Neo-Classical Literature

Hello friends, today I am going to answer some questions as a part of the thinking activity that I was given in my class it is about neoclassical literature. 

• Write in brief about your favourite major/minor writer of the age.

Jonathan Swift-  Major Writer of the Neo-Classical Age.

Life:

Born in 1667 in Dublin, Ireland, Swift was raised by his Uncle Godwin. Swift's father, a lawyer also named Jonathan Swift, died of syphilis seven months before the birth of his son. Allegedly, his father stated that he contracted syphilis not from another woman but from "dirty sheets" while travelling out of town. Godwin was close friends with Sir John Temple, a prominent Irish lawyer and politician who served in the House of Commons in both Ireland and England at various times. 

In 1682, at the age of fifteen, Swift enrolled at Trinity College to pursue a degree that would prepare him to join the priesthood. After receiving a Bachelor's Degree, Swift continued to study for his Master's Degree but was forced to abandon his studies when political turmoil brought on by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 caused him to flee Ireland. Through his Uncle Godwin's connections, Swift gained employment with John Temple's son, William Temple, in Surrey, England, serving as Temple's secretary. Here, Damrosch makes references to rumours that William Temple was in fact Swift's biological father, adding that while it is "not impossible," it also cannot be proven. 

A prominent diplomat, Temple entrusted Swift with several important tasks. In at least one instance, Swift travelled to London on Temple's behalf to negotiate with the throne over a proposed bill. It was at Temple's Moor Park estate that Swift first met Hester Johnson (sometimes styled as "Esther Johnson"). The daughter of Temple's housekeeper, Hester was only nine years old when the twenty-two-year-old Swift first arrived at Moor Park. He became her tutor, and as the years went on, their relationship grew more intimate. Complicating this already thorny relationship is the fact that Hester--whom Swift took to calling "Stella"--may actually have been Swift's half-sister. In addition to the unsubstantiated rumours that Temple was Swift's biological father, there's somewhat stronger evidence to suggest Temple was Hester's biological father as well. For Damrosch's part, he concludes that there is significant evidence to suggest this is the case, though he can't say the same for the rumours about Swift's parentage. 

Despite the important work he frequently did for Temple, Swift sensed that his political career was going nowhere. So, he decided to once again pursue the priesthood, moving back to Ireland. He managed to obtain the title of prebendary, a relatively low-ranking dignitary in the Church of Ireland. Isolated to a small, remote parish in the town of Kilroot, Swift was more or less miserable. After around two years in Kilroot, Swift returned to Temple's employ until his boss died in 1699. Swift found, however, that his political career was in even worse shape after Temple's death than when he was alive. After once again abandoning politics, Swift managed to become a minister to a small congregation in Laracor, about twenty miles outside Dublin. Despite being no closer to the power centres of national politics or religion, Swift appears to have been rather content in this position, spending his free time gardening and writing. 

Swift's first major work was A Tale of the Tub which he published in 1704. A vicious satire on religion and English morals, the work all but torpedoed any hopes he still had of advancing his career in the Church of Ireland. Swift moved back to London where he exchanged regular correspondence with his "Stella." These letters survived in the form of A Journal to Stella which was published after Swift's death. Damrosch dissects these letters in search of definitive evidence that their relationship was sexual in nature. Whatever the case, the letters are playful, intimate, and in some cases sexually charged. The two use a kind of secret language at times, and in one letter Swift calls Stella a "wheedling slut." Around this time, Swift carried on an even more ambiguous relationship with an even younger woman named Esther Vanhomrigh, whom he nicknamed "Vanessa." 

Meanwhile, Swift's writing grew more explicitly political, culminating in 1729's masterpiece A Modest Proposal, in which Swift satirized the cruel attitudes of the rich toward the poor by suggesting that impoverished Irishmen could make a living by selling their children as food for the wealthy. Three years earlier, Swift published his most well-known long-form work, the novel Gulliver's Travels. 

Swift lived until 1745 but suffered from extreme dementia during his final years. Of his worsening mental illness, Damrosch quotes T.S. Eliot who remarked, "Real irony is an expression of suffering, and the greatest ironist was the one who suffered the most - Swift." 

 

Major Works:

A Tale of a Tub:

Swift's first major prose work, A Tale of a Tub, demonstrates many of the themes and stylistic techniques he would employ in his later work. It is at once wildly playful and funny while being pointed and harshly critical of its targets. In its main thread, the Tale recounts the exploits of three sons, representing the main threads of Christianity, who receive a bequest from their father of a coat each, with the added instructions to make no alterations whatsoever. However, the sons soon find that their coats have fallen out of current fashion, and begin to look for loopholes in their father's will that will let them make the needed alterations. As each finds his own means of getting around their father's admonition, they struggle with each other for power and dominance. Inserted into this story, in alternating chapters, the narrator includes a series of whimsical "digressions" on various subjects.

• Write in brief about your favourite work from the Neoclassical Age.

Gulliver's Travels:

Gulliver's Travels records the pretended four voyages of one Lemuel Gulliver and his adventures in four astounding countries. The first book tells of his voyage and shipwreck in Lilliput, where the inhabitants are about as tall as one's thumb, and all their acts and motives are on the same dwarfish scale. In the petty quarrels of these dwarfs, we are supposed to see the littleness of humanity. The statesmen who obtain place and favour by cutting monkey capers on the tight rope before their sovereign, and the two great parties, the Littleendians and Bigendians, who plunge the country into civil war over the momentous question of whether an egg should be broken on its big or on its little end, are satires on the politics of Swift's own day and generation. The style is simple and convincing; the surprising situations and adventures are as absorbing as those of Defoe's masterpiece, and altogether it is the most interesting of Swift's satires. 

On the second voyage, Gulliver is abandoned in Brobdingnag, where the inhabitants are giants, and everything is done on an enormous scale. The meanness of humanity seems even more detestable given the greatness of these superior beings. When Gulliver talks about his own people, their ambitions, wars, and conquests, the giants can only wonder that such great venom could exist in such little insects. 

At the beginning of the next chapter (chapter VII), Gulliver explains why he has told us this:

 "Nothing but an extreme Love of Truth could have hindered me from concealing this part of my Story."

He has put the king’s judgement into his narrative not because he feels chastened by it, but simply because he believes in recording things. He calls this his ‘extreme Love of Truth’, a boast that draws attention to his failure to understand how his boasts have revealed some of the worst aspects of human nature.

This woodcut shows a miniature Gulliver sailing in a trough, entertaining the queen of Brobdingnag and her courtiers.

To justify his veracity, he has to tell us everything, including how he dealt with ‘the Necessities of Nature’ whilst in Lilliput:

The best Expedient I could think on was to creep into my house, which I accordingly did; and shutting the Gate after me, I went as far as the Length of my Chain would suffer, and discharged my body of that uneasy load. But this was the only time I was ever guilty of so uncleanly an action; for which I cannot but hope the candid reader will give some allowance after he has maturely and impartially considered my case, and the Distress I was in. (Part 1, ch. 2).

Gulliver likes to feel that there is nothing that he shirks telling us.

In the third voyage, Gulliver continues his adventures in Laputa, and this is a satire upon all the scientists and philosophers. Laputa is a flying island, held up in the air by a loadstone; and all the professors of the famous academy at Lagado are of the same airy constitution. The philosopher who worked eight years to extract sunshine from cucumbers is typical of Swift's satiric treatment of all scientific problems. It is in this voyage that we hear of the Struldbrugs, a ghastly race of men who are doomed to live upon the earth after losing hope and the desire for life. The picture is even more terrible given the last years of Swift's own life, in which he was compelled to live on, a burden to himself and his friends. 

In these three voyages, the evident purpose is to strip off the veil of habit and custom, with which men deceive themselves, and show the crude vices of humanity as Swift fancies he sees them. In the fourth voyage, the merciless satire is carried out to its logical conclusion. This brings us to the land of the Houyhnhnms, in which horses, superior and intelligent creatures, are the ruling animals. All our interest, however, is centred on the Yahoos, a frightful race, having the form and appearance of men, but living in unspeakable degradation. 

In his fourth voyage, he reaches the land of the unpronounceable Houyhnhnms, talking horses whose virtues overwhelm him. Seeing the disgusting Yahoos, driven only by appetite, he sees a version of himself and turns to loathe his species. There has been much debate about whether we should admire the Houyhnhnms, ascetic and rational as they are. They cannot ‘say the thing that is not’ – their phrase for lying that might as well be their description of irony (Swift’s own speciality), which must also be beyond their comprehension. But, as ever, what matters most is Gulliver’s thinking. He is utterly seduced by their truthfulness. Swift’s genius is to see that pride and self-disgust are near neighbours. Gulliver begins his voyages as a prideful modern man, confident in the values of his culture; he ends as a maddened misanthrope, and, disturbingly, the unwitting object of the book’s satire.

Illustrations of the Houyhnhnms and Yahoos.

[Word count:1750]

Feminist Reading of Lady Macbeth

 In Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, he presents the conflicting character of Lady Macbeth. Upon receiving her husband’s letter about the witches’ prophesies, she attempts to be like a man to exude the strength needed to gain additional social status as royalty. Lady Macbeth appears to be very influential in planning – deciding when and how they should kill King Duncan – and chiding her husband for not acting more like a man; yet, despite these capabilities, she is the main reason for the revealing of Macbeth’s part in the usurpation of the throne.

Lady Macbeth is unique among the tragic heroines of Shakespeare. Her character is far more complex than that of Desdemona, Ophelia, and Cordelia. She is much more vocal than the rest three. Her role in the murder of Duncan fills us with awe and astonishment. In the first half of the play, she dominates the scene and is more powerful than her husband. The first half of the play gives us the impression that Macbeth is only a half-hearted cowardly criminal whereas Lady Macbeth is a wholehearted fiend. 

Lady Macbeth’s role in the earlier part of the tragedy sometimes leads us to think that she is the “fourth witch.” While the three witches are busy, tempting Macbeth with the prospect of the crown of Scotland, Lady Macbeth exerts the ultimate deciding influence on the action. She has Herculean courage and firm determination which hold her feeling and conscience completely in check. To her prophecy immediately becomes a tangible possibility. 

“Glamis thou art and Cawdor and shalt be 

What thou art promised” 

To her, there is no difference between desire and deed. The moment she wishes her husband to be the king of Scotland, she is sure to make him that. 

“The raven himself is hoarse 

That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan 

Under my battlement” 

When Macbeth rejoins her, she goes straight to her purpose and plan show to get rid of Duncan and clear the way for her husband. Here she takes the superior position and directs the whole affair herself. She knows the weakness of her husband who hesitates 'to catch the nearest way to the object she desires. So, she animates him by picturing the deed as heroic, ‘this night's great business, ‘our great quell’ but he ignores the cruelty and inhumanness underlying it. She overcomes his resistance with her logic than with her taunts and rebukes. She calls him a ‘coward’. Her eyes are fixed on the ‘Golden round’ and the means to it, she does not think of the consequences.

Even in the presence of overwhelming horror and danger, she controls perfect, as in the murder scene and the banquet scene. Thus, in the first part of the play, she seems both invincible and inhuman. There is no trace of pity for the kind old king, no consciousness of the treachery and baseness of the murder, no shrinking even from the condemnation of the world. It is for all these reasons that she has often been called the fourth witch of the drama. 

On closer scrutiny, however, Lady Macbeth has certain redeeming features in her character. Whereas the three witches stand for only cruelty and meanness, Lady Macbeth symbolizes some of the positive aspects of human nature as well. She is not totally devoid of feminine weakness and human feelings. She utters the famous words which show her filial affection: 

"Had he not resembled my father 

As he slept, I had done't." 

Though she speaks these words impatiently as if she regrets her weakness, it is there. Similarly, her appalling invocation to the spirits of Evil to unsex her and fill her from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty tells the same tale of determination to crush the inner protest. 

 "Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood,..."

Like any other woman, Lady Macbeth is a devoted wife. The fire of ambition that is burning in her mind is only an echo of what is there in her husband's mind. She wants the crown of Scotland not for herself but for her husband. She is very prompt and active during Duncan's murder only because she knows her husband's weakness-that he is 'too full of the milk of human kindness to carry out the plan. Her care for Macbeth is apparent in the following words: "You know the season of all nature's sleep". 

She is, indeed, a perfect wife. She urges appeals reproaches, for a practical end. She never recriminates. The harshness of her taunts for her husband is free from any personal feeling or more than momentary consent. She despises what she thinks is the weakness that stands in the way of her husband's ambition but she does not despise him. 

The greatness of Lady Macbeth lies in her indomitable courage and force of will. Her intellectual side is comparatively weaker. She shows immense self-control but not much skill. Her plan of laying the guilt upon the chamberlains is invented on the spur of the moment and simply to satisfy her hesitant husband. Her passionate courage sweeps Macbeth off his feet and he commits Duncan's murder. Even when passion has quite died away, her will remains supreme. Even during crises, no word of complaint, scarcely a word of her own suffering, escapes her lips. She helps Macbeth but never asks for his help. In this way, we see that from the beginning to the end her will never fails her. She never betrays her husband or herself by a word or even a look, save in the sleep-walking scene. Thus, however appalling she may be, she is sublime. Her selfless sacrifices for her husband is redeeming feature of her character. 

Lady Macbeth has a complex character. She is a tragic heroine of a particular type... She combines in herself villainy and sublimity, weakness and kindness, 'the fair and the foul'. Hers is a dynamic character who undergoes a metamorphosis in the course of the play. In the beginning, she fails to understand even herself. Her facile realism that 'a little water clears us of this deed' is one day answered by herself." Will these hands never be cleaned?" 

Similarly, the fatal commonplace that 'what is done is done' makes way for her last despairing sentence: "What is done cannot be undone". 

With the shock of a sudden disclosure of the deed in the banquet scene, Lady Macbeth begins to sink down. Even when she is the queen of Scotland, she remains disillusioned and weary for want of sleep. Henceforth she retires into the background. She is not at all interested in the action that follows. She has no part in Macbeth's tyranny over Scotland. She cannot bear darkness and has light by her continually. The sleep-walking scene shows the beginning of her madness. And finally, she dies a pathetic death. Thus, from the banquet scene onwards we begin to think of her less as the instigator of Duncan's murder or as the veritable fourth witch than as a woman with much that is grand and sublime in her. There is a deep pathos in her stoical suffering. Her character as a whole excites awe, grandeur, and pity at one and the same time. 

Lockdown by Simon Armitage

 Lockdown: A poem about coronavirus outbreak

Simon Armitage has written a poem to address the coronavirus and a lockdown that is slowly being implemented across the world, saying that the art form can be consoling in times of crisis because it “asks us just to focus, and think, and be contemplative”.

“And I couldn’t escape the waking dream

of infected fleas”

The Great Plague of London, 1665

The first half of the poem deals with the dream of the poet which describes the condition of Eyam, Derbyshire village which was suffered a lot because of the pandemic Great Plague of London in the year 1665. At that time villages were separated by the boundary stone. Which contained holes that the quarantined villagers would put their money in to pay for provisions from outside, and then fill with vinegar in the hope it would cleanse the coins. The stone also touches the story of a doomed romance between a girl who lived in Eyam and a boy outside the village who talked to her from a distance, until she stopped coming.

 But slept again,

and dreamt this time

Of the exiled yaksha sending word

to his lost wife on a passing cloud,

The second half of the poem is influenced by a scene from a Sanskrit poem Meghaduta by Kalidas. In which an exiled Yaksha convinced a cloud to take the message to his lost wife.

The seat of his exile is the mountain Ramgiri, and upon the poem, he is supposed to have passed a period of eight months in solitary seclusion. The poem opens at the commencement of the rainy season when heavy clouds are gathering in the south, and proceeding in a northerly course, or the resident of the Yaksha. To one of these, the demigod addresses himself and desires the cloud to waft his sorrows to a beloved and regretted wife. For this purpose he first describes the route which the messenger is to pursue; and this gives the Poet and opportunity of alluding to the principal mountains, rivers, temples and many other amazing landscapes and scenery he is going to pass across. Those are to be met with on the road from Ramgiri to Ujjain, and thence nearly due north, to the Himalaya or snowy mountains. The fabulous mountain and the city  Alka, which are supposed to be in the central part of the snowy range are next described and we then come to the personal description of the Yaksha's wife. The Cloud is next instructed on how to express the feelings and situation of the exile and he is then dismissed from the presence of the Deity, and the Poem of Kalidas.

Samuel Butler (poet)

 Samuel Butler(1612-1680)

Butler was one of Restoration England's most popular satirists and is best remembered for Hudibras, a mock-epic poem in which the author attacks the perceived hypocrisy of the Puritans who had ruled his country from 1642 to 1660. Influenced by Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quixote (1605), Butler related the comic adventures of the Puritan knight errant Sir Hudibras and his squire Ralpho. Butler's use in Hudibras of an eight-syllable line commonly reserved for "heroic" works and his unconventional rhymes comprise a distinctive and often-imitated poetic style that came to be known as "hudibrastic" verse. The popularity of Hudibras as a work of literature has declined, so that it is, according to Christopher Hill, "more quoted than read." However, Hudibras is still considered valuable commentary on the religious and political thought of seventeenth-century England, and Butler is admired for his incisive, biting wit.

Life:

Samuel Butler was born in the Parish of Strensham, in the county of Worcester, and baptized there on the 13th of Feb. 1612. His father, who was of the same name, was an honest country farmer, who had some small estate of his own but rented a much greater of the Lord of the Manor where he lived. However, perceiving in this son an early inclination to learning, he made a shift to have him educated in the free-school at Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright; where having passed the usual time, and being become an excellent school-scholar, he went for some little time to Cambridge but was never matriculated into that University, his father's abilities not being sufficient to be at the charge of an academical education; so that Butler returned soon into his native county, and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys, of Earl's-Croom, an eminent Justice of the Peace for that County, with whom he lived some years, in an easy and no contemptible service. Hereby the indulgence of a kind master, he had sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatever learning his inclinations led him, which were chiefly history and poetry; to which, for his diversion, he joined music and painting; and I have seen some pictures, said to be of his drawing, which remained in that family; which I mention not for the excellency of them, but to satisfy the reader of his early inclinations to that noble art; for which also he was afterwards entirely beloved by Mr. Samuel Cooper, one of the most eminent painters of his time.

He was after this recommended to that great encourager of learning, Elizabeth Countess of Kent, where he had not only the opportunity to consult all manner of learned books but to converse also with that living library of learning, the great Mr. Selden.

Butler lived some time also with Sir Samuel Luke, who was of an ancient family in Bedfordshire but, to his dishonour, an eminent commander under the usurper Oliver Cromwell: and then it was, as I am informed, he composed this loyal Poem. For, though fate, more than choice, seems to have placed him in the service of a Knight so notorious, both in his person and politics, yet, by the rule of contraries, one may observe throughout his whole Poem, that he was most orthodox, both in his religion and loyalty. And I am the more induced to believe he wrote it about that time because he had then the opportunity to converse with those living characters of rebellion, nonsense, and hypocrisy, which he so livelily and pathetically exposes throughout the whole work.

After the restoration of King Charles II. those who were at the helm, minding money more than merit, Butler found that verse in Juvenal to be exactly verified in himself:

Haud facile emergunt, quorum virtutibus obstat

Res angusta domi:

[They do not easily rise whose virtues are held back by the

straitened circumstances of their home]

And being endued with that innate modesty, which rarely finds promotion in princes' courts. He became Secretary to Richard Earl of Carbury, Lord President of the Principality of Wales, who made him Steward of Ludlow-Castle when the Court there was revived. About this time he married one Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a very good family, but no widow, as the Oxford Antiquary has reported; she had a competent fortune, but it was most of it unfortunately lost, by being put out on ill securities, so that it was of little advantage to him. He is reported by the Antiquary to have been Secretary to his Grace George Duke of Buckingham when he was Chancellor to the University of Cambridge; but whether that be true or no, it is certain, the Duke had a great kindness for him, and was often a benefactor to him. But no man was a more generous friend to him, than that Mecaenas of all learned and witty men, Charles Lord Buckhurst, the late Earl of Dorset and Middlesex, who, being himself an excellent poet, knew how to set a just value upon the ingenious performances of others, and has often taken care privately to relieve and supply the necessities of those, whose modesty would endeavour to conceal them; of which he was a signal instance, as several others have been, who are now living. In fine the integrity of his life, the acuteness of his wit, and easiness of his conversation had rendered him most acceptable to all men; yet he prudently avoided a multiplicity of acquaintance, and wisely chose such only whom his discerning judgment could distinguish (as Mr. Cowley expresseth it)

From the great vulgar or the small.

And having thus lived to a good old age, admired by all, though personally known to few, he departed this life in the year 1680, and was buried at the charge of his good friend Mr. Longuevil, of the Temple, in the yard belonging to the church of St. Paul's Covent-garden, at the west end of the said yard, on the north side, under the wall of the said church, and under that wall which parts the yard from the common highway. And since he has no monument yet set up for him, give me leave to borrow his epitaph from that of Michael Drayton, the poet, as the author of Mr. Cowley's has partly done before me:

And though no monument can claim

To be the treasurer of thy name;

This work, which ne'er will die, shall be

An everlasting monument to thee.

Hudibras:

Sr. Hudibras, His Passing Worth, The Manner How He Sally'd Forth

Hudibras is an English mock-heroic narrative poem from the 17th century written by Samuel Butler. Published in the aftermath of the English Civil War, it is a scathing satire of Puritanism and the Parliamentarian cause from a Royalist perspective.

The work is a satirical polemic upon Roundheads, Puritans, Presbyterians and many of the other factions involved in the English Civil War. The work was begun, according to the title page, during the civil war and published in three parts in 1663, 1664 and 1678, with the first edition encompassing all three parts in 1684. The Mercurius Aulicus (an early newspaper of the time) reported an unauthorised edition of the first part that was already in print in early 1662.

Published only four years after Charles II had been restored to the throne and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell being completely over, the poem found an appreciative audience. The satire is not balanced as Butler was fiercely royalist and only the parliamentarian side are singled out for ridicule. Butler also uses the work to parody some of the dreadful poetry of the time.

The epic tells the story of Sir Hudibras, a knight errant who is described dramatically and with laudatory praise that is so thickly applied as to be absurd, revealing the conceited and arrogant person visible beneath. He is praised for his knowledge of logic, despite appearing stupid throughout, but it is his religious fervour that is mainly attacked:

For his Religion, it was fit

To match his Learning and his Wit:

'Twas Presbyterian true blew;

For he was of that stubborn Crew

Of Errant Saints, whom all men grant

To be the true Church Militant:

Such as do build their Faith upon

The holy text of Pike and Gun;

Decide all Controversies by

Infallible Artillery;

And prove their Doctrine Orthodox

By Apostolic Blows and Knocks;

Call Fire and Sword and Desolation,

A godly-thorough-Reformation,

Which always must be carry'd on,

And still be doing, never done:

As if Religion were intended

For nothing else but to be mended.

— First Part, Canto I, lines 189-206

His squire, Ralpho, is of a similar stamp but makes no claim to great learning, knowing all there is to know from his religion or "new-light", as he calls it. Butler satirises the competing factions at the time of the Protectorate by the constant bickering of these two principal characters whose religious opinions should unite them.

These are fawning but barbed portraits and are thought to represent personalities of the times but the actual analogues are, now as then, debatable. "A Key to Hudibras" printed with one of the work's editions (1709) and ascribed to Roger L'Estrange names Sir Samuel Luke as the model for Hudibras. Certainly, the mention of Mamaluke in the poem makes this possible, although Butler suggests Hudibras is from the West Country, making Henry Rosewell a candidate. The witchfinder Matthew Hopkins, John Desborough, parliamentarian general, and William Prynne, lawyer, all make appearances, and the character of Sidrophel is variously seen as either William Lilly or Paul Neale.

Other literary works:

Most of his other writings never saw print until they were collected and published by Robert Thyer in 1759. Butler wrote many short biographies, epigrams and verses the earliest surviving from 1644. Of his verses, the best known is "The Elephant on the Moon", about a mouse trapped in a telescope, a satire on Sir Paul Neale of the Royal Society. Butler's taste for the mock heroic is shown by another early poem Cynarctomachy, or Battle between Bear and Dogs, which is both a homage to and a parody of a Greek poem ascribed to Homer, Batrachomyomachia. He wrote the poem Upon Philip Nye's Thanksgiving Beard about the Puritan Philip Nye and later also mentioned him in Hudibras.

His supposed lack of money later in life is strange as he had numerous unpublished works which could have offered him income including a set of Theophrastan character sketches which were not printed until 1759. Many other works are dubiously attributed to him.

Movie Review- Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'

 Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein"

Directer- Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay- Steph Lady, Frank Darabont

Producer- Francis Ford Coppola

Staring- Robert De Niro

                   Keneth Branagh

                                 Helena Bonham Carter

          Genre- Horror, Science Fiction

Theatrical release poster

   "In the last 20, 30 years, [Frankenstein has] been claimed by a whole generation of academics and scholars as a seminal piece of literature of that time. [It's] something which now, post-Freud, they feel reveals so many observations about family life, incest, father-and-son relationships, and husband and wife relationships. [Frankenstein] speaks loudly to people, partly because it's so elusive. There's no definitive interpretation of it - it's certainly more than just a monster story." - Kenneth Branagh, director of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

 This movie is a genuinely chilling and faithful adaptation of  Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. It is a lot more than just a horror movie.  There are lots of issues and questions that are pretty much fundamental to human existence and that's why it's been retold. It's unusual in a movie today to be able to describe the whole sense of scale that the book has and that is great about a tale like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein because they have a size that they're not used to employing with contemporary stories.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein focuses on this fascinating and thought-provoking theme. In Kenneth Branagh's instinctive and energetic screen interpretation of this classic story, Victor Frankenstein is a driven scientist obsessed with conquering death. After his mother dies giving birth to his brother, he creates a living being out of spare parts.

Before long, however, the monster, played by Robert De Niro, is abandoned by Frankenstein and forced to retreat into the wilderness. He yearns to share the emotions of a peasant family he watches in an isolated cottage but is unable to do so. When this ugly creature meets his creator, he asks, "You gave me these emotions but you didn't tell me how to use them." The monster's feeling function is wounded and so is Frankenstein's. Mirroring each other, they both turn to violence.

It is the Creature who captures our imagination. Since the day he has been abandoned by his creator, he has become more aware and vengeful. Compared to James Whale's Frankenstein's (1931)monster, who is nothing like the monster in this movie. Frankenstein's Monster is a lot better developed here.  The soul of the Creature in the instance, the sweetness and the passionate revengeful side of the Creature were played very movingly. You understand his drive a little bit better and Robert De Nero was able to convey that quite very well.

If we talk about the female character Elizabeth who is more than a cousin sister to Victor. Helena Bonham Carter as Elizabeth has not that much of a role except the resurrection following her murder at the hands of the Creature, but ends with killing herself out of self-loathing.

Mary Shelley leaves so much open to the imagination that it is up to the interpreter to bring put their scenario like, 

• Why Victor was not able to accept his dream experiment and its results?

Victor's dream experiment was to conquer death, to do that he decides to create a life. After he successfully created the Creature it came out to be very creepy and hideous. In Victor's mind, it was a monster so later on, he abandoned his dream experiment.

"Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance".

• What made Creature a Monster?

The monster is constructed out of human parts, he is disfigured, "unnaturally hideous," and deemed society's "chief object of horror".He is instantly labelled as an evil and destructive creature, overshadowing any sort of goodness he may possess. The monster is shocked that his sole purpose was to bring glory to Frankenstein, but now his creator considers him to be a regretful mistake. Like being abandoned by a parent, he is filled with rage and dejection after hearing how his creator wishes to have nothing to do with him. . When he developed his senses, seeking revenge on his creator, he started killing.

• Why society has rejected Victor's idea of experiment and then the result of his experiment?

Victor was trying to make life, but people believes that only God can do that and mere humans have no right to do God's job. 

• Search for life.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was written with the theme of the desire for knowledge at the heart of the book. Many of the characters in the book are searching for knowledge, whether it is the knowledge of how to break the cycle of life, the ability to read and understand, or even knowing what is at the North Pole. Robert Walton is one of the characters that fall victim to this thirst for knowledge. Robert Walton’s search for knowledge in Frankenstein leads him to not only discover the perils that come from his hunt for knowledge but also learn a lesson about his own limits.

• The villain in Frankenstein. 

At first glance, the monster in Frankenstein is a symbol of evil, whose only desire is to ruin lives. He has been called "A creature that wreaks havoc by destroying innocent lives often without remorse. He can be viewed as the antagonist, the element Victor must overcome to restore balance and tranquillity to the world." But after the novel is looked at on different levels, one becomes aware that the creature wasn't responsible for his actions, and was just a victim of circumstance. The real villain of Frankenstein isn't the creature, but rather his creator, Victor.

 When Victor created the creature, he didn't take responsibility for it. He abandoned it and left it to fend for itself. It is unfair to bring something into the world, and then not teach it how to survive. The creature was miserable and just wanted a friend or someone to talk to.