This critique on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is certainly one of an assured position. In other words, it is blatantly obvious as to what this particular critic's point of view is on this subject. I agree with the feeling which is put towards Victor and his father, "Christopher Small sees in Victor's upbringing an 'atmosphere of perfect love, harmony, and parental indulgence'." "he calls Victor's father 'benevolentwisealtogether un-authoritarian." (103).
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 that, even on the surface, are the main concern of Frankenstein (3). With this is discussed "how the 'facilitating environment' shapes these relationships." 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 ...