Both Emile and Frankenstein discuss citizen making, and knowledge plays a major role. The main argument in Emile is the best education is let a child have complete freedom of what he wishes to learn. Frankenstein shows the pros and cons of this method.
Rousseau concedes that he only has claim over Emile when he is dependent on him. Rousseau says “The child has not this idea, so he stretches out his hand to seize the object within his reach or that which is a hundred paces from him” (4). This is an example of when a child needs a caregiver.
In Frankenstein, Victor literally made a man, only that he is a monster. Victor admires science so much that he is insatiable of it and creates a person from scratch. He knows that science can be destructive when he witnesses “the dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stump… the tree shattered in a singular manner. It was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood. I never beheld anything so utterly destroyed” (Shelly, ch.2, par.9). Shelly demonstrates a man with great knowledge sees how destructive nature can be yet doesn’t realize how his knowledge can create a huge mistake.
Rousseau’s theory mirrors Shelley’s development of the Monster. The Monster is a like an infant when he comes to this world; he is what his experiences make of him.
Shelly shows the Monster learns through his senses that fire “were wet and would not burn” (ch.11, par.6), “fire gave light as well as heat” (ch.11, par.7) and touching it will result in “a cry of pain” (ch.11, par.6). Furthermore, the Monster says “I found that the youth spent a great part of each day in collecting wood for the family fire, and during the night I often took his tools, the use of which I quickly discovered, and brought home firing sufficient for the consumption of several days” (Shelly, ch.12, par.7). From these experiences, he gains knowledge from observations, which is the “education from things” according to Emile. On the other hand, when the Monster “learned the science of letters” (Shelly, ch.13, par.13), he understands the world better but also realized that he is unfit in the society. His disappointment and resentment fueled the thought of revenge. Here knowledge serves as the driving engine of danger.
Feel like your first two paragraphs are focused, but the last one gets broader and jumps to quickly from one point to the next.
I think that you have a lot of interesting ideas going on here, but I’m not sure that the points your’re putting together are related to one single idea (or at least I don’t quite see how yet).
I think your point that Frankenstein offers pictures of the monster’s development that support and challenge the ideas of Rousseau is clear. I think what I need to see is more clarity when you’re showing the supporting and when you’re showing how it challenges.
Also something to consider: The monster has already realized before has the book learning that he is unfit for human society; this knowledge is why he is hiding from the DeLacey’s, right?
Also: Watching the youth chop the wood for fire is actually an education by man (even if that man didn’t mean to do it intentionally). The learning that fire is hot though is an education by things.