Library Search CYOA

Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.

Loading…

Hello! You are about to begin the TCC Tahita Fulkerson Library's tutorial on using the library to start a paper dealing with literary analysis. This tutorial involves a scenario in which you help someone get started with their research. Who do you want to help? Think of someone you admire. Enter their name in the textbox: <<textbox "$player_name" "">> When you're ready, click [[Start]]. <<set $player_name = $player_name.trim()>> <<if $player_name eq "">> <<set $player_name = "The Nameless One">> <<endif>>

$player_name is writing a research paper on Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, and they could use some help brainstorming for their paper. Will you help them? [[Sure!]] [[Ugh, do I have to?]]

Thanks, you're a lifesaver! With some very animated gesturing, $player_name reads you a plot summary of the book from the BBC: "Frankenstein tells the story of gifted scientist Victor Frankenstein who succeeds in giving life to a being of his own creation. However, this is not the perfect specimen he imagines that it will be, but rather a hideous creature who is rejected by Victor and mankind in general. The Monster seeks its revenge through murder and terror." $player_name thinks it’s pretty cool, and they are interested in three different things. Which one do you think they should write about? [[Monsters and society. They are so misunderstood!]] [[Science versus Nature. It's aliiiiive!]] [[Identity. Frankenstein and his monster sound like two sides of the same coin.]]

$player_name doesn’t really want to write their paper either, but they need to do well in the class. They still appreciate your help. [[I guess I'll help.|Sure!]]

$player_name agrees, Monsters are cool. But how do they make that a thesis statement? What do they even want to write about it? You suggest seeing what other people have written about the monster to maybe jumpstart some ideas. Where should $player_name start first? [[Google]] [[Wikipedia]] [[The Library website]] <<set $path to "society">>

$player_name agrees, there's a lot of interesting points about the science that brings the monster to life and whether or not he is natural. But how do they make that a thesis statement? What do they even want to write about it? You suggest seeing what other people have written about the monster to maybe jumpstart some ideas. Where should $player_name start first? [[Google]] [[Wikipedia]] [[The Library website]] <<set $path to "science">>

$player_name agrees, there are a lot of interesting similarities between the two characters. But how do they make that a thesis statement? What do they even want to write about it? Where should $player_name start first? [[Google]] [[Wikipedia]] [[The Library website]] <<set $path to "identity">>

Hint, who wrote this tutorial for you? <<back "Try again.">>

Wikipedia is only going to tell you about the story, not give you much in the way of analysis. <<back "Try again.">>

Ding ding ding! "You tell them to open a new browser and go to https://library.tccd.edu. [[Cool, so what do we do now?]]

You both open the library website, and scroll down to the catalog search and database menus. <img src="homepage.png" width="900" height="400" alt="Screenshot of TCCD Library homepage, showing both the TCC Catalog search box and the TCC Article Databases dropdown menus"> $player_name looks at you and asks: "Ok, now what?" You explain that the library catalog is a way to see everything the library has, whereas an article database only has articles that have to do with a given subject, like literary analysis, which is what you're working on. Where do you tell $player_name to start first? <<set $articles to []>> <<set $articles.themes to []>> [[Now, we search the catalog!]] [[Now, we search the article database!]]

You direct $player_name to use the catalog search on the left. Because your assignment needs peer-reviewed articles, you direct them to select the Article Databases box to highlight it in blue before starting to search. <img src="catalog.png" alt="Screenshot of TCCD Library homepage, TCC Catalog search box with Article Databases menu box highlighted"> Since you're both interested in finding out what scholars have said about frankenstein and $path, you use those as your keywords. <<set $search to "catalog">> [[Let's look at the search results.|catalog Results]]

You direct $player_name to choose one of the databases listed under the Literature Criticism & Interpretation Subject heading, and they select JSTOR. <img src="jstor.png" alt="Screenshot of TCCD Library homepage, TCC Article Databases menu 'By Subject - List of Databases' with JSTOR option selected"> Since you're both interested in finding out what scholars have said about frankenstein and $path, you use those as your keywords. <<set $search to "database">> [[Let's check out the search results.|database Results]]

Here's a few of the articles that JSTOR listed in your search results. Do any of these sound relevant to your discussion of Frankenstein's monster and his relationship to or with $path? You can click the title of an article to read its abstract to find out more and select it for possible future use in $player_name's paper. Please select at least two articles before moving forward. <<if $path is "society">> <<display [[Society Articles]]>> <<elseif $path is "identity">> <<display [[Identity Articles]]>> <<else>> <<display [[Science Articles]]>> <</if>> <<if $articles.length > 1 >> [[I've got my articles, now what?]] <<else>> [[None of these articles look relevant. Now what?]] <</if>>

[['Frankenstein', Invisibility, and Nameless Dread]] [[Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and "The Structure of Torture"]] [[A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights]] [[Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism]]

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' ZIMMERMAN, LEE. “‘Frankenstein’, Invisibility, and Nameless Dread.” American Imago, vol. 60, no. 2, 2003, pp. 135–158. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26304711. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' Early in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1831), Victor Frankenstein tells Captain Walton: "No human being could have passed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence" (43).But is what he says true? Is Victor's claim borne out by the details of his narrative? I would like to propose that it is not, that it is idealized and defensive, and that just as the monster suffers from parentlessness, so too does Victor, who is his double. The monster's story of emotional abandonment is Victor's story. [["Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it."|Society 1 Keywords][$articles.push("'Frankenstein', Invisibility, and Nameless Dread")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Bernatchez, Josh. “Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and ‘The Structure of Torture.’” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, 2009, pp. 205–216. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40649956. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' Mary Shelley's 1818 version of Frankenstein and Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain share an interest in the essential makeup of individual identity and its dependence on communal recognition. Scarry's model describes a process wherein the application of physical pain reverses the progress of individual self-extension, driving a victim from the larger conceptual world and back into a solipsistic bodily sensation of pain. The victim is then forced to facilitate the annihilation of his identity through acquiescence to the verbal component of torture, wherein he is required to "confess" or otherwise "betray" himself. The process as a whole acts as a medium for the torturer's performance of power. By mapping the experience of the Creature in Frankenstein onto this model, the narrative can be read as a relentless process of annihilation that culminates in the Creature's embodiment of the appellation "monster" in contravention of his noble aspirations and desire "to be participated" in human community. Frankenstein complicates Scarry's model by resisting the unambiguous moral divide between innocent-victim and culpable-torturer. In Frankenstein, the torture process does not occur in a closed system; it unfolds in parallel to the Creature's efforts toward self-extension and identity formation. Taken in concert, Frankenstein and Scarry's "The Structure of Torture" suggest how an individual forms an identity in collaboration with, or in response to, community. Further, both individuals and the community at large bear responsibility for the world which comes into being through their interactions. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Society 3 Keywords][$articles.push("Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and 'The Structure of Torture'")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Reese, Diana. “A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights.” Representations, vol. 96, no. 1, 2006, pp. 48–72. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rep.2006.96.1.48. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' In Kant’s ethics, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s politics, and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789/1793), the identity of the ‘‘human’’ is split. Frankenstein’s staging of the nonhumanness of Shelley’s unnamed daemon contrasts with the split in the fundamental category of the ‘‘human’’ to be observed in this series of pivotal philosophical and political ‘‘doubles.’’ The monster’s peculiar relationship to acceding to a social form of existence thus brings to light an impasse faced by political subjects in eighteenth-century philosophy and allows for a new reading of them. Shelley’s monster, that ‘‘figure of a man,’’ moves across the shifting terrain of his own indetermination at ‘‘superhuman speed’’; traversing the slash between man/citizen, reasoner/human, general/individual will in ways that pose a delicate challenge to the work of reason in Enlightenment projects for a new authorization of law. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Society 4 Keywords][$articles.push("A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Hammond, Kim. “Monsters of Modernity: Frankenstein and Modern Environmentalism.” Cultural Geographies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2004, pp. 181–198. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44250971. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' The story of Frankenstein is often interpreted and mobilized as a powerful and popular symbol of concerns over the risks and dangers of science, progressive modernity and its ensuing technological creations, and – as in the recent GM 'Frankenstein food' debate – the dangers of 'messing with nature' or 'playing God'. Shelley's narrative is seen to symbolize Romantic fears, offering a dystopic tale of certain demise, one that demonizes technology in the form of Frankenstein's 'monster'. Such interpretations and mobilizations align the myth of Frankenstein with the neo-Romantic, conservative, nostalgic and counter-modern currents of elements of deep green, ecobiocentric ideology. In contrast, and in the context of contemporary environmental discourses, this paper offers a reading of Frankenstein as a critical questioning of both anti-Enlightenment Romanticism and anti-Enlightenment science that provides a framework for evaluating contemporary ecobiocentric ideals. Frankenstein is not an outdated tale. Shelley's novel is characterized and punctuated by a subtle and sophisticated appreciation of the vital role of social relations in determining the nature, direction, products and consequences of science and technology. The tale of Frankenstein presents a challenge to the usual anti-modernist, anti-science, pro-nature alignments of the Frankenstein myth, drawing our attention instead to important questions about what kind of socio-nature we want produced, by whom, for what purposes and under what conditions. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Society 2 Keywords][$articles.push("Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

[[Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and "The Structure of Torture"]] [[Frankenstein without Frankenstein: 'The Iron Giant' and the Absent Creator]]

[[Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and "The Structure of Torture"]] [[Responsible Frankensteins?]] [[Metaphysical Intersections in 'Frankenstein': Mary Shelley's Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism and Transgressive Autonomy]] [[A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights]] [[Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism]] [[Reading the Cyborg in Mary Shelley's ‘Frankenstein.’]] [[The Medical Gaze and the Female Corpse: Looking at Bodies in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein']]

''You chose the following articles:'' <<for _i to 0; _i lt $articles.length; _i++>> $articles[_i] <</for>> ''You also chose the following words from each of the article abstracts:'' <<for _i to 0; _i lt $articles.themes.length; _i++>> $articles.themes[_i] <</for>> There are a couple of approaches that you and $player_name can take. If you think you would need more articles to talk about Frankenstein's monster and $path, you can do an additional search. <<if $search is "catalog">> [[Yes, I'd like to do another search|Now, we search the article database!]] <<elseif $search is "database">> [[Yes, I'd like to do another search|Now, we search the catalog!]] <</if>> If you think you have enough articles to start, you can look at themes found within those articles to inform your paper's direction or even thesis statement. [[Yes, I want to start experimenting with different ideas from my articles.]]

Sometimes a title can be misleading. Try looking at the article's abstract. If it still doesn't look relevant, then try asking a different question. <<if $path == "society">> When looking at the relationship of the monster to society, consider the role society plays. - do his actions, behaviors, speech change after seeing society in action? - what happens after he interacts with someone? - what happens after he sees someone's reaction? If you think any of the articles might answer some of these questions, consider keeping them. <<elseif $path == "identity">> When looking at the relationship of the monster to identity, specifically his creator, consider any similarities or differences between the two characters. Do they: - like each other? hate each other? Why? - in what ways are they similar? - in what ways are they different? - how do you think their behavior or speech influences what they think of each other? If you think any of the articles might answer some of these questions, consider keeping them. <<else>> When looking at how science and nature are discussed in the book, think about how they affect the monster's characterization. How does the book: - show when science is used for good or bad? - show when nature is good or bad? - show the monster's relationship to science? - show the creator's relationship to science? - show ways that science and nature are similar? - show ways that science and nature are different? - whether events are more related to science, or more related to nature? If you think any of the articles might answer some of these questions, consider keeping them. <</if>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' Early in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1831), Victor Frankenstein tells Captain Walton: "No human being could have passed a happier childhood than myself. My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence" (43).But is what he says true? Is Victor's claim borne out by the details of his narrative? I would like to propose that it is not, that it is idealized and defensive, and that just as the monster suffers from parentlessness, so too does Victor, who is his double. The monster's story of emotional abandonment is Victor's story. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[parentlessness|database Results][$articles.themes.push("parentlessness")]] - [[emotional abandonment|database Results][$articles.themes.push("emotional abandonment")]] - [[childhood|database Results][$articles.themes.push("childhood")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[parentlessness|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("parentlessness")]] - [[emotional abandonment|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("emotional abandonment")]] - [[childhood|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("childhood")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' The story of Frankenstein is often interpreted and mobilized as a powerful and popular symbol of concerns over the risks and dangers of science, progressive modernity and its ensuing technological creations, and – as in the recent GM 'Frankenstein food' debate – the dangers of 'messing with nature' or 'playing God'. Shelley's narrative is seen to symbolize Romantic fears, offering a dystopic tale of certain demise, one that demonizes technology in the form of Frankenstein's 'monster'. Such interpretations and mobilizations align the myth of Frankenstein with the neo-Romantic, conservative, nostalgic and counter-modern currents of elements of deep green, ecobiocentric ideology. In contrast, and in the context of contemporary environmental discourses, this paper offers a reading of Frankenstein as a critical questioning of both anti-Enlightenment Romanticism and anti-Enlightenment science that provides a framework for evaluating contemporary ecobiocentric ideals. Frankenstein is not an outdated tale. Shelley's novel is characterized and punctuated by a subtle and sophisticated appreciation of the vital role of social relations in determining the nature, direction, products and consequences of science and technology. The tale of Frankenstein presents a challenge to the usual anti-modernist, anti-science, pro-nature alignments of the Frankenstein myth, drawing our attention instead to important questions about what kind of socio-nature we want produced, by whom, for what purposes and under what conditions. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[social relations|database Results][$articles.themes.push("social relations")]] - [[socio-nature|database Results][$articles.themes.push("socio-nature")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[social relations|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("social relations")]] - [[socio-nature|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("socio-nature")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' Mary Shelley's 1818 version of Frankenstein and Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain share an interest in the essential makeup of individual identity and its dependence on communal recognition. Scarry's model describes a process wherein the application of physical pain reverses the progress of individual self-extension, driving a victim from the larger conceptual world and back into a solipsistic bodily sensation of pain. The victim is then forced to facilitate the annihilation of his identity through acquiescence to the verbal component of torture, wherein he is required to "confess" or otherwise "betray" himself. The process as a whole acts as a medium for the torturer's performance of power. By mapping the experience of the Creature in Frankenstein onto this model, the narrative can be read as a relentless process of annihilation that culminates in the Creature's embodiment of the appellation "monster" in contravention of his noble aspirations and desire "to be participated" in human community. Frankenstein complicates Scarry's model by resisting the unambiguous moral divide between innocent-victim and culpable-torturer. In Frankenstein, the torture process does not occur in a closed system; it unfolds in parallel to the Creature's efforts toward self-extension and identity formation. Taken in concert, Frankenstein and Scarry's "The Structure of Torture" suggest how an individual forms an identity in collaboration with, or in response to, community. Further, both individuals and the community at large bear responsibility for the world which comes into being through their interactions. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[pain and power|database Results][$articles.themes.push("pain and power")]] - [[community bears responsibility|database Results][$articles.themes.push("community bears responsibility")]] - [[interactions|database Results][$articles.themes.push("interactions")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[pain and power|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("pain and power")]] - [[community bears responsibility|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("community bears responsibility")]] - [[interactions|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("interactions")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' In Kant’s ethics, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s politics, and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789/1793), the identity of the ‘‘human’’ is split. Frankenstein’s staging of the nonhumanness of Shelley’s unnamed daemon contrasts with the split in the fundamental category of the ‘‘human’’ to be observed in this series of pivotal philosophical and political ‘‘doubles.’’ The monster’s peculiar relationship to acceding to a social form of existence thus brings to light an impasse faced by political subjects in eighteenth-century philosophy and allows for a new reading of them. Shelley’s monster, that ‘‘figure of a man,’’ moves across the shifting terrain of his own indetermination at ‘‘superhuman speed’’; traversing the slash between man/citizen, reasoner/human, general/individual will in ways that pose a delicate challenge to the work of reason in Enlightenment projects for a new authorization of law. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[social form of existence|database Results][$articles.themes.push("social form of existence")]] - [[man and citizen|database Results][$articles.themes.push("man and citizen")]] - [[human and nonhuman|database Results][$articles.themes.push("human and nonhuman")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[social form of existence|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("social form of existence")]] - [[man and citizen|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("man and citizen")]] - [[human and nonhuman|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("human and nonhuman")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Miller, T. S. “Frankenstein without Frankenstein: ‘The Iron Giant’ and the Absent Creator.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 20, no. 3 (77), 2009, pp. 385–405. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24352361. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' This essay positions Brad Bird's animated film The Iron Giant as an overlooked adaptation of the Frankenstein story, with reference to its multiple intertexts in both Shelley's novel and the tradition of film adaptations. The Iron Giant tells the tale of an artificial being that, unlike Frankenstein's monster, receives the "proper" nurturing and moral education from a surrogate parent; accordingly, Bird's giant learns to reject the destructive impulses that turn Frankenstein into a tragedy. Although Bird's rereading of this foundational text obviously includes children among its audience, it is not simplistically optimistic, and its real innovation lies in the absence of the giant's creator from the plot: we see a being truly abandoned by its maker, yet one whose capacities for self-determination and regenerative "self-creation" win out over alienation. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Identity 1 Keywords][$articles.push("Frankenstein without Frankenstein: 'The Iron Giant' and the Absent Creator")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

''Abstract:'' This essay positions Brad Bird's animated film The Iron Giant as an overlooked adaptation of the Frankenstein story, with reference to its multiple intertexts in both Shelley's novel and the tradition of film adaptations. The Iron Giant tells the tale of an artificial being that, unlike Frankenstein's monster, receives the "proper" nurturing and moral education from a surrogate parent; accordingly, Bird's giant learns to reject the destructive impulses that turn Frankenstein into a tragedy. Although Bird's rereading of this foundational text obviously includes children among its audience, it is not simplistically optimistic, and its real innovation lies in the absence of the giant's creator from the plot: we see a being truly abandoned by its maker, yet one whose capacities for self-determination and regenerative "self-creation" win out over alienation. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[parenting|database Results][$articles.themes.push("parenting")]] - [[self-determination|database Results][$articles.themes.push("self-determination")]] - [[abandonment|database Results][$articles.themes.push("abandonment")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[parenting|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("parenting")]] - [[self-determination|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("self-determination")]] - [[abandonment|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("abandonment")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Foht, Brendan P. “Responsible Frankensteins?” The New Atlantis, no. 54, 2018, pp. 83–95. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/90021009. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' To today’s bioethicists, 'playing God' doesn’t really mean anything. And horror—or repugnance—at the idea of manufacturing new life is just a feeling that gets in the way of acting responsibly, based on rational considerations of the moral principles and practical consequences of our actions. Most bioethicists would agree with Latour’s notion that we should exercise a kind of parental responsibility in our use of technology, especially reproductive technologies, and that concerns about playing God, or about hubris, are meaningless. But Shelley shows us what playing God really means and what the moral problem with such hubris precisely is: It makes ordinary, parental responsibility impossible. Thus, in embryo research today, the “responsible” course of action toward new life is to destroy it. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Science 1 Keywords][$articles.push("Responsible Frankensteins?")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Hogsette, David S. “Metaphysical Intersections in ‘Frankenstein’: Mary Shelley's Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism and Transgressive Autonomy.” Christianity and Literature, vol. 60, no. 4, 2011, pp. 531–559. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44314873. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' Frankenstein is a speculative narrative that asks: what would happen if man created human life without the biologically and relationally necessary woman and with indifference to God? What if Adam were to reject his own Creator and create life after his own fleshly or material image? Mary Shelleys answer to these questions is not a triumphant humanist manifesto, nor is it an ironic subversion of a supposedly outmoded theistic perspective. Rather, she offers a philosophical nightmare revealing the horrific consequences of methodological naturalism taken to its logical conclusion. Frankenstein explores the ideological vacuum engendered by scientific materialism and examines the spiritual bankruptcy of replacing theism with secular humanism. Victor Frankensteins transgressive autonomy, grounded in scientific materialism, results in a reductionism that ultimately leads to existential despair, individual crisis, and communal disintegration. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Science 2 Keywords][$articles.push("Metaphysical Intersections in 'Frankenstein': Mary Shelley's Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism and Transgressive Autonomy")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Fuller, Sarah Canfield. “Reading the Cyborg in Mary Shelley's ‘Frankenstein.’” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 14, no. 2 (54), 2003, pp. 217–227. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43308625. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' "Often cited as a founding text of science fiction as well as the touchstone for any text on the creation of wholly or partially artificial beings, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has yet to be considered fully in the light of Haraway's radical cyborgology. The Creature, assembled from the parts of humans and animals and animated through the miracle of modern science, appears in many ways to be just the sort of boundary-confusing cyborg Haraway finds so liberating. The fate of the ""Frankenstein monster"" as it makes its way into popular discourse suggests, however, that maintaining the radically subversive tensions necessary to the cyborg critique of binarism may be more difficult than simply embracing the free play of fluid identity." [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Science 3 Keywords][$articles.push("Reading the Cyborg in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' LIGGINS, EMMA. “THE MEDICAL GAZE AND THE FEMALE CORPSE: LOOKING AT BODIES IN MARY SHELLEY'S ‘FRANKENSTEIN.’” Studies in the Novel, vol. 32, no. 2, 2000, pp. 129–146. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29533387. Accessed 1 Feb. 2021. ''Abstract:'' Confronting the overlap between medical and sexual conceptualizations of the dead body, Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1818, second edition 1831) explores the social dangers of the gendered relationship between male surgeons and female patients, as female sexuality doubles as the ultimate object of scientific enquiry. I argue that the novel draws on contemporary debates about surgery and medical practice in its analysis of the anatomist's privileging of his medical research over his sexual desire for women, implying that the medical control and violation of women facilitates the rise of the male professional and a narrative of medical progress. Far from reproducing unequivocally beautiful images of dead women, like those made available in visual representations, Shelley's female corpses are designed to provoke horror and disgust as well as sexual desire. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Science 4 Keywords][$articles.push("The Medical Gaze and the Female Corpse: Looking at Bodies in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

''Abstract:'' To today’s bioethicists, 'playing God' doesn’t really mean anything. And horror—or repugnance—at the idea of manufacturing new life is just a feeling that gets in the way of acting responsibly, based on rational considerations of the moral principles and practical consequences of our actions. Most bioethicists would agree with Latour’s notion that we should exercise a kind of parental responsibility in our use of technology, especially reproductive technologies, and that concerns about playing God, or about hubris, are meaningless. But Shelley shows us what playing God really means and what the moral problem with such hubris precisely is: It makes ordinary, parental responsibility impossible. Thus, in embryo research today, the “responsible” course of action toward new life is to destroy it. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[playing God|database Results][$articles.themes.push("playing God")]] - [[ethics|database Results][$articles.themes.push("ethics")]] - [[reproduction|database Results][$articles.themes.push("reproduction")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[playing God|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("playing God")]] - [[ethics|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("ethics")]] - [[reproduction|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("reproduction")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' Frankenstein is a speculative narrative that asks: what would happen if man created human life without the biologically and relationally necessary woman and with indifference to God? What if Adam were to reject his own Creator and create life after his own fleshly or material image? Mary Shelleys answer to these questions is not a triumphant humanist manifesto, nor is it an ironic subversion of a supposedly outmoded theistic perspective. Rather, she offers a philosophical nightmare revealing the horrific consequences of methodological naturalism taken to its logical conclusion. Frankenstein explores the ideological vacuum engendered by scientific materialism and examines the spiritual bankruptcy of replacing theism with secular humanism. Victor Frankensteins transgressive autonomy, grounded in scientific materialism, results in a reductionism that ultimately leads to existential despair, individual crisis, and communal disintegration. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[scientific materialism|database Results][$articles.themes.push("scientific materialism")]] - [[creation|database Results][$articles.themes.push("creation")]] - [[humanism|database Results][$articles.themes.push("humanism")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[scientific materialism|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("scientific materialism")]] - [[creation|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("creation")]] - [[humanism|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("humanism")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' Confronting the overlap between medical and sexual conceptualizations of the dead body, Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1818, second edition 1831) explores the social dangers of the gendered relationship between male surgeons and female patients, as female sexuality doubles as the ultimate object of scientific enquiry. I argue that the novel draws on contemporary debates about surgery and medical practice in its analysis of the anatomist's privileging of his medical research over his sexual desire for women, implying that the medical control and violation of women facilitates the rise of the male professional and a narrative of medical progress. Far from reproducing unequivocally beautiful images of dead women, like those made available in visual representations, Shelley's female corpses are designed to provoke horror and disgust as well as sexual desire. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[surgery|database Results][$articles.themes.push("surgery")]] - [[medical research|database Results][$articles.themes.push("medical research")]] - [[horror|database Results][$articles.themes.push("horror")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[surgery|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("surgery")]] - [[medical research|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("medical research")]] - [[horror|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("horror")]] <<back>>

''Abstract:'' Often cited as a founding text of science fiction as well as the touchstone for any text on the creation of wholly or partially artificial beings, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has yet to be considered fully in the light of Haraway's radical cyborgology. The Creature, assembled from the parts of humans and animals and animated through the miracle of modern science, appears in many ways to be just the sort of boundary-confusing cyborg Haraway finds so liberating. The fate of the ""Frankenstein monster"" as it makes its way into popular discourse suggests, however, that maintaining the radically subversive tensions necessary to the cyborg critique of binarism may be more difficult than simply embracing the free play of fluid identity. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "database">> - [[cyborg|database Results][$articles.themes.push("cyborg")]] - [[binarism|database Results][$articles.themes.push("binarism")]] <<case "catalog">> - [[cyborg|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("cyborg")]] - [[binarism|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("binarism")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

To help out $player_name, you'll need to know a little bit more about their assignment. $player_name is working on a literary analysis. For their paper, they are asked to create an argument about a work of literature they've read in class. This means not only reading the book but also analyzing it from a certain perspective. If you've ever watched a movie and argued about who was the hero or what it means, then you've done an analysis of sorts. You've taken a position, that the character is a hero or a villain, that the movie is really about the consequences of destroying the environment or about how success requires sacrifice. For this tutorial, you'll be helping $player_name find resources to support an argument about the book Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. [[Sounds like a plan. Let's get going.]]

''So if we start with a statement like this:'' "The monster's relationship with $path explores... or "The monster's interactions with $path influence... ''We can try plugging in some of the keywords we found from the abstract.'' Which creates the following couple of sentences: <<for _i to 0; _i lt $articles.themes.length; _i++>> - The monster's relationship with $path explores $articles.themes[_i]... <</for>> <<for _i to 0; _i lt $articles.themes.length; _i++>> - The monster's interactions with $path explores $articles.themes[_i]... <</for>> Some of the grammar may be off, but it's the start of a statement you're making about the novel. You can then finish the statement with why you think this is the case. Even better, you already selected $articles.length articles that you can cite for this paper. [[You've got this.|Got it. This is the best ever.]]

Cool. $player_name gives you a high five and feels ten times more confident about writing their paper. Thanks for helping $player_name! -- The hope is that this helps you become a little more familiar with the process of seeing weird, seemingly unrelated article titles, and finding ways to connect them both to your topic and to your thesis statement. You can use these strategies for more than just a literary analysis. Any topic you may be looking for information on, you can use the article abstracts to find how it might relate to your topic.

From the search results page, you add a couple of filters from the left sidebar: - Resource type = articles - Publication date = 2000 - 2020 You can click the title of an article to read its abstract to find out more and select it for possible future use in $player_name's paper. Please select at least two articles before moving forward. <<if $path is "society">> <<display [[Catalog Society Articles]]>> <<elseif $path is "identity">> <<display [[Catalog Identity Articles]]>> <<else>> <<display [[Catalog Science Articles]]>> <</if>> <<if $articles.length > 1 >> [[I've got my articles, now what?]] <<else>> [[None of these articles look relevant. Now what?]] <</if>>

[[Strangers and Orphans: Knowledge and mutuality in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.]] [[Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and "The Structure of Torture"]]

[[Strangers and Orphans: Knowledge and mutuality in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.]] [[A Troubled Legacy: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the Inheritance of Human Rights]]

[[Frankenstein’s Monster: The Downsides of Technology]] [[Frankenstein and Chemistry]] [[Rereading Frankenstein: What If Victor Frankenstein Had Actually Been Evil?]]

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Gómez, Claudia Rozas. “Strangers and Orphans: Knowledge and Mutuality in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 45, no. 4, Apr. 2013, pp. 360–370. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00131857.2012.718152. ''Abstract:'' Paulo Freire consistently upheld humanization and mutuality as educational ideals. This article argues that conceptualizations of knowledge and how knowledge is sought and produced play a role in fostering humanization and mutuality in educational contexts. Drawing on Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, this article focuses on the two central characters who 'ardently' pursue knowledge at all costs. It will be argued that the text suggests two possible outcomes from the pursuit of knowledge. One is mutuality; the other is social disconnectedness. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Catalog Society 1 Keywords][$articles.push("Strangers and Orphans: Knowledge and mutuality in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Heller, Peter B. “Frankenstein’s Monster: The Downsides of Technology.” International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, vol. 6, no. 3, May 2010, pp. 121–132. EBSCOhost, doi:10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v06i03/56098. ''Abstract:'' As one of the best known science narratives about the consequences of creating life, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is an enduring tale that people know and understand with an almost instinctive familiarity. It has become a myth reflecting people’s ambivalent feelings about emerging science: they are curious about science, but they are also afraid of what science can do to them. In this essay, we argue that the Frankenstein myth has evolved into a stigma attached to scientists that focalizes the public’s as well as the scientific community’s negative reactions towards certain sciences and scientific practices. This stigma produces ambivalent reactions towards scientific artifacts and it leads to negative connotations because it implies that some sciences are dangerous and harmful. We argue that understanding the Frankenstein stigma can empower scientists by helping them revisit their own biases as well as responding effectively to people’s expectations for, and attitudes towards, scientists and scientific artifacts. Debunking the Frankenstein stigma could also allow scientists to reshape their professional identities so they can better show the public what ethical and moral values guide their research enterprises. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Catalog Science 1 Keywords][$articles.push("Frankenstein’s Monster: The Downsides of Technology")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Fairclough, Mary. “Frankenstein and Chemistry.” Literature and Medicine, vol. 36, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018, pp. 269–86, doi:10.1353/lm.2018.0014. ''Abstract:'' This essay investigates Mary Shelley’s use of contemporary chemical discourse in Frankenstein. Shelley states that Victor Frankenstein studies “chemistry, in the most comprehensive sense of the term,” as he prepares, and then animates, his Creature. Though readers are never allowed to know the secrets of Victor’s practice, this essay suggests that Shelley engages carefully with the work of Humphry Davy and other early nineteenth-century chemists. A detailed investigation of the chemical discourse of the novel reveals that Victor’s animation of the Creature uses chemistry in a range of ways, and that he does not merely shock the creature into life using galvanic electricity. Rather, the novel suggests the gothic uncertainty at the heart of even Davy’s cutting-edge chemical research during this period, an uncertainty which Shelley exploits in her representation of Victor’s science. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Catalog Science 2 Keywords][$articles.push("Frankenstein and Chemistry")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

Here's the citation and abstract for this article: ''Citation:'' Robert, Jason Scott. “Rereading Frankenstein: What If Victor Frankenstein Had Actually Been Evil?” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 48, no. 6, Wiley Subscription Services, Inc, Nov. 2018, pp. 21–24, doi:10.1002/hast.933. ''Abstract:'' As we reread Mary Shelley's Frankenstein at two hundred years, it is evident that Victor Frankenstein is both a mad scientist (fevered, obsessive) and a bad scientist (secretive, hubristic, irresponsible). He's also not a very nice person. He's a narcissist, a liar, and a bad “parent.” But he is not genuinely evil. And yet when we reimagine him as evil—as an evil scientist and as an evil person—we can learn some important lessons about science and technology, our contemporary society, and ourselves. [[Yes, this article seems relevant. Let's keep it.|Catalog Science 3 Keywords][$articles.push("Rereading Frankenstein: What If Victor Frankenstein Had Actually Been Evil?")]] <<back "Not interested, go back to the search results.">>

''Abstract:'' Paulo Freire consistently upheld humanization and mutuality as educational ideals. This article argues that conceptualizations of knowledge and how knowledge is sought and produced play a role in fostering humanization and mutuality in educational contexts. Drawing on Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, this article focuses on the two central characters who 'ardently' pursue knowledge at all costs. It will be argued that the text suggests two possible outcomes from the pursuit of knowledge. One is mutuality; the other is social disconnectedness. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "catalog">> - [[humanity|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("humanity")]] - [[knowledge|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("knowledge")]] - [[social disconnectedness|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("social disconnectedness")]] <<case "database">> - [[humanity|database Results][$articles.themes.push("humanity")]] - [[knowledge|database Results][$articles.themes.push("knowledge")]] - [[social disconnectedness|database Results][$articles.themes.push("social disconnectedness")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' As one of the best known science narratives about the consequences of creating life, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is an enduring tale that people know and understand with an almost instinctive familiarity. It has become a myth reflecting people’s ambivalent feelings about emerging science: they are curious about science, but they are also afraid of what science can do to them. In this essay, we argue that the Frankenstein myth has evolved into a stigma attached to scientists that focalizes the public’s as well as the scientific community’s negative reactions towards certain sciences and scientific practices. This stigma produces ambivalent reactions towards scientific artifacts and it leads to negative connotations because it implies that some sciences are dangerous and harmful. We argue that understanding the Frankenstein stigma can empower scientists by helping them revisit their own biases as well as responding effectively to people’s expectations for, and attitudes towards, scientists and scientific artifacts. Debunking the Frankenstein stigma could also allow scientists to reshape their professional identities so they can better show the public what ethical and moral values guide their research enterprises. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "catalog">> - [[stigma|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("stigma")]] - [[ethical values|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("ethical values")]] - [[scientific practices|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("scientific practices")]] <<case "database">> - [[stigma|database Results][$articles.themes.push("stigma")]] - [[ethical values|database Results][$articles.themes.push("ethical values")]] - [[scientific practices|database Results][$articles.themes.push("scientific practices")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' This essay investigates Mary Shelley’s use of contemporary chemical discourse in Frankenstein. Shelley states that Victor Frankenstein studies “chemistry, in the most comprehensive sense of the term,” as he prepares, and then animates, his Creature. Though readers are never allowed to know the secrets of Victor’s practice, this essay suggests that Shelley engages carefully with the work of Humphry Davy and other early nineteenth-century chemists. A detailed investigation of the chemical discourse of the novel reveals that Victor’s animation of the Creature uses chemistry in a range of ways, and that he does not merely shock the creature into life using galvanic electricity. Rather, the novel suggests the gothic uncertainty at the heart of even Davy’s cutting-edge chemical research during this period, an uncertainty which Shelley exploits in her representation of Victor’s science. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "catalog">> - [[animation|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("animation")]] - [[uncertainty|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("uncertainty")]] - [[cutting-edge research|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("cutting-edge research")]] <<case "database">> - [[animation|database Results][$articles.themes.push("animation")]] - [[uncertainty|database Results][$articles.themes.push("uncertainty")]] - [[cutting-edge research|database Results][$articles.themes.push("cutting-edge research")]] <</switch>> <<back>>

''Abstract:'' As we reread Mary Shelley's Frankenstein at two hundred years, it is evident that Victor Frankenstein is both a mad scientist (fevered, obsessive) and a bad scientist (secretive, hubristic, irresponsible). He's also not a very nice person. He's a narcissist, a liar, and a bad “parent.” But he is not genuinely evil. And yet when we reimagine him as evil—as an evil scientist and as an evil person—we can learn some important lessons about science and technology, our contemporary society, and ourselves. From the abstract above, which word or phrase seems most relevant to $player_name's interest in Frankenstein's monster and $path? <<switch $search>> <<case "catalog">> - [[mad scientist|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("mad scientist")]] - [[science and society|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("science and society")]] - [[bad science|catalog Results][$articles.themes.push("bad science")]] <<case "database">> - [[mad scientist|database Results][$articles.themes.push("mad scientist")]] - [[science and society|database Results][$articles.themes.push("science and society")]] - [[bad science|database Results][$articles.themes.push("bad science")]] <</switch>> <<back>>