I find the attention drawn to “the many ways in which Frankenstein portrays the consequences of the failure of family, the damage wrought when the mother or a nurturant parental love is absent” (1968, 39) to be extremely interesting, especially because this is a point which the average reader may not actually take into consideration at all. I also believe that this is a significantly strong point in this story, and that it encompasses much of the morale of the story itself. There are many other significantly relevant and important theories and points made in this critique; one of these being “…I invoke an object relations perspective that explores the centrality of an infant’s early experiences with primary caretakers and of the intense feelings of love and hate. Also, one of the most emphasizing comments made on this subject in the critique, I believe, is: “The infant’s disposition is important, but for Winnicott much depends upon the child’s earliest relations with others who may respond either in a ‘good-enough’ way that allows his or her ‘true self’ to emerge or by imposing rigid structures that leave the child in a ‘false’ position, caught between an endangered inner world that can’t be made known and an unresponsive external world that refuses to know it.” (p.2). The thought provoking statements made in this critique truly give another life in a way to the Frankenstein story, making a reader of this critique., whether they agree or not, at least have an array of new and inspired impressions on the story.
The feelings of this writer seem to be very psychoanalytic, in that they continuously compare the Frankenstein story to morale and ideals in the real world, and bring the story very much to life. The matter of social obligations and responsibility, family obligations, and emotions are all brought out strongly. It speaks predominantly about the 'ideal' infant's life, and how Victor's "father's 'smile of benevolent pleasure' and mother's 'tender caresses' might ordinarily suggest recognition and love, but that doesn't square with Victor's being objectified as a 'plaything' or the sense of 'duty' and 'owing' that defines his relationship to his parents." (p.3). This particular comment strongly evokes in me a feeling of emotion towards Victor, and how his relationship is towards his parents. I feel as though Victor saw through the external showings and felt as though he was not appreciated by his parents the way he would like to have been.
The relationship between Victor and his father is shown as being especially tense: "Alphonse doesn't get the point of his son's enthusiasm: 'My father looked carelessly at the titlepage of my book, and said, Ahl Cornelius Agrippal. My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash'." (44). In this, we see that by failing to receive his son's eagerly profound communication, "Alphonse cannot present the external world in a way that recognizes and affirms the inner one; what might have become a 'potential space' between subject and object instead remains a vacuum." (p.4). Through this we see that Alphonse's lack of recognition towards his son was incredibly more relevant than perhaps one would take it at first; his ignorance towards his son's enthusiasm brings great negativity to an already dire situation.
The effects of Victor's infantile dilemmas are spread thoroughly across this