A read-aloud captures students’ attention. P H O T O C O U R T E S Y O F T H E A U T H O R Using trade books to support science instruction is a timehonored tradition. A wellchosen book can generate interest in a science topic, present a problem, challenge misconceptions, and explain content. The Children’s Book Council and NSTA review hundreds of books yearly and publish their recommendations as the Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K–12 list (see Internet Resources). In addition, the Science and Children column Teaching Through Trade Books recommends two books per issue. These reliable resources often include ideas for using trade books to support science instruction. However, your school and classroom library collections are likely filled with other high-quality trade books not on these lists. These books are hiding in plain sight, just waiting to enrich your science teaching. Yet, deciding the best way to integrate these books in inquiry lessons can also be challenging. Using the right book in the wrong place in a lesson can prematurely shut down discussions, rob students of opportunities to make sense of their own observations, or reinforce common misconceptions. The 5E Instructional Model (Bybee 2014) structures and supports hands-on scientific inquiry across five phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. Considering this, we have uncovered parallel trade book features that can help you decide in which phase to use your favorite trade books (Table 1). In this article, we briefly review each phase of the 5E Instructional Model and explain how we select trade books and align literacy strategies to enhance each phase. In addition, we highlight some of our favorite books for each phase (Table 2, p. 82). You may notice that the lexile reading levels for a book may not always match the grade level of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) that we suggest for that book. Because many of these books are intended to be read aloud to the whole class, it is acceptable for the lexile reading levels to be higher than the grade level. Read-alouds encourage students to think about and beyond the text. Similarly, the illustrations, problems, and patterns within books that have lower lexile reading levels can often be used with older students to deepen their understanding of science concepts. The focus here is not to teach students how to read with these books but rather to use these books to help teach science concepts. However, “reading to teach” in science can support “teaching to read” in English language arts, as many aspects of scientific practice parallel metacognitive reading strategies, including making observations, predicting, inferring, comparing and contrasting, classifying, summarizing data, and recognizing cause-andeffect relationships (Fountas and Pinnell 2006; NGSS Lead States 2013).
大声朗读能吸引学生的注意力。使用普通书籍来支持科学教学是一项历史悠久的传统。一本精心挑选的书可以引起人们对科学主题的兴趣，提出问题，挑战误解，并解释内容。儿童图书委员会和美国国家科学技术协会每年评审数百本书，并将他们的推荐作为K-12年级学生的杰出科学图书名单(见互联网资源)。此外，科学与儿童专栏《通过普通书籍教学》每期推荐两本书。这些可靠的资源通常包括使用普通书籍来支持科学教学的想法。然而，你的学校和教室图书馆的藏书可能充满了其他高质量的商业书籍，不在这些清单上。这些书就藏在眼前，等着丰富你的科学教学。然而，决定将这些书融入探究性课程的最佳方式也可能具有挑战性。在错误的地方使用正确的书可能会过早地停止讨论，剥夺学生理解自己观察结果的机会，或者强化常见的误解。5E教学模式(Bybee 2014)通过五个阶段构建并支持动手科学探究:参与、探索、解释、阐述和评估。考虑到这一点，我们发现了平行的商业书籍特征，可以帮助您决定在哪个阶段使用您最喜欢的商业书籍(表1)。在本文中，我们简要回顾了5E教学模型的每个阶段，并解释了我们如何选择商业书籍并调整读写策略以增强每个阶段。此外，我们在每个阶段突出显示了我们最喜欢的一些书籍(表2，第82页)。你可能会注意到，一本书的弹性阅读水平可能并不总是与我们建议的下一代科学标准(NGSS Lead States 2013)的年级水平相匹配。因为这些书中有很多是要在全班大声朗读的，所以弹性阅读水平高于年级水平是可以接受的。大声朗读鼓励学生思考并超越文本。同样，弹性阅读水平较低的书籍中的插图、问题和模式通常可以用于年龄较大的学生，以加深他们对科学概念的理解。这里的重点不是教学生如何用这些书来阅读，而是用这些书来帮助教授科学概念。然而，科学中的“以读为教”可以支持英语语言艺术中的“以读为教”，因为科学实践的许多方面都与元认知阅读策略并行，包括观察、预测、推断、比较和对比、分类、总结数据以及识别因果关系(Fountas and Pinnell 2006;NGSS领导国家(2013)。
{"title":"Hiding in Plain Sight","authors":"Michelle Levy, Betty A. Schellenberg","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2021.0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0022","url":null,"abstract":"A read-aloud captures students’ attention. P H O T O C O U R T E S Y O F T H E A U T H O R Using trade books to support science instruction is a timehonored tradition. A wellchosen book can generate interest in a science topic, present a problem, challenge misconceptions, and explain content. The Children’s Book Council and NSTA review hundreds of books yearly and publish their recommendations as the Outstanding Science Trade Books for Students K–12 list (see Internet Resources). In addition, the Science and Children column Teaching Through Trade Books recommends two books per issue. These reliable resources often include ideas for using trade books to support science instruction. However, your school and classroom library collections are likely filled with other high-quality trade books not on these lists. These books are hiding in plain sight, just waiting to enrich your science teaching. Yet, deciding the best way to integrate these books in inquiry lessons can also be challenging. Using the right book in the wrong place in a lesson can prematurely shut down discussions, rob students of opportunities to make sense of their own observations, or reinforce common misconceptions. The 5E Instructional Model (Bybee 2014) structures and supports hands-on scientific inquiry across five phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. Considering this, we have uncovered parallel trade book features that can help you decide in which phase to use your favorite trade books (Table 1). In this article, we briefly review each phase of the 5E Instructional Model and explain how we select trade books and align literacy strategies to enhance each phase. In addition, we highlight some of our favorite books for each phase (Table 2, p. 82). You may notice that the lexile reading levels for a book may not always match the grade level of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) that we suggest for that book. Because many of these books are intended to be read aloud to the whole class, it is acceptable for the lexile reading levels to be higher than the grade level. Read-alouds encourage students to think about and beyond the text. Similarly, the illustrations, problems, and patterns within books that have lower lexile reading levels can often be used with older students to deepen their understanding of science concepts. The focus here is not to teach students how to read with these books but rather to use these books to help teach science concepts. However, “reading to teach” in science can support “teaching to read” in English language arts, as many aspects of scientific practice parallel metacognitive reading strategies, including making observations, predicting, inferring, comparing and contrasting, classifying, summarizing data, and recognizing cause-andeffect relationships (Fountas and Pinnell 2006; NGSS Lead States 2013).","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"17 1","pages":"205 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77568354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
• One of the many pleasures of attending a symposium1 where there are no concurrent sessions is the natural, ongoing conversations that arise over its course as panelists connect with each other about their topics, about the challenges of their work, and about the strategies for negotiating them. While many of the writers discussed in the “Women in Book History” symposium were already familiar to me— from Elizabeth Montagu, Charlotte Smith, Eliza Haywood, and Frances Burney to Dorothy Wordsworth and Mary Wollstonecraft—I also encountered what one speaker termed “a multitude of stars,” also called by some “obscure women”: women known only to their family circle or their immediate social group. At this symposium, I was the wrap-up speaker in the program; as I listened, I found myself recalling and reflecting on some of my own first encounters some thirty years ago with obscure women writers, evolving methodologies, and our findings back then. In 1983, the year after I began teaching in an American university, the feminist scholar and science fiction writer Joanna Russ (1937–2011) published How to Suppress Women’s Writing. Highlighted by its witty cover art (fig. 1) was the book’s ironic attack on the ways in which British and American women’s writing—and, by extension, the writing of any marginalized social group—had been systematically explained away. These strategies ranged from denial of agency (women didn’t write back then) to declassification (she wrote it, but it’s not “art”) to diminution (she wrote it, but she had help; or she wrote it, but it isn’t any good). The overall effect was to weave a veil of unexamined beliefs about women and other marginalized writers and their writing that, if it did not indeed suppress them, rendered the people and their
{"title":"Invisible Women, 1983–2021","authors":"Margaret J. M. Ezell","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2021.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0001","url":null,"abstract":"• One of the many pleasures of attending a symposium1 where there are no concurrent sessions is the natural, ongoing conversations that arise over its course as panelists connect with each other about their topics, about the challenges of their work, and about the strategies for negotiating them. While many of the writers discussed in the “Women in Book History” symposium were already familiar to me— from Elizabeth Montagu, Charlotte Smith, Eliza Haywood, and Frances Burney to Dorothy Wordsworth and Mary Wollstonecraft—I also encountered what one speaker termed “a multitude of stars,” also called by some “obscure women”: women known only to their family circle or their immediate social group. At this symposium, I was the wrap-up speaker in the program; as I listened, I found myself recalling and reflecting on some of my own first encounters some thirty years ago with obscure women writers, evolving methodologies, and our findings back then. In 1983, the year after I began teaching in an American university, the feminist scholar and science fiction writer Joanna Russ (1937–2011) published How to Suppress Women’s Writing. Highlighted by its witty cover art (fig. 1) was the book’s ironic attack on the ways in which British and American women’s writing—and, by extension, the writing of any marginalized social group—had been systematically explained away. These strategies ranged from denial of agency (women didn’t write back then) to declassification (she wrote it, but it’s not “art”) to diminution (she wrote it, but she had help; or she wrote it, but it isn’t any good). The overall effect was to weave a veil of unexamined beliefs about women and other marginalized writers and their writing that, if it did not indeed suppress them, rendered the people and their","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"57 1","pages":"12 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80142535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Only recently, with the rise of critical animal studies, have readings of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein begun to do full justice to the hybrid nature of Frankenstein’s Creature, constructed (as Victor tells us) from materials found in the “slaughter-house” as well as the “dissecting room.” Yet even animal-studies scholars view the Creature’s brain as “human,” in the absence of any supporting evidence from Shelley’s text. Here, Alan Richardson traces the Creature’s horrific effect to dual anxieties that came to ferment during the early nineteenth century, both of them amply documented in the brain science of Shelley’s era and in published reactions to it. First, the line between human and animal was becoming notably porous, in natural history, in comparative anatomy and physiology, and even in such areas as the controversy over vaccination. Second, a new discourse of instinctive and innate mental tendencies had come to compete with both creationist and tabula rasa accounts of the human mind—a development that further eroded the border between human and animal. Frankenstein’s Creature, a literally monstrous hybrid, both embodies these anxieties and exaggerates them, as a fully material and yet rational humanoid entity with body parts, and perhaps neural organs and instincts, traceable to animals.
{"title":"Wild Minds: Frankenstein, Animality, and Romantic Brain Science","authors":"A. Richardson","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0037","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Only recently, with the rise of critical animal studies, have readings of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein begun to do full justice to the hybrid nature of Frankenstein’s Creature, constructed (as Victor tells us) from materials found in the “slaughter-house” as well as the “dissecting room.” Yet even animal-studies scholars view the Creature’s brain as “human,” in the absence of any supporting evidence from Shelley’s text. Here, Alan Richardson traces the Creature’s horrific effect to dual anxieties that came to ferment during the early nineteenth century, both of them amply documented in the brain science of Shelley’s era and in published reactions to it. First, the line between human and animal was becoming notably porous, in natural history, in comparative anatomy and physiology, and even in such areas as the controversy over vaccination. Second, a new discourse of instinctive and innate mental tendencies had come to compete with both creationist and tabula rasa accounts of the human mind—a development that further eroded the border between human and animal. Frankenstein’s Creature, a literally monstrous hybrid, both embodies these anxieties and exaggerates them, as a fully material and yet rational humanoid entity with body parts, and perhaps neural organs and instincts, traceable to animals.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"18 1","pages":"771 - 787"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90360212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:This prolegomenon to a collection of eleven essays provides a setting for them all by explaining the ongoing significance of Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein two hundred years after it was first published; the theme of multiple “environments” that imbues Frankenstein and its offshoots and that is common to all these essays; the novel’s emergence from a generic environment of fiction (the Gothic) that established itself in the 1760s and continues to this day; the history of interpretations of Frankenstein generated by the various theoretical environments in which it has been analyzed; and how all of the following essays, including the particular environments of Frankenstein they treat, both advance that history and fit into the overall scheme of this special issue.
{"title":"The Environments of Frankenstein","authors":"Jerrold E. Hogle","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0031","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This prolegomenon to a collection of eleven essays provides a setting for them all by explaining the ongoing significance of Mary Shelley’s original Frankenstein two hundred years after it was first published; the theme of multiple “environments” that imbues Frankenstein and its offshoots and that is common to all these essays; the novel’s emergence from a generic environment of fiction (the Gothic) that established itself in the 1760s and continues to this day; the history of interpretations of Frankenstein generated by the various theoretical environments in which it has been analyzed; and how all of the following essays, including the particular environments of Frankenstein they treat, both advance that history and fit into the overall scheme of this special issue.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"52 1","pages":"643 - 661"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80825301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:Looking back over the essays in this collection, as well as the two-hundred-plus years since Frankenstein was conceived and published, this postscript asks us to recall that Mary Shelley’s own life experiences, especially childbirth, were sources for her story, even as it incorporated many other ingredients from her milieu. And today, the possibilities for creating artificial life that Frankenstein reflects on and prefigures so vividly are echoed directly in much bioscience. Shelley’s tale haunts our minds when we learn of the development of the Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis, which can genetically scan a pregnant woman’s blood to make detailed predictions about her fetus, and especially CRISPR technology, which could be used to edit the genes of a human embryo. More than Victor Frankenstein did with his creation, we must take responsibility for both the intended and the unintended consequences of human germline engineering.
{"title":"Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Genetic Engineering","authors":"A. Mellor","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0029","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Looking back over the essays in this collection, as well as the two-hundred-plus years since Frankenstein was conceived and published, this postscript asks us to recall that Mary Shelley’s own life experiences, especially childbirth, were sources for her story, even as it incorporated many other ingredients from her milieu. And today, the possibilities for creating artificial life that Frankenstein reflects on and prefigures so vividly are echoed directly in much bioscience. Shelley’s tale haunts our minds when we learn of the development of the Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis, which can genetically scan a pregnant woman’s blood to make detailed predictions about her fetus, and especially CRISPR technology, which could be used to edit the genes of a human embryo. More than Victor Frankenstein did with his creation, we must take responsibility for both the intended and the unintended consequences of human germline engineering.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"12 1","pages":"823 - 827"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81711820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:The goal of this essay is to read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a “bioethical” novel that draws upon several Romantic-era discourses that powerfully combined medical environmentalism, ecology, and political reform to criticize the “biotechnology” of her era. In her novel, Mary Shelley engages in a critique of the selective breeding that farmers of her era used to create new biological beings, as Victor Frankenstein does, by building on the role that new breeds of livestock played in the industrialization of late eighteenth-century British agriculture and the greater consumption of animal food in England. At the same time, Frankenstein also points up the problematic links between such breeding schemes and two other factors of the same period: the greater mobility of peoples and animals made viable by wide-ranging, seagoing trade, and the multiplicity of different-colored races made more apparent by how this mobility enabled the possibility of more human, as well as animal, crossbreeding.
{"title":"Moving Parts: Frankenstein, Biotechnology, and Mobility","authors":"Alan Bewell","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0034","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:The goal of this essay is to read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a “bioethical” novel that draws upon several Romantic-era discourses that powerfully combined medical environmentalism, ecology, and political reform to criticize the “biotechnology” of her era. In her novel, Mary Shelley engages in a critique of the selective breeding that farmers of her era used to create new biological beings, as Victor Frankenstein does, by building on the role that new breeds of livestock played in the industrialization of late eighteenth-century British agriculture and the greater consumption of animal food in England. At the same time, Frankenstein also points up the problematic links between such breeding schemes and two other factors of the same period: the greater mobility of peoples and animals made viable by wide-ranging, seagoing trade, and the multiplicity of different-colored races made more apparent by how this mobility enabled the possibility of more human, as well as animal, crossbreeding.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"31 8","pages":"705 - 728"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/hlq.2020.0034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72399225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:The volcanic period of 1816–18 is the most recent and vivid case study we have for worldwide climate catastrophe, evident from archival and geological records of sustained extreme weather, including drought, floods, storms, and crop-killing temperature decline. The signature literary expression of this historic climate crisis occurred in Switzerland, where teenage Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the midst of the disastrous “Year without a Summer,” 1816, a season of floods and food riots caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora thousands of miles away. This essay, combining climate science with historical and literary sources, reexamines the literary legend of that direful, stormy summer, which Mary Shelley spent on the shores of Lake Geneva with the poets Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, with a new and original emphasis on its climatic context. The writers huddled indoors and wrote ghost stories, while the cataclysmic weather and humanitarian emergency unfolding around them weaved its way into Mary Shelley’s imagining of a tragic monster brought to life.
{"title":"The Volcano That Spawned a Monster: Frankenstein and Climate Change","authors":"G. D. Wood","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0033","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:The volcanic period of 1816–18 is the most recent and vivid case study we have for worldwide climate catastrophe, evident from archival and geological records of sustained extreme weather, including drought, floods, storms, and crop-killing temperature decline. The signature literary expression of this historic climate crisis occurred in Switzerland, where teenage Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the midst of the disastrous “Year without a Summer,” 1816, a season of floods and food riots caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora thousands of miles away. This essay, combining climate science with historical and literary sources, reexamines the literary legend of that direful, stormy summer, which Mary Shelley spent on the shores of Lake Geneva with the poets Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, with a new and original emphasis on its climatic context. The writers huddled indoors and wrote ghost stories, while the cataclysmic weather and humanitarian emergency unfolding around them weaved its way into Mary Shelley’s imagining of a tragic monster brought to life.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"70 1","pages":"691 - 703"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79360787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:This essay argues that Romantic-era concepts of regulation help us to understand both how and why Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein provided a critical commentary on the sciences and political theories of its time and why the novel has continued to serve as a cultural touchpoint for understanding the implications of new technologies (for example, genetic engineering). Concepts of regulation appear at key points in Frankenstein, including in Robert Walton’s hopes that his trip to the North Pole will result in a scientific discovery about magnetism that can “regulate a thousand celestial observations” and in his and Victor Frankenstein’s reflections on the relationship between their education and their identities. Concepts of regulation were also central for many eighteenth-century and Romantic-era natural scientists, philosophers, political economists, and political theorists (including Antoine Lavoisier, Immanuel Kant, Mary Wollstonecraft, and William Godwin), and they were paramount to the development of “liberal” economic theory, which aimed to use the science of political economy to limit the power of the state. Robert Mitchell argues that Frankenstein takes up these concepts of regulation in order to critique this linkage of liberalism and the sciences, with the end of encouraging its readers to reimagine the components of liberalism in more equitable forms.
{"title":"Frankenstein and the Sciences of Self-Regulation","authors":"Robert Mitchell","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0036","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This essay argues that Romantic-era concepts of regulation help us to understand both how and why Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein provided a critical commentary on the sciences and political theories of its time and why the novel has continued to serve as a cultural touchpoint for understanding the implications of new technologies (for example, genetic engineering). Concepts of regulation appear at key points in Frankenstein, including in Robert Walton’s hopes that his trip to the North Pole will result in a scientific discovery about magnetism that can “regulate a thousand celestial observations” and in his and Victor Frankenstein’s reflections on the relationship between their education and their identities. Concepts of regulation were also central for many eighteenth-century and Romantic-era natural scientists, philosophers, political economists, and political theorists (including Antoine Lavoisier, Immanuel Kant, Mary Wollstonecraft, and William Godwin), and they were paramount to the development of “liberal” economic theory, which aimed to use the science of political economy to limit the power of the state. Robert Mitchell argues that Frankenstein takes up these concepts of regulation in order to critique this linkage of liberalism and the sciences, with the end of encouraging its readers to reimagine the components of liberalism in more equitable forms.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"26 1","pages":"749 - 770"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78723410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
abstract:A white, wealthy, educated male, Victor Frankenstein spends a good portion of Mary Shelley’s novel complaining about being a slave to his Creature. Victor’s laments draw attention to Frankenstein’s engagement with debates about race, slavery, and abolition. The novel seems to ask what a slave is and thereby challenges notions about racial difference and the ideals of cultural/intellectual superiority that support enslaving populations. Foundational studies by H. L. Malchow and others on race in Frankenstein have defined the views of Shelley’s father, William Godwin, as well as the pervasive ideas of the era, to clarify the ways in which the Creature is racially coded to align with stereotypes about Blacks in particular. Using these studies as a starting point, Maisha Wester specifically examines the ways in which Shelley’s text engages the anxieties born out of slave insurrections and Britain’s abolition of the slave trade. To this end, she explores Shelley’s depiction of the turbulence in British society arising from these issues, showing how the Creature’s attacks metaphorize the insurrections that disturbed the era’s notions of racial difference. Ultimately, her essay explains how Victor is, indeed, a “slave”—as are many others like him.
维克多·弗兰肯斯坦是一个富有的受过良好教育的白人男性，在玛丽·雪莱的小说中，他用了相当一部分篇幅抱怨自己是他造物的奴隶。维克多的悲叹让人们注意到弗兰肯斯坦参与了关于种族、奴隶制和废奴的辩论。这部小说似乎在问奴隶是什么，从而挑战了种族差异的观念，以及支持奴役人口的文化/智力优越感的理想。h·l·马尔乔(H. L. Malchow)等人对《弗兰肯斯坦》中种族问题的基础研究，界定了雪莱父亲威廉·戈德温(William Godwin)的观点，以及那个时代普遍存在的观点，以澄清这个生物是如何被种族化的，以符合对黑人的刻板印象。以这些研究为出发点，Maisha Wester专门研究了雪莱的文本是如何处理奴隶起义和英国废除奴隶贸易所产生的焦虑的。为此，她探索了雪莱对这些问题引发的英国社会动荡的描述，展示了生物的攻击如何隐喻了扰乱那个时代种族差异观念的叛乱。最后，她的文章解释了维克多如何确实是一个“奴隶”——就像许多像他一样的人一样。
{"title":"Et Tu, Victor? Interrogating the Master’s Responsibility to—and Betrayal of—the Slave in Frankenstein","authors":"Maisha L. Wester","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0035","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:A white, wealthy, educated male, Victor Frankenstein spends a good portion of Mary Shelley’s novel complaining about being a slave to his Creature. Victor’s laments draw attention to Frankenstein’s engagement with debates about race, slavery, and abolition. The novel seems to ask what a slave is and thereby challenges notions about racial difference and the ideals of cultural/intellectual superiority that support enslaving populations. Foundational studies by H. L. Malchow and others on race in Frankenstein have defined the views of Shelley’s father, William Godwin, as well as the pervasive ideas of the era, to clarify the ways in which the Creature is racially coded to align with stereotypes about Blacks in particular. Using these studies as a starting point, Maisha Wester specifically examines the ways in which Shelley’s text engages the anxieties born out of slave insurrections and Britain’s abolition of the slave trade. To this end, she explores Shelley’s depiction of the turbulence in British society arising from these issues, showing how the Creature’s attacks metaphorize the insurrections that disturbed the era’s notions of racial difference. Ultimately, her essay explains how Victor is, indeed, a “slave”—as are many others like him.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"15 1","pages":"729 - 748"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80909214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Important Recent Scholarship on Frankenstein: A Bibliography of the Last Decade","authors":"Jerrold E. Hogle","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0030","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":"19 1","pages":"829 - 837"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75026388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：