Frankenstein And Schug's Literary Analysis

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein attempts to classify itself as a romantic work. Often times critics and scholars point out the reasons on why it may and may not be piece of the Romantic movement. It is unparalleled to compare the classic novel to Keats “Ode to a Nightingale” as they are two very different reflections of the movement, though written within a short year of each other. In a detailed reflection thorough the works of two notable critics we will investigate the exact classification of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the relation of the monster’s narrative as an understanding of its classification as a romantic work. Critic, Milton Millhauser, takes a literary approach to this problem, while Charles Schug reviews the effect of the frame …show more content…
Millhauser argues that though the monster is grotesque, large, and manages to scare all that encounter it, he is not to be viewed exclusively as a monster. Millhauser compares the monster to the concept of the noble savage. A noble savage is an uncivilized man/being, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization (Encyclopedia). This was a popular concept applied to characters within the Romanticism movement. The noble savage as Millhauser explains it, is an outsider who is above the complexities and contradictions society allows (272). Millhauser explains that the monster falls short of being labeled as a noble savage throughout the first half of the novel. The monster bends to the impulses of his nature and reacts to his rejection. However, the monster then learns how to read, and write, as well as, learn basic philosophy and societal constructs. The monster is able to formulate his ideas, develop thoughts and fully evaluate his feelings and determine his wants and needs. Millhauser describes “He is like man and child, and learns alternatively like each” (273). Millhauser’s belief it is only then that the monster’s actions can be reviewed as a noble savage. The monster’s ability to explain himself and communicate and know the gravity of his situation and …show more content…
This is Millhauser’s idea as he challenged the genre and Mary Shelley’s inclusion of the monster. Millhauser sought to communicate that we cannot view Frankenstein as anything other than a Romantic work as its ideas and constructs are dedicated in transforming the traditional ideals of Shelley’s audience. While Schug communicate that thought the work is a product of the Romanticism movement its ideas ring true for all to consider and take stock. He encourages that Shelley’s relationship to the romantic movement provides as a stellar magnifying glass to reform logical and rational organization of thought. Insisting the way to do this is to consider all sides of the narrative and how that narrative effects the reader’s ability to face similar complex conflicts and