Let the Bodies Hit the Floor: a Comparison of Corporal Morphology in Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Buchner’s Lenz (1836)

Jameson Bradley Kısmet Bell

Makale detayları

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor: a Comparison of Corporal Morphology in Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Buchner’s Lenz (1836)

Yazarlar:

Jameson Bradley Kısmet Bell

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

World Languages | Literature and Culture (Other)

Dergi:

Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur Issue 51, pp.24-36

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323635

pISSN:

2619-9890

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 This article compares representations of corporal morphology in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein 1818 with Georg Büchners Lenz 1836. Focusing on anecdotes where corpses are the focus reveals a diverging literary style in representing the emerging science of morphology, or the study of the shape and form of natural objects. When read through Immanuel Kants Critique of Teleological Judgment from his Critique of Judgement and Johan Wolfgang von Goethes essay On Morphology, I argue that Shelleys and Büchners works contain the seeds of critique of two very different effects of idealism, teleology, and the purposiveness of nature. Whereas idealist scientists and doctors proposed a distance between the observer and the object of study, in Kants words to perceive and act as if the object has a purpose from a human-centered point of view, Goethe suggested a study of the morphology of living objects, which simultaneously affects the object and observer. A comparative methodology, where the focus is short anecdotes, follows close reading methods proposed by Erich Auerbach, Stephen Greenblatt, and Catherine Gallagher. The scenes where corpses are highlighted in Büchners Lenz and Merry Shelleys Frankenstein reveals extreme examples of neutral descriptions of an object and the observers intimate link with that which is observed. The goal of objectivity developing in eighteenth century scientific practices, when read through the chiastic structure of these two literary works-animation and failed animation of a material body-reveals unique critiques of Enlightenment Idealism: the failure of success in Frankenstein, and the success of failure in Lenz.

 This article compares representations of corporal morphology in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein 1818 with Georg Büchners Lenz 1836. Focusing on anecdotes where corpses are the focus reveals a diverging literary style in representing the emerging science of morphology, or the study of the shape and form of natural objects. When read through Immanuel Kants Critique of Teleological Judgment from his Critique of Judgement and Johan Wolfgang von Goethes essay On Morphology, I argue that Shelleys and Büchners works contain the seeds of critique of two very different effects of idealism, teleology, and the purposiveness of nature. Whereas idealist scientists and doctors proposed a distance between the observer and the object of study, in Kants words to perceive and act as if the object has a purpose from a human-centered point of view, Goethe suggested a study of the morphology of living objects, which simultaneously affects the object and observer. A comparative methodology, where the focus is short anecdotes, follows close reading methods proposed by Erich Auerbach, Stephen Greenblatt, and Catherine Gallagher. The scenes where corpses are highlighted in Büchners Lenz and Merry Shelleys Frankenstein reveals extreme examples of neutral descriptions of an object and the observers intimate link with that which is observed. The goal of objectivity developing in eighteenth century scientific practices, when read through the chiastic structure of these two literary works-animation and failed animation of a material body-reveals unique critiques of Enlightenment Idealism: the failure of success in Frankenstein, and the success of failure in Lenz.

 This article compares representations of corporal morphology in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein 1818 with Georg Büchners Lenz 1836. Focusing on anecdotes where corpses are the focus reveals a diverging literary style in representing the emerging science of morphology, or the study of the shape and form of natural objects. When read through Immanuel Kants Critique of Teleological Judgment from his Critique of Judgement and Johan Wolfgang von Goethes essay On Morphology, I argue that Shelleys and Büchners works contain the seeds of critique of two very different effects of idealism, teleology, and the purposiveness of nature. Whereas idealist scientists and doctors proposed a distance between the observer and the object of study, in Kants words to perceive and act as if the object has a purpose from a human-centered point of view, Goethe suggested a study of the morphology of living objects, which simultaneously affects the object and observer. A comparative methodology, where the focus is short anecdotes, follows close reading methods proposed by Erich Auerbach, Stephen Greenblatt, and Catherine Gallagher. The scenes where corpses are highlighted in Büchners Lenz and Merry Shelleys Frankenstein reveals extreme examples of neutral descriptions of an object and the observers intimate link with that which is observed. The goal of objectivity developing in eighteenth century scientific practices, when read through the chiastic structure of these two literary works-animation and failed animation of a material body-reveals unique critiques of Enlightenment Idealism: the failure of success in Frankenstein, and the success of failure in Lenz.

 This article compares representations of corporal morphology in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein 1818 with Georg Büchners Lenz 1836. Focusing on anecdotes where corpses are the focus reveals a diverging literary style in representing the emerging science of morphology, or the study of the shape and form of natural objects. When read through Immanuel Kants Critique of Teleological Judgment from his Critique of Judgement and Johan Wolfgang von Goethes essay On Morphology, I argue that Shelleys and Büchners works contain the seeds of critique of two very different effects of idealism, teleology, and the purposiveness of nature. Whereas idealist scientists and doctors proposed a distance between the observer and the object of study, in Kants words to perceive and act as if the object has a purpose from a human-centered point of view, Goethe suggested a study of the morphology of living objects, which simultaneously affects the object and observer. A comparative methodology, where the focus is short anecdotes, follows close reading methods proposed by Erich Auerbach, Stephen Greenblatt, and Catherine Gallagher. The scenes where corpses are highlighted in Büchners Lenz and Merry Shelleys Frankenstein reveals extreme examples of neutral descriptions of an object and the observers intimate link with that which is observed. The goal of objectivity developing in eighteenth century scientific practices, when read through the chiastic structure of these two literary works-animation and failed animation of a material body-reveals unique critiques of Enlightenment Idealism: the failure of success in Frankenstein, and the success of failure in Lenz.

Makale detayları

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor: a Comparison of Corporal Morphology in Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Buchner’s Lenz (1836)

Yazarlar:

Jameson Bradley Kısmet Bell

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

World Languages | Literature and Culture (Other)

Dergi:

Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur Issue 51, pp.24-36

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323635

pISSN:

2619-9890

Georg Büchner

Mary Shelley

Frankenstein

Lenz

comparative literature

Sayı

Makale detayları

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor: a Comparison of Corporal Morphology in Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Buchner’s Lenz (1836)

Yazarlar: Jameson Bradley Kısmet Bell

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: World Languages | Literature and Culture (Other)

Dergi: Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur Issue 51, pp.24-36

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 6/2024

Belge Dili: İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.): 2001323635

pISSN: 2619-9890

Georg Büchner

Mary Shelley

Frankenstein

Lenz

comparative literature

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Jameson Bradley Kısmet Bell

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

World Languages | Literature and Culture (Other)

Dergi:

Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur Issue 51, pp.24-36

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

6/2024

Belge Dili:

İngilizce

Document ID (Org No.):

2001323635

pISSN:

2619-9890