Advertisement

Autistic Voice and Literary Architecture in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

  • Julia Miele Rodas
Chapter
Part of the Literary Disability Studies book series (LIDIST)

Abstract

Rodas addresses rhetorical and narrative interstices of Frankenstein, exploring the ways in which the visible sutures of the novel defamiliarise intuitive language and social contact, bringing the reader into a complicit relationship with autism. Rodas observes that the creature’s hovel is simultaneously a container for the disposal of rejected creation and a sanctuary that shields the emergent self and allows it the privacy to develop: the space, and the being which inhabits it, constitute a representation of Romantic autism, an extreme of solitary self-ness, the ultimate expression of solitude. While the infamous ‘monster’ evokes the idea of the feral child that has often been associated with autism, however, Rodas proposes that Shelley’s novel provokes a more intimate relationship with autism than audiences might initially realise: the narrative strategies of the text bind the reader into a seemingly paradoxical experience of muteness and verbal precocity, and a correlative hyper-consciousness of boundaries—both rhetorical and social.

Keywords

Autistic People Dialogic Exchange Romantic Subject Narrative Part Hans Asperger 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Works Cited

  1. Asperger, H. (1991). ‘Autistic psychopathy’ in childhood. 1944. Autism and Asperger syndrome (Trans. and Ed. U. Frith) (pp. 37–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baggs, A. (2007). In my language. Online video clip. YouTube. http://goo.gl/QfYPVw. Accessed March 25, 2015.
  3. Bettelheim, B. (1967). The empty fortress: Infantile autism and the birth of the self. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bosch, G. (1970). Infantile autism: A clinical and phenomenological-anthropological investigation taking language as the guide (Derek, & I. Jordan, Trans.). Foreword by B. Bettelheim. Berlin, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, W. D. (1998). Mary Shelley on the therapeutic value of language. In M. Lowe-Evans (Ed.), Critical essays on Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (pp. 152–165). New York/London: G.K. Hall/Prentice.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, P. (1978). ‘Godlike science / unhallowed arts’: Language, nature, and monstrosity. New Literary History, 9(3), 591–605.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. (2010). Writers on the spectrum: How autism and asperger syndrome have influenced literary writing. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers (eBook).Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, L. (2013). DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder: Guidelines and criteria exemplars. University of Washington Medical Center screening tools. http://goo.gl/MwY5tj. Accessed March 25, 2015.
  9. Challis, N., & Dewey, H. W. (1974). The blessed fools of old Russia. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (Neue Folge), 22(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  10. Chew, K. (2007). Fractioned idiom: Metonymy and the language of autism. In M. Osteen (Ed.), Autism and representation (pp. 133–144). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chew, K. (2013). Autism and the task of the translator. In J. Davidson & M. Orsini (Eds.), Worlds of autism: Across the spectrum of neurological difference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clemit, P. (1993). Frankenstein, Mary Shelley’s myth-making. The Godwinian novel: The rational fictions of Godwin, Brockden Brown, Mary Shelley (pp. 139–174). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Culler, J. D. (1981). The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. de Man, P. (1996). Aesthetic ideology (A. Warminski, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. de Villiers, P. A., & de Villiers, J. G. (1987). Commentary on language and autism. In D. J. Cohen, A. M. Donnellan, & R. Paul (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (pp. 697–702). Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Duyfhuizen, B. (2005). Framed narrative. In D. Herman, M. Jahn, & M.-L. Ryan (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory (pp. 186–188). London: Routledge. Print.Google Scholar
  17. Elder, J., & Thomas, M. (2005). Different like me: My book of autism heroes. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  18. Frith, U. (1989). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Garland-Thomson, R. (2004). The cultural logic of euthanasia: “Sad fancyings” in Herman Melville’s ‘Bartleby’. American Literature, 76(4), 777–806.Google Scholar
  20. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Glastonbury, M. (1996). Incommunicado: On trying to understand autistic lives. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 3(2), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glastonbury, M. (1997). ‘I’ll teach you differences’: The cultural presence of autistic lives. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 4(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
  23. Hacking, I. (2010). Autism fiction: A mirror of an Internet decade? University of Toronto Quarterly, 79(2), 632–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Happé, F. G. E. (1991). The autobiographical writings of three Asperger syndrome adults. In U. Frith (Ed.), Autism and Asperger syndrome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Harp, B. (2007). On the (autistic) use of parentheses. Square 8: Talk about squares, autism, and the number 8. Blogger: http://goo.gl/pD5VNY. Accessed March 25, 2015.
  26. Jurecic, A. (2007). Neurodiversity. College English, 69(5), 421–442.Google Scholar
  27. Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.Google Scholar
  28. Kanner, L. (1946). Irrelevant and metaphorical language in early infantile autism. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 103(2), 242–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levine, G. (1979). The ambiguous heritage of Frankenstein. In G. Levine & U. C. Knoepflmacher (Eds.), The endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s novel (pp. 3–30). Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. McLaughlin, T. (1995). Figurative language. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (2nd ed., pp. 80–90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Meltzer, D. (1975). Explorations in autism: A psycho-analytical study. Perthshire: Clunie Press.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, S. (2008). Representing autism: Culture, narrative, fascination. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Olsen, L. (1986). Diagnosing fantastic autism: Kafka, Borges, Robbe-Grillet. Modern Language Studies, 16(3), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osteen, M. (2007). Urinetown. In M. Osteen (Ed.), Autism and representation (pp. 212–225). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Osteen, M. (2010). One of us: A family’s life with autism. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  36. Paradiž, V. (2002). Elijah’s cup: A family’s journey into the community and culture of high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pinchevski, A. (2011). Bartleby’s autism: Wandering along incommunicability. Cultural Critique, 78, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quayson, A. (2010). Autism, narrative, and emotions: On Samuel Beckett’s ‘Murphy’. University of Toronto Quarterly, 79(2), 838–864.Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, A. (2010). The neural sublime: Cognitive theories and romantic texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rodas, J. M. (2012). ‘On the spectrum’: Rereading contact and affect in Jane Eyre. In D. Bolt, J. M. Rodas, & E. Donaldson (Eds.), The madwoman and the blindman: Jane Eyre, discourse, disability. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rutter, M. (1985). Commentary on Kanner’s autistic disturbances of affective contact. In A. M. Donnellan (Ed.), Classic readings in autism (pp. 50–52). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ryskamp, D. (2014). AutAc expressions of PosAutivity: #AutismPositivity2014. Autistic Academic. Blog. Accessed November 18, 2014.Google Scholar
  43. Savarese, R. (2008). The lobes of autobiography: Poetry and autism. Stone Canoe: A Journal of Arts and Ideas from Upstate New York, 2(Spring), 61–77.Google Scholar
  44. Shelley, M. W. (1996). Frankenstein: The 1818 text, contexts, nineteenth-century responses, modern criticism. J. P. Hunter (Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  45. Sherwin, P. (1981). Frankenstein: Creation as catastrophe. PMLA, 96(5), 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Solomon, A. (2012). Far from the tree: Parents, children and the search for identity. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  47. Sterrenburg, L. (1979). Mary Shelley’s monster: Politics and psyche in Frankenstein. In G. Levine & U. C. Knoepflmacher (Eds.), The endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s novel (pp. 143–171). Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Straus, J. N. (2010). Autism as culture. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 535–559). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Tager-Flusberg, H., Paul, R., & Lord, C. (2005). Language and communication in autism. In F. R. Volkmar et al. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  50. Victor, G. (1983). The riddle of autism: A psychological analysis. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  51. Vološinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language (1929) (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Whitehorn, J. C., & Zipf, G. K. (1943). Schizophrenic language. Archives of Neurology and Psychology, 49(6), 831–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wing, L. (1981, February). Asperger’s syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11.1, 115–129.Google Scholar
  54. Yergeau, M. (2013). Clinically significant disturbance: On theorists who theorize theory of mind. DSQ: Disability Studies Quarterly, 33(4). http://goo.gl/avJLFG. Accessed March 25, 2015.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Miele Rodas
    • 1
  1. 1.Bronx Community College/CityUniversity of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations