almost definitely

read it. So, yes.
“Frankenstein” is interested in difficult,

uncomfortable emotions the wonder and awe
and horror of encountering the radically other.

And it's certainly in many ways also a response to the
Enlightenment's emphasis on scientific rationality.

I mean people at the time really thought
that we would eventually be able to

reanimate the dead and other people
were rightly troubled by that.

Then again, you can also read the book as
a critique -- and a pretty stern one --

of the kind of thinking and acting that
Romanticism encourages, right?

I mean Romanticism preaches a radical
self-involvement that privileges the individual's pursuit

of knowledge and glory but for all of Victor
and Walton's encountering nature and going

with their gut it's pretty disastrous. .
Another popular reading is to interpret “Frankenstein”

autobiographically, a reading that was encouraged
via 1970s feminist criticism of the novel.

Earlier readings along these lines situates
“Frankenstein” as a tale of monstrous

birth and look to Mary Shelley's own experiences
with birth, which were pretty terrible..

I mean Mary Shelley's mother died while
giving birth to her and Mary and Percy's

own first child, a daughter, died when she
was just a few weeks old.

And in her journal, Mary recounted an incredibly
sad dream about this daughter: “Dream that

my little baby came to life again; that it
had only been cold & that we rubbed it before

the fire & it lived.”
So, of course, the idea of bringing the dead

back to life had occurred to her even before
she listened in on Percy Shelley and Byron

discussing new developments in electricity.
Mary Shelley even refers to the book itself

as a child. In her intro to the 1831 edition,
she wrote, “I bid my hideous progeny go

forth and prosper. I have an affection for
it, for it was the offspring of happy days.”

That's a very tempting reading, but it's
also really literal and reductive.

First off, and I'm saying this partly defensively
as a novelist, novelist don't write exclusively

from their own experience.
More importantly, I'm not at all convinced

that making an author the central character
of a novel is a particularly helpful way to

read it.
So if you read “Frankenstein” as merely

as Mary Shelley working out her own personal
issues you miss the great and terrible questions

at the center of the book. The questions that
really can change you.

There's in fact a term for trying to do
this kind of reading—“intentional fallacy”—in

which we believe we can know exactly what
the author was thinking when they wrote a

book.
But putting aside those biographical readings

there are still some pretty interesting feminist
critiques of “Frankenstein.”

For instance, the novel clearly shows what
harm comes to women (and families and relationships)

when men pursue single-minded goals.
In fact, thanks to Victor's lack of work-life

balance, pretty much all the women in this
novel die. I mean Victor's creation of the

monster leads to the hanging of the servant
Justine, the murder of Victor's bride Elizabeth

on their wedding night.
And occasionally in the novel Mary Shelley

refers to nature itself as female, suggesting
that Victor is violating it, as when Victor

discusses how with “unrelaxed and breathless
eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places.”

I mean you can say I'm reading sex into
that if you want but “unrelaxed and breathless

eagerness.”?
And there are also plenty of suggestions that

Victor might not like women very much. The
creature says that he will leave Victor and

all mankind alone forever if Victor just creates
a mate for him and Victor begins work, but

then he gets freaked out over what it will
mean to create a lady monster.

Now admittedly that's partly because it
might mean monster progeny but just look at

the text, “She might become ten thousand
times more malignant than her mate,” thinks

Victor, “and delight, for its own sake,
in murder and wretchedness.”

He worries, “a race of devils would be propagated
upon the earth who might make the very existence

of the species of man a condition precarious
and full of terror.”

So Victor destroys the female creature while
the monster watches. He recalls, how “trembling

with passion, [I] tore to pieces the thing
on which I was engaged.”

I don't think I'm being too weird to point
out the sexy stuff there: “trembling with

passion.” Anyway, Victor claims to love
his cousin, Elizabeth, but he deserts her

for years at a time and even though the creature
says—really, really, really clearly—“I

will be with you on your wedding-night,”
he leaves her alone on his wedding night.

Now we can all wonder why Mary Shelley didn't
create any strong female characters here and

instead a collection of suffering, passive,
doomed ones, but we can certainly read the

novel as an exploration of what happens when
men fear, distrust, or devalue women so much

that they attempt to reproduce without them.
I mean in some ways Victor is trying to bypass

the feminine altogether. He's creating life
without recourse to egg or womb. Now you could

counter this by saying that Mary Shelley's
original Creator—God—did the same thing.

But that's precisely the point. Victor is
not God.

And perhaps this is where “Frankenstein”
is still most relevant, in its discussion

of “playing God,” of the single-minded
pursuit of science without an accompanying

concern about you know, morality.
Now, obviously, the experiments that Victor

undertakes are extreme, but Mary Shelley was
basing them on some of the scientific debates

and discoveries of her day. And even if the
book is largely science fiction, there's

a certain amount of scientific fact in it,
and a lot of scientific questioning.

And part of why this book has survived is
because the questions she was asking were

important in her day, but they're also
pretty important now.

I mean there was a recent book on genetic
modifications in animals called “Frankenstein's

Cat”, those who object to GMO foods often
label them Frankenfoods, which only makes

them sound like Franken-berry cereal - which
is delicious!

So Mary Shelley was influenced… oh… it
must be time for The Open Letter.

Oh look, it's Frankenstein's monster.
No, wait, it's the Hulk. It actually occurs

to me that they're quite similar.
Both monsters created by failed scientific

experiments who only really become monstrous
when they're rejected by society.

Anyway, an Open Letter to scientists: Dear
Scientists, here's a little rule of thumb.

Anytime you're doing any kind of experiment,
ask yourself the question, “Could this create

a monster?” Even if the chances are relatively
low, I'm going to advise against that experiment,

because what I have seen from the movies and from
books is that if it can become a monster it will!

But I will say scientists that I think you've been a bit unfairly maligned by poor readings of “Frankenstein.”
Frankenstein is not like the Hulk because
his story isn't, at least not simply, about

about science run amok.
It's an oversimplification scientists.

You are doing good work with you lab coats and
your chemicals and I thank you. Don't turn

anyone into a monster. Best wishes, John Green.
Right, but anyway, Mary Shelley was influenced

by several scientists, but chief among them
Erasmus Darwin, grandfather to Charles, and

Luigi Galvani.
Darwin published a long poem called “The

Temple of Nature,” because back then poetry
was a totally reasonable way to share scientific

ideas.
He had an idea that life—at least on the

microscopic level—could be restored to seemingly
dead matter or created out of inert matter,

a phenomenon he called “spontaneous generation.”
And Galvani, became famous for conducting
experiments with electricity, in which he

showed that electrical impulses could animate
the muscles of dead creatures like the legs

of a deceased frog.
Did you get it? “.. conducting experiments

in electricity”, anyone? Conducting electricity?
No? OK.

Galvani's followers did even more macabre
experiments, like in 1803 test in which several

scientists attached electrodes to the body
of an executed murderer in the hope of restoring

it to life.
Because they were like, “Oh, man. Who should

we bring back from the dead? I know, a murderer!”
Anyway, they,of course, didn't succeed,

but they did succeed in making a few of the
murder's muscles convulse.

These experiments clearly influence Victor's
attempt to reanimate dead flesh and in fact

Victor's experiments weren't that much
radical than ones that were actually happening

at the time.
That said, the novel itself is clearly pretty

skeptical about these pursuits. I mean even
before he animates the monster, it's clear

that his studies are exacting a tremendous
toll on Victor's health, and his well being,

also that of his friends and family.
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.

Victor describes how “My cheek had grown
pale with study, and my person had become

emaciated with confinement,” which is a
pretty good passage to show your parents when

they're pushing you to go pre-med.
And things only went downhill once he began

to assemble the creature. Victor, “dabbled
among the unhallowed damps of the grave, or

tortured the living animal…collected bones
from charnel-houses; and disturbed, with profane

fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human
frame,”

But Victor thinks that this digging around
in slaughterhouses and graveyards will be

worth it; he says “I might in process of
time…renew life where death had apparently

devoted the body to corruption.” And that's
an amazing and laudable goal (unless you've

ever seen any zombie movie ever, in which
case you would know that it's a TERRIBLE

idea).
But in that same passage, Victor says that

the creatures he makes “would bless me as
its creator and source…. No father could

claim the gratitude of his child so completely
as I should deserve theirs.”

So it's clear that his desire is actually
selfish and that he's pursuing this knowledge

not for universal good, or so that the dead
may live again, but for his own gratification.

And then of course there's his reaction
when his experiment does succeed. I mean,

even though he's assembled every facet of
the creature and made him huge on purpose

so that all these fiddly bits like veins and
eyelashes will be easier to work with, he

responds to his creature with utter horror.
And what is Victor's mature, responsible,

heroic reaction to this situation? He runs
away, making all the dads on “Teen Mom”

look amazing by comparison.
Thanks Thought Bubble

So, the monster blames this initial abandonment
for all the murders that result, right?

And Percy Shelley agreed, writing that while
the creature was initially affectionate and

moral “the circumstances of his existence
were so monstrous and uncommon, that… his

original goodness was gradually turned into
the fuel of an inextinguishable misanthropy

and revenge.”
But is the tragedy inherent in the creation

of the monster or is there a way to pursue
knowledge without responding in horror?

Frankenstein is more than a little relevant
today as we struggle to figure out where technologies

like stem cell therapy, or genetically modified
foods, or cloning land on the ethical and

moral scales of the social order.
The pursuit of knowledge is good, right, because

that's how I'm even able to talk to you
through like the magic of the Internet. That's

why we aren't hunger/gathers anymore.
But we don't actually know the outcome yet.

Sometimes we forget that we're still in
the middle of history.

I don't think Mary Shelley condemned science
outright, or explicitly discourages learning

the secrets of life and nature.
Now the experiment definitely fails. The question

is why?
Is it because Victor's aims are just unnatural

and evil? Is it because he can't love the
creature he's created? Or is it because

he let's his ego run amok dictate his motivations?
That's a non-rhetorical question by the

way. I look forward to reading your answers
in comments. Thank you for watching. I'll

see you next week.
Crash Course is made by all of these nice

people and it's possible because of your
contributions at Subbable.com.

We want to say thank to all of our Subbable
subscribers for keeping Crash Course free

for everyone forever.
If you want to subscribe you can do so over

at Subbable.com. There are also great perks
there. Thank you again for watching and as

we say in my hometown, "Don't forget to
be awesome!"

提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

別讓屍體復活!《科學怪人》II (Frankenstein Part II: Crash Course Literature 206)

194 分類 收藏
April Lu 發佈於 2016 年 11 月 3 日
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔