The dual representation of the human psyche is, perhaps, the most frequently occurring theme in Mary Shelley’s novels and Frankenstein in particular. The novel discloses a keen interest in exploring the secret rooms of the human soul and mind. Applying various psychological techniques, Mary Shelley depicts society as a balance of good and evil, demonstrating how each of its members has his/her “monsters”, which are encaged within the unconscious mind. The relationships between Victor and the Creature constitute the main contradiction of the novel. Hence, the creature is a concealed antagonistic representation of Victor’s inner world and societal problems; it is also both a denial and recognition of Victor’s desires. As a whole, this duality is disclosed as the good and the evil potential in each persona in the form of denial and acceptance.
On the one hand, Victor’s desire to create the creature is narrowed to his search for an alter ego, a human that would satisfy all of his social and communication needs: “I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me; whose eyes could reply to mine” (Shelley 19). On the other hand, Victor also intends to find a way to repair the faults he has committed in his life. The result of emotional instability uncovers his real psychological problems. His creation, which is initially meant to be a good and sympathizing being, was literary converted into a monster as the result of Victor’s rejection. The rest of the novel refers to a nameless creature who is simply addressed as “the monster” [O1] and the one, who is created by Victor.
In the original text, Victor often calls his creation “the monster” that is interwoven with the word “child”, “Creature”; hence those names reveal Victor’s psychological nature In this way, it is not a far stretch to consider the creature both as Victor’s alter ego and as a cover for his inner thoughts. Therefore, we often personify this monster – that kills Victor’s wife, nephew, and friends and, who indirectly kills Victor himself – with its creator (Burley and Harris 128). Hence, the Creature is the reverse side of Frankenstein’s personality; at the same time, both protagonists compose the polar elements that shape a mental entity. This literary duality is revealed through the law of unity and struggle of opposites where the creator embodies Victor’s pure madness and freedom, which are out of control, as he always neglected moral principles and rules. Victor, who is restricted to social prejudices, uses the monster for compensating for his desire to be a full-fledged member of society. [O2]
The novel reveals, hence, how one creates an alter ego for him/herself to set free his/her released passions. Therefore, Frankenstein is also presented as the antagonist of good society by manifesting and personifying the worst character traits of each human[O3]. We despise the worst traits of our character and by this, we are also subjected to absurd prejudices of society[O4]. The problem lies in the fact that there is a slight distinction between veritable vices and the ones created by rejection. Hence, Victor hates his Creature but for another reason. “[He] declared everlasting war against the species, and more than all, against [the monster] who formed [him] and sent [him] forth to this insupportable misery” (Shelley 95). By comparing and rejecting at the same time, the Creature also symbolizes repressed desires in a constantly changing society. In the novel, the monster serves as an object for social attacks. The paradox consists in the fact that one does not dare to blame Dr. Frankenstein for creating someone impossible to control but to blame the creature itself. In this regard, it can be considered as the victim of society as well.
The deliberation on the psychological problems rendered in the novel is also interpreted through the relations of Frankenstein and the monster in terms of insider and outsider. This opposition continues to explore the issue of dual personalities where both parts of the entity are closely interconnected. In that regard, Shelley’s novel presents Frankenstein as “a protagonist, cast out from a domestic Eden, attempts to destroy it – and ends up vanquishing himself, at least temporarily” (Henwood et al. 76). Those insider-outsider perspectives, which are often referred as to Gothic relations, display the only possibility to uncover the unconscious mind through the creation of outsiders. Hence, Shelley depicts Victor as the insider or the one who is accepted by society and the Creature as the outsider, or the one that is rejected by it. These two characters form polarity where each one is influenced by different factors. The established opposites also show the impossibility of society to control outside emotional outbursts. In other words, the monster who is perceived as an outsider did not create itself; in fact, it is the victim of Frankenstein’s transgression and of society’s inability to accept the creature’s right to equal social existence.
The antagonism of the novel is also disclosed through the depiction of parent-child relations, which arise from the double ego relations. In that regard, Victor is the father and the Creature is his child; [O5] at this point, Frankenstein is in the need of looking after someone, especially after his father’s death. The fraternaldestruction [O6] blesses Frankenstein for unnaturally creating a new species: “No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley 43). Of course, Victor can be viewed as the father of the creature. He tries to protect his child from external enemies and social condemnation. This happens at first; when Frankenstein strives for support and respect, as he feels lonely among other members of society. However, a further realization that his child is rejected by social stereotypes and norms makes Victor think that his child is the embodiment of his hidden vices. The child, therefore, displays his adult horror: “monster! Ugly wretch! You wish to eat me, and tear me to pieces. You are on the ogre. Let me go, or I will tell my papa” (Shelley 99).
On the other hand, Victor can be displayed as a child that needs someone to rely on. Being deprived of normal family relations, he is eager to recreate his own family where the fraternal functions are taken by the creature. Hence, “the Monster becomes father to the man and relentlessly imposes on its creator the same conditions of dependency and insecurity that it was made to suffer” (Levin and Knoepflmacher 103). This is why the co-called father-child relations cannot be narrowed to a birthright given by Victor, which can be considered as the relations between God and the creature.
It should be stressed that the creator and creation encompass the platform of a continuous struggle between affection and hatred; “their hug is an expression of a desire to separate from each other and at the same time to help each other stand erect” (Shelley et al 422). Arising from it, Frankenstein distorts the conventional vision of human evolution. It is worth saying [O7] that the roles of the creator and creation switch roles, which also proves [O8] the law of entity and struggle of the opposites. At this point, Victor turns into a ‘monster’ because as soon as he realizes that he created the “evil”, he becomes the creator of the evil. Therefore, Frankenstein also becomes the monster. The same happens with the creature that can be considered as the creator of the vices of society.
The relations between the creator and creation can be also compared with the relations of Satan and Adam, where Adam was tempted to sin and Satan triggered him to overcome divine laws[O9]. The monster can be equated to the fallen Angel since he envied those humans. In his turn, Victor also rebels against God’s creation to protest the natural laws; by those deeds, Victors choose the dark side, like his Creature.
Concluding, it is necessary to mention that Shelley’s Frankenstein is a multidimensional representation of the human psyche where the author reveals all the vices created by the social unconscious mind. Therefore, the relations between Victor and the Creature are closely associated with the relations between society and its hidden fears and desires. The novel also shows how people generate vices through the rejection of defects – whether internal or external, in themselves or others; therefore, Shelley leaves us with a message that our inner and outer monsters will continue to exist until we learn not to equate ourselves and others according to established stereotypes. In this regard, the novel is considered one the greatest tragedies of human existence.
Works Cited
Burley, Justin, and Harris, John. A companion to genetics. US: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.
Henwood, Karen, Griffin Christine, and Phoenix Ann. Standpoints and differences: essays in the practice of feminist psychology. US: SAGE, 1998.
Levine, George, and Knoepflmacher, U. C. The endurance of Frankenstein: essays on Mary Shelley’s novel. US: University of California Press, 1982.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Smith, Johanna. Frankenstein. US: Palgrave McMillan.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Panshin Alexei and Cory, Cook Paul. Frankenstein. US: Arc Manor LLC, 2009.
Frankenstein is a gothic novel written by Mary Shelley. In the modern day, Frankenstein’s monster would be a creature that would be created using the highest technology available to scientists. Frankenstein’s monster would be more horrific than Mary Shelley made him to be in the novel (Mellor, 1988). Frankenstein’s monster would be a creature that would be hard to wipe out of the face of the earth and would be made of cells that are highly replicating within hours to form new monsters and therefore the monster would not need any female companion to reproduce. However, to merge the theme of romance in the novel to the film, (Shelley, 2004) Frankenstein’s monster would only stop reproducing more monsters if only a female companion is created for him.
Frankenstein’s monster would have stayed for a long time without a female companion and as a result found new ways to reproduce and decide to punish his creator for not responding to his request for a female companion. The monster would operate on the mechanism that his cells, the ones his body would be operating on, will constantly require blood and therefore his need for blood would heighten, increasing the number of victims in the film or the victims who would be at his mercy. The monster would also be staying in the forest and would occasional resurface to the city when he is thirsty for blood. The monster would have a mechanism which he only can terminate or the person who initially made him. The tricky part would be to locate Frankenstein’s monster for his senses would be highly adapted to sense humans when they are miles away (Earl, 1990).
The monster would have clear vision both day and night and his speed would be faster than the speed of lightning making it impossible to capture it. However, during the day, the monster would need an approximate of five hours to recharge its cells when the sun would be shinning and therefore during the days that the sun is not in the sky, the monster would be resting in a hideout in the forest (Earl, 1990). He would make people fear going to work for the agony of being laid by him to the extent that the government and the military would have to get involved in trapping him. Meanwhile, Victor would be in police custody for questioning on how to terminate the monster. Realization would dawn on the detectors that only victor or the monster himself would end the agony alone without the interference of detectors and the government
The number one question would be whether Victor should create a female companion for Frankenstein’s monster to stop reproducing through his cells only or whether he would manage to kill the creature and thus prolonging the time the monster has to kill more people. How then would the monster’s word be true that if a female companion is made for him than the other creatures would disappear? If victor is to terminate the creature, how would he do it given that the monster and the other creatures are mutating within hours and killing more and more people for the more the creatures become advanced, the more their need and quest for blood (Earl, 1990)?
Elizabeth’s role in the film would remain the same as in the novel. However, in the film, the role of Elizabeth would be played by a very beautiful girl. The kind of girl who would make all men desire her, she would have a good figure, beautiful face and a good character so that when the monster kills her, this would cause Frankenstein to avenge her death. In other words, her beauty and love for Frankenstein would make the revenge worthwhile (Shelley, 2004).
Henry would be a major character in the film and though a friend of Frankenstein since childhood, Henry in the film would play the role of the friend who always encouraged Frankenstein to pursue his science dreams but not to the extent of creating a monster capable of killing other people (Mellor, 1988).
The De Lacey’s family role would be played by a very loving family made up of a beautiful couple who would be very happy and therefore make the monster desire a female companion (Shelley, 2004). The kind of family the De Lacey’s display in the film would be a dream family to the monster and therefore his desire for a female companion. At the murder of William, Frankenstein’s brother, the monster would brutally strangle William after realizing that William is Frankenstein own brother. The monster would demonstrate his feelings of hatred to his creator by cutting William’s body into pieces and throwing them on the floor for Frankenstein to get the message that the monster is angry for ignoring his request for a female companion.
I would assign the role of Dr. Victor Frankenstein to a person who has a passion for technology since his childhood. The person would initially have the traits of an evil and satirical person, always wanting people to suffer and therefore comes up with the monster only to realize that the monster would revenge by killing his loved ones and therefore starts to think of ways through which Frankenstein can be terminated (Shelley, 2004).
The branch of science that I would use is nanotechnology, to show the way science would be used to create items or creatures that would perform better and have more power than ordinary ones. Viewers would be shocked through seeing how Frankenstein’s monster would reproduce within hours always becoming a bigger, stronger and more defined creature than the way he was initially created by Frankenstein.
I would start the film in a very normal tone, showing a young boy with a passion for scientific discovery but with an evil twist to use science to make people suffer. The film would then gain momentum as the boy grows to man bearing enormous scientific information and eventually uses his efforts and his know how to create the monster. The movie would utilize a lot of scientific discoveries that would be demonstrated by Victor in his quest for science inventions and the way he would create the monster.
The narrator in the case of the film would not be necessary since even the monster would talk and make noises typical of a jungle monster to make the film more horrifying. Including an outside narrator would reduce the suspense in the film for the audience would rely on the narrator to interpret the scenes for them rather than infer on their own and thus a character like Walton is not necessary.
The film would end on a different tone from the novel in that the monster would realize that he has lost the battle and that through reproducing via cells and creating other monsters similar to him has caused even the government to be aware and therefore there would be no way which Frankenstein would create a female companion for it. In a last attempt of revenge, the monster would want to self terminate itself together with its creator who caused its misery. The monster embarks on a search for Frankenstein and when it finally succeeds, but Frankenstein is rescued by detectives a few minutes before the monster blows itself up (Mellor, 1988).
References
Earl, F. (1990). Hideous Progenies: Dramatizations of “Frankenstein” from Mary Shelley to the present. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mellor, A. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. New York, Methuen.
Shelley, M. (2004). Frankenstein: or, the Modern Prometheus. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York
First of all, I would like to point out that Frankenstein is considered to be a novel. The author who wrote the story about a monster was an English novelist and dramatist, Mary Shelley. Generally, Frankenstein was a character who was transformed into an ugly creature because of a scientific experiment.
The story of Frankenstein’s appearance is quite interesting. Thus, the novel appeared because four writers decided to write a horror story. It was the so-called competition. So, Mary Shelley took part in the competition and created the character mentioned above. The novel represents not only the science fiction genre but also combines the Gothic horror genre and the Romantic era. Frankenstein is recognized to be the first true story.
In her novel, the author reflects two sides of the character. On the one hand, it seems that Frankenstein is a real monster as he has killed many people; however, his primary aim was not to kill other characters, he just wanted to get some support and companionship. On the other hand, the character seems to be a human being, whose ill-considered actions led to a catastrophe.
Taking into account the psychological point of view, one can make a conclusion that Victor Frankenstein had some personality disorders. The monster Victor created didn’t want to be cruel; he just wanted to be accepted by others. “The monster needed a friend. Someone he could talk to, someone to love him, and someone to love back” (“Frankenstein: Man or Monster” 3).
The main character wanted to find a friend, but his desire to drift towards civilization became fatal. The most interesting point I would like to highlight is that most of the people are more interested in a person’s appearance than his or her inner world. Unfortunately, the monster experienced the so-called unfair law of life.
Visual Interpretations of the Monster
In my opinion, the monster’s appearance can tell numerous things about the circumstances the main character experienced; however, while judging, people do not draw their attention to the factors, which may cause ugliness.
I suppose that the most impressive appearance of Frankenstein is represented in an American horror film, The Bride of Frankenstein. The film appeared in the mid of the thirties. Boris Karloff was an actor who played a part in Frankenstein. Although the main character of the film really causes the feeling of fear, the picture and descriptions in Mary Shelley’s novel do not coincide.
Thus, according to the novel, the creature was raised from the pieces of human beings’ bodies, while in the film, it is said that Frankenstein was sewed from the bodies of human beings. However, to my mind, the difference in the contexts of the novel and famous film can be neglected as the monster’s appearance is repulsive enough.
According to the novel the monster “is created from various different body parts, he has yellow skin which scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath, he has lustrous, flowing black hair and white teeth, he has a shriveled complexion and straight black lips” (“Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” par. 24). The description is rather vivid, as well as the appearance of the monster in The Bride of Frankenstein.
I suppose that the director of an American horror film was focused on the visual interpretation of the main character. However, nobody can deny the fact that Frankenstein is a human being, even when he is depicted as a monster. In my opinion, his appearance reflects pain and suffering.
Unfortunately, people do not take compassion on the ugly creature. In other words, the only reason for Frankenstein’s unhappiness and dramatic events which occur in his life is his appearance. The monster wanted to make contact with people; however, people’s fear prevented the monster’s desire to make some friends. I suppose that the monster’s facial features can tell about his inner state and emotions.
Thus, Karloff’s in Bride of Frankenstein expresses tiredness and hopelessness. The monster is tired of being exiled. The monster’s sharp features tell about his strong mind and willpower. As far as I know people with a pointed chin are rather purposeful, but vindictive. They remember offences for a long time. So, Boris Karloff, who had exactly the same appearance, reflected the inward nature of Mary Shelley’s main character.
Conclusion
Finally, I would like to disclose Frankenstein’s mental state. Thus, in my opinion, nobody can say that he was mentally unstable. I would like to provide you with a quotation to confirm my suggestion or idea. “I also remembered the nervous fever with which I had been seized just at the time that I dated my creation, and which would give an air of delirium to a tale otherwise so utterly improbable” (“Frankenstein: Man or Monster” 3). The quotation confirms that the main character couldn’t be mentally unstable, as he could feel fever. On the other hand, I would like to point out that facial expressions usually reflect mental disorders.
While writing the novel ‘Frankenstein,’ Mary Shelley was influenced profoundly by romantic poets such as William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Percy Bysshe Shelley, her beloved husband, also influenced her largely. Although the dark and horrific motifs of Frankenstein may appear to contrast with the bright tones and subjects of such poetry, there is a clear connection, as established in the text, between the poetry of such poets and the general narrative of Frankenstein.
This influence is evident in the text whereby Shelley often refers to such poetry or even goes ahead to quote some of the passages directly. Because of this influence, some critics such as Guyer (2006, p.77) claim that Frankenstein is considerably more sophisticated compared to the prose of other romantic writers. This paper aims at evaluating the influence of the poetic texts, as used by Shelley in ‘Frankenstein,’ to inform and enrich the narrative.
Analysis of Poetic Texts in Frankenstein
As argued by Fite and Bloom (1985, p.24), the moment that Shelley represents in ‘Frankenstein’ aims at achieving transcendence, which is similar to the quest of nearly all the other romantic poets. This aspect follows in the sense that it does not come from her personal experiences nor in the narrative voice, which drives her plot.
Poetry, as used in the text, enhances the unfolding of the plot. For instance, the phrase “or if I should come back… as the ‘Ancient Mariner’” (Shelley, 2004, p. 6), and the following lines drawn from Coleridge’s poem titled the Rime of the Ancient Mariner come in as part of the narration made by the character Victor Frankenstein.
“Like one who, on a lonely road, Doth walk in fear and dread, And, having once turned round, walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread” (Shelley, 2004, p. 36). The poem by Coleridge plays an integral part of the narrative in that it informs the plot of the story.
The poem tells the tale of a mariner who faced an unfortunate fate after he killed an albatross. His voyage suffers complete destruction at the end of the tale. The poem was richly themed to highlight the importance and beauty attached to everything on the planet earth. Mary Shelley uses this poem by both quoting it directly and paraphrasing it in Frankenstein.
Using this poem in the story, Shelley makes it known to the reader her admiration of romantic poetry, which informs the flow of her story. The poem blends with the narrative, which gives the reader an outward context of the text as a romantic novel. Shelley uses Coleridge’s poem at different points in the text in an effort to align the misguided monster to the ancient mariner.
It is through this venture that Shelley is capable of tying her novel to one of the most authentic Romantic works. The poem also creates a connection between Victor Frankenstein and Robert Walton, in addition to enriching the text. The extent to which Victor Frankenstein feels alienated only a few moments after the creation of his monster relates to these lines drawn Coleridge’s poem.
Shelley uses poetry in her work as a way of enriching the narrative. This is mainly by making use of the emotional appeal that poetry has in giving a deeper insight into the feelings and the experiences of the characters in the novel Frankenstein. In the poem by Coleridge, Shelley makes her readers identify with the internal turmoil experienced by Victor Frankenstein.
In another similar instance, Shelley incorporates poetry to achieve a similar effect. This is evident in the following lines from the same poem by Coleridge. “We rest; a dream has the power to poison sleep. We rise; one wand’ring thought pollutes the day. We feel, conceive, or reason; laugh or weep, Embrace fond woe or cast our cares away; it is the same: for, be it joy or sorrow. The path of its departure still is free. Man’s yesterday may ne’er be like his morrow; Nought may endure but mutability” (Shelley, 2004, p.137).
The poem ‘Tintern Abbey’ by William Wordsworth is another renowned romantic poem that Mary Shelley has used in the novel Frankenstein for a number of purposes. One of them is that Shelley uses passages from the poem to mirror the adventures in the journey undertaken by Victor Frankenstein from youth to maturity in relation to that of the persona in the poem.
In this manner, Shelley uses the poem to enrich and inform the narrative of Frankenstein. According to Guyer (2006, p.78), the reader should also note that the role of Henry Clerval throughout the narrative of Frankenstein is to reveal what the childhood of Victor Frankenstein would have been if only he had not engaged in a youthfulness that is similar to the one depicted in Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey.”
Throughout the poem ‘Tintern Abbey,’ the persona expresses a deep-felt sense of nostalgia as he remembers the years of his youth, as well as the youth curiosity that he experienced as he explored his natural environment. He states, “Like a roe, I bounded o’er the mountains, by the sides of the deep rivers, and the lonely streams, Wherever nature led” (Shelley, 2004, p. 113).
The same youthful curiosity led the character, Victor Frankenstein, to come up with the experiment that led to the creation of the monster that was to claim his life and that of his family later in the story. Despite being in constant communication with nature, the persona in Wordsworth’s poem came to the realization that he was doing so because of acting “in the hour of thoughtless youth” (Shelley, 2004, p. 114).
As a result, the persona in the poem resolves not to take time pondering on the profound aspects of his natural surroundings but rather to concentrate on the superficial aspects of the natural surroundings that people can observe with ease. The trivial activities reflected in the ‘Tintern Abbey’ expose recklessness.
They also embrace the superficial nature. In comparison to the youth persona in the poem, the young Victor Frankenstein, as described by Shelley, has been in “a fit of enthusiastic madness” in his quest to make a scientific discovery” (Shelley, 2004, p. 110). Victor Frankenstein has dedicated a good share of his available time and energy meditating about science. However, he seems not to regard the possible repercussions of this to his works. In a manner similar to the person in ‘Tintern Abbey”, Victor Frankenstein is willing to follow the path of science without thinking of its destination.
Shelley uses the character Clerval in the novel to give a representation of what Victor Frankenstein would have achieved in his youth if he had not followed the path that he followed, which is similar to that of the persona in “Tintern Abbey.” As Shelley claims, both Clerval and Victor Frankenstein were “alive to every new scene…joyful when they saw the beauties of the setting sun, and happier when they beheld it rise to recommence a new day at the time of their youth” (Shelley, 2004, p.113).
However, the reader should note that, despite the fact that both these characters displayed an eagerness to the passing of days during their youth, the motivations behind such eagerness were very different. While Clerval uses all his youthful energy in efforts aimed at furthering his knowledge and education, Victor Frankenstein uses his knowledge of science with ill motives. Victor Frankenstein works ceaselessly and tirelessly on his project to the extent that he even laments when it becomes too dark for him to work.
In the latter part of Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey,” the maturity that the persona achieved after the recklessness coupled with the anxieties of his youth stand out. The persona claims, “His wild ecstasies (are) matured into a sober pleasure” (Shelley, 2004, p.116).
As Guyer points out, “When Frankenstein attains maturity as an adult, he comes to the realization that his actions as a youth were not only incorrect but also harmful in that they limited him to experience the overt natural surroundings” (2006, p. 79).
In a similar manner, this informs the realization that Victor Frankenstein makes after his creation is out of hand. The monster is not only threatening his life, but also that of the other people in society.
The alterations that take place in Victor Frankenstein’s life are clearly exemplified by the comparison that Shelley achieved by using Wordsworth’s “Tintern Abbey.” In addition to this, under the inspiration that she gets from the same poem, Shelley makes use of both the characters Victor Frankenstein and Henry Clerval to allude to the opposing choices made in the youth stage.
The influence that Mary Shelley’s husband had on the work of her wife is undisputed. In fact, some critics even argue that Percy Shelley wrote Frankenstein under his wife’s name (Guyer, 2006, p. 79). However, it became an indisputable fact that Mary Shelley wrote the novel herself, drawing her inspiration to do so from her contemporaries and her husband. The rich poetic language in the book is attributed to the influence that Mary Shelley experienced while writing the book both from her husband and her other contemporaries.
Conclusion
While many playwrights employ different styles of delivering their messages to their target audience, Mary Shelley comes in with a unique way of communicating with people by incorporating poetic quotes in her play ‘Frankenstein.’ Throughout Frankenstein, the influence that Mary Shelley got from poets such as William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, among others, is evident (Guyer, 2006, p.77).
Shelley incorporates poetry in the text as a way of achieving certain ends, which include informing the narrative, as well as making her work identifiable with that of her contemporaries. Throughout the novel, Shelley alludes to such poems, even going ahead to quote them directly in the story as part of the narration. One of the ways in which such usage achieves is that it enables the reader to engage with the experiences taking place in the lives of the characters in relation to those of the poems.
Reference List
Fite, D. & Bloom, H. (1985). The Rhetoric of Romantic Vision. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Guyer, S. (2006).Testimony and Trope in Frankenstein. Studies in Romanticism, 45(1), 77-82.
Shelley, M. (2004). Frankenstein. New York: Enriched Classics.
One of the most original prose works of the epoch of European romanticism was Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. Written in the XIX century, it wonderfully combined the traditions of the classical philosophical novel of the Enlightenment with the philosophical and aesthetic discoveries of the two subsequent epochs – pre-romanticism and romanticism. The purpose of the presented study is to discuss the perception of moral and ethical aspects in the field of scientific discoveries by Frankenstein.
Background
Victor Frankenstein is the main character of the story who desires to create life but results in creating Monster with which he does not know how to deal. Most of the works of Frankenstein discuss several subjects at a time. However, they are not considered as separate goals for the survey. One of the focus ideas is a narration of the novel by three different speakers dealing with each other or separately.
Some researches are focused on the narrators’ voices that seemed too similar to each other. Consideration of characters’ voices leads to the characters’ intentions and desires observation. It is considered that different verbal strategies of the characters are used to reveal their either good or bad sides. The most popular topic in Frankenstein is the consideration of the concept of evil. What is the personification of evil in the novel, the character of the Monster, who appears as a cold-blooded killer to achieve his desires. Either the embodiment of evil is the world around him, the fruit of which is his creation (Lunsford 175; Eliasson 4; Kabir).
Frankenstein’s Perception of Moral and Ethical Aspects in the Field of Scientific Discoveries
Viktor Frankenstein does not appreciate life. He puts reputation and fame above all. His main goal is a new scientific society to which he wants to belong. Unfortunately, knowledge has overshadowed the mind that drives human actions in social life. Victor does not consider himself morally responsible for creating the creature because he does not think about the real consequences and is concerned only with his ego. He says: “no one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success… a resistless, and almost frantic impulse, urged me forward” (Shelley 80, 81). Ambitions are the main discovery engine of Victor’s scientific research. He wants to transcend mankind and his nature, which has confirmation by his words: “I pursued nature to her hiding places” (Shelley 81). Frankenstein wants to get the key to the power and superiority over humanity under the influence of his ambitions (Eliasson 5; Jager).
Frankenstein does not think about the moral consequences of his actions. Unfortunately, only the consequences of actions compel Victor to realize his mistakes and suffer from the yoke of moral responsibility, for the thoughtless desire of superiority over mankind. At the moment of the extinction of his life, Victor calls “seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition” (Shelley 216). Awareness of the consequences of fame makes him condemn his actions that caused the early death in complete isolation. Clarity of thinking appears only through the prism of life’s consequences, and not at the moment of fateful actions and decisions (Taylor).
The obsession with a desire of power, in the end, causes the loss of the characters’ place in the society with subsequent loneliness instead of recognition. Often, ambitions are an incredible engine of new discoveries, unfortunately, received through loss of connection with reasonability. In the end, the purpose of the presented study was to discuss the novel Frankenstein with a focus on the perception of moral and ethical aspects in the field of scientific discoveries by Frankenstein. It appears the neglect of the ethical side of human actions in the life cycle will confront the human consciousness with the consequences of life and the rethinking of the moral consequences of his or her actions.
Works Cited
Eliasson, Albin. “Monstrous Truths and Hidden Lies: A Reading of Frankenstein’s Narrative Structure and its Effects.” Örebro University, 2016.
Jager, Bernd. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the Fate of Modern Scientific Psychology.” The Humanistic Psychologist, vol. 42, no. 3, 2014, pp. 268-282.
Kabir, Alia. “Greatness is Overrated by Sometimes We Just Can’t Help Ourselves: An Analysis of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.” Writing Excellence Award Winners, 2015.
Lunsford, Lars. “The Devaluing of Life in Shelley’s Frankenstein.” The Explicator, vol. 68, no. 3, 2010, pp. 174-176.
Taylor, Shelby E. “The Mortality of Maternity: A Defense for Victor Frankenstein.” Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Works, 2015, pp. 1-12.
Shelley, M. W., & de Gans, R. Frankenstein. Books, Incorporated, 2017.
Frankenstein has been a very famous fiction novel in British society. Since its creation, it is still regarded as a very famous novel today. Frankenstein is about a monster that was created from corpses by a scientist named Victor. The monster creates havoc and ends up killing Victor’s brother William as well as his wife Elizabeth.
Victor, in rage, seeks out the monster but who confesses his crime and begs for mercy and a mate to help fight his loneliness. Victor creates the mate but then destroys it fearing the consequences. Because of that, the monster kills Victor’s bride and nearly evades Victor. Victor later dies but the monster, regretting everything, flees to die also.
Shelley’s Biography in Connection to Frankenstein
Through this novel, Mary Shelley sought to teach her audience not to view others with evil because of appearance but to view others with intentions and to understand that not all people that look like villains are villains. Through emotions, the audience is able to understand both sides of the story, and would also make better judgments on other people. This makes up the central issues that will guide this paper.
The creation of the monster traces Mary Shelley’s life and influence in science by her husband and father. Mary’s creation of the monster, in literary terms, is clear shown in her already known prowess that she has gained by writing other novels as well as literary articles.
In the novel, Frankenstein grows up as child who has no obvious satisfying life. Mary depicts Victor as young man who, therefore, is not happy and, thus, all through his life, before the creation of the actual monster, in the science lab, has being searching for happiness. The name of the novel as Frankenstein conceals the major occurrence of the novel, hence, masking the intentions of the writer at first.
As a result, the reader is not forewarned of the impending scary nature of the scenes and what is going to transpire and, therefore, Mary averts preconceived judgments against her work. It is only after reading the work that we, readers, get to knowing the harrowing details of scientist’s creation of monster that executes the people he loves.
Mary’s childhood life was full of misery and poverty that restricted her search for emotional fulfillment. In her love life, she was not well lucky to maintain her husbands to her life to the end of age. As a result, Mary Shelley’s life would be characterized as one that had tasted misery and, sometimes, loneliness.
She had experienced desperation at one point of her life to the point of committing suicide only to be persuaded otherwise by her fellow friends who loved and cared for her (Grylls, p. 5- 25). As a result, therefore, when she presents Victor as one who is searching for happiness. It becomes clear that Mary has a personal background in the issue. Victor Frankenstein’s life could not have been different from Mary’s based on the facts mentioned above.
Is Frankenstein’s Monster Guilty?
However, this concern of this paper is the search for reasons to believe that the monster acted out of innocence. Frankenstein’s creation of the monster was a search for expression that should have found its forms in different contexts and activities.
By concentrating on him and forgetting on the rest of the world, his interests in alchemistry and philosophy led him to lose the reasoning needed to evaluate and analyze the consequences of his actions. Truly, Victor would have first rationalized his concepts before creating such a monster since philosophy is an illustration of applied critical reasoning. The fault, therefore, lies initially with Victor before even the creation of the monster.
The fact that Victor Frankenstein had seriously sought answers on questions concerning these studies from his tutors reveals that he had the capacity to profile information as well as actions. As result, therefore, Victor was in a position to prevent his actions from hurting others.
The creation of the character Victor by Mary points to one fact that Shelly wanted the reader to know, in that human actions, may be sometimes guided by foolishness despite such persons having achieved lofty ideals and positions in the society. In more replicas to her situations in life, she might have been castigating those instances in her life when actions illustrated such gullibility yet the owners had proved through other methods were capable of intellect and reason.
This was especially true for her marriage wows with Godwin who had influenced the 18th century society by his article Political Justice. Godwin left her for another woman with obvious depreciation of his initial intelligence and brightness. His behaviors must have demoralized Mary who already had experienced desertion from her previous love life.
By creating a monster, Mary sends a message to the reader about the occurrence of evil in the minds of people who might seem straight. Victor, in his childhood life as well as his teenage life, had not espoused any characteristics that would have associated him to evil. It is from this point of view that the monster should be understood, that humanity is flawed and its intentions can only be evaluated after an action.
In the critics of the works of monsters, Chris Baldick in Smiths (p. 439), observes that the monsters were used in an effort to showcase vice on the stage in order to vindicate virtue. By the sole statement, the reader can find its application in the creation of the monster in the novel Frankenstein. Mary’s concern was not about the monster but about Victor Frankenstein as a representation of humanity.
It is worth noting that the monster’s behavior in the novel emanates from not about his creation but rather as a result of the treatment he receives among his creator and the other humans who meet him. The monster feels unaccepted and lonely in the world that unfolds before him. His efforts to create warmth and rapport with humans resulted in hurt feelings and emotions. The humans let him feel and experience the vagaries of weather because of the fact that he did not look like them.
This means that humans valued the creature from its otherwise unpleasant looks rather than from what the creature felt about himself. At this juncture, Shelley’s work shed light on the human kind flaws yet they take the foremost fronts in the claim for love, warmth and freedom. By their actions, they sort to deny the creature freedom to express his feelings, hence, they may be seen as hypocrites.
Shelley creatively lets the readers discern the message by going through her novel step by step. By getting inspirations to other works that alluded monsters, philosophy, literature, history and religion, her work is a commentary about the concerns of human beings in their daily activities. She lets the reader powerfully observe that the human beings are evil that creature by thinking about him in terms that are contrary to what he thinks.
This, however, starts from Victor as the first degree of human who behaves in the most selfish manner. The ambitions that lead Victor to create the creature reveal a human who lacks the standards human action and judgment. He is in a symbolic manner similar to the creature in the fact that his thinking that leads to the use of stolen body parts and secretive chemicals mixed together.
After the creation of the creature, Victor demonstrates his monstrosity by the hate that he develops concerning the creature. This elevates to obsession of hate, hence, the creature experiences hate from its creator to the society (Dorn, p. 15).
This has the sole effect to reveal the flaws that humanity has. Victor’s shrouded secrecy in his actions of creating the creature as well as of destroying it reveal that the human intentions should not be first exercised before judging someone. Victor, therefore, stands condemned in the eyes of the reader when it becomes clear that he is the source of this evil.
Symbolically, therefore, the creature presents a double in the novel to refer back to him. The movement of the creature in search for knowledge and to understand humanity, the reader understands that Victor seeks to understand the society which is of higher creation from a higher scientific status than his (Shelley, p 68)
He, thus, finds that people are not humane at all and, therefore, evil is to human not to creatures or products of human knowledge application. Humanity comes out clearly as a system that believes and advocates for suppression of others as well as exclusion. The creature as a being that transcends any limits of the construction of humanity reminds the reader that it creates boundaries which are meant to only bring evil to the society (Smith and Shelley, p. 444).
The use of a monster by Shelley powerfully points to the fact that our selfish, thoughtless and restrictive society leads to evil things that eventually turn against us. These evils do not help but rather add to misery created and justified through high science and intellect.
This is evident on the fact that Victor runs away from his creation rather than training it to understand the humanity language as well as codes used in the society. The creature’s attempt to seek a relationship with its creator results in more anguish pain and death. Therefore, Frankenstein’s work is clear illustration of how the human society has created evil knowingly and later deserts from public limelight through secrecy and fear leading to the worst atrocities committed against humanity.
Victor’s knowledge of the real murderer of his friend Henry does not fulfill the reader’s expectation of his public acknowledgement of the situation. He, therefore, repeats the same mistake when his sister, Moritz, is accused of murder and he does nothing to protect her despite his knowledge.
It, therefore, becomes clear that Victor is the source of the evil nature of the monster. In any case, the creature starts to kill Victor’s persons of great love and interests in the effort to bring Victor down from his position of foolish pride and self attained divine nature (Bloom, p. 42).
The rejection that the creature receives from all sides of the society as a result of its ugliness results in hate and vengeance which violates more the human society standards of practice and beliefs. In this sense, therefore, the creature is one not to be blamed but its creator and, therefore, the evil nature as a result of human actions. Victor actually professes this when he observes that he may be the murderer of the persons that were killed by the creator (Glut, p. 69).
Shelley’s intentions of writing this novel, therefore, were founded early in her search for assistance from her father who was an innovative scientist in medicine. Shelley’s ideas meant that she would construct literary work that would help explain human suffering this time not as seen in her father’s treatment issues but the moral point of view.
She lets the reader figure out that Victor’s lack of sense of morality in human actions could find solutions in death of the various creations in human decayed society. She observes that lofty ambitions lead to immoral actions that lead to fallen states of human nature. The fallen states only lead to death and, therefore, Victor advises Walton to abandon his ambitions of travels to the icy North. This would have led to his death and also cause misery to the family of his fellow men counterparts (Shmoop, p.13).
Shelley further treats the idea of secrecy just like morality. According to this work, the need for the society to know and acknowledge the truth through recognized and measured standards leads to the release of burden and free of guilt. It is only after Victor lays bare his secrets to Walton that the whole situation becomes rested. Frankenstein discovers the eternal ideals that help him to realize that he is on the wrong through actions.
It is this confession that also leads the monster to confess and seek for the termination of its life after getting to know its creator’s mind. Shelley, therefore, pegs the importance of truth to life changing situations and revelations that are necessary and, hence, placing it as a center of right and wrong (Levine, p. 58).
If humans observed and allowed truth to prevail, then the ills of the society like the one caused by Victor would be no more (Literature Essays n.d.). In this position, Shelley places herself at a higher moral point than the reader and, hence, requires people to exercise truth in all of their lives.
The expectation of punishment is self meted in the case of Victor and justice for the creature is attained by the soul and body afflictions of his creator. As for Victor, he gets his rewards in kind and this is what he realizes at the end of his life. He recognizes that those were empty pursuits that should not be followed by any human being who values his life and sanity (Smith and Shelley, p. 450).
In the novel Wicked, this theme finds strength just in Shelley’s work. Maguire clearly depicts the consequences of living a life that too well is known to cause despair and death. In this novel, conspiracies created by Maguire creatively depict betrayals murders that occur in the witches land as a result of lies that bind. What becomes of these witches by the end of the day is death and pain the truth gets revealed by different parts and characters interested in setting things for own personal gains.
In this novel, the author Maguire presents the story of Elphaba as a no ordinary child destined for sorcery but born in a religious family. Elphaba’s relationship with the members of her life and friends is characterized of sorcery which emanates from her inheritance. She is, however, different in that she does not use her meaning to threaten and kill other people unless as it becomes necessary (Levine and Knoepflmacher, p. 46).
Her life is filled with strange instances that depict her evil nature a descent of the father’s inheritance as a witch. By the end of the novel, Elphaba’s actions are paid by her death when she gets poured a bucket of water. This confirms Maguire’s intentions of writing the novel in that he wants the audience to understand that the consequences of the actions that we do in our lives come to haunts and to some lead to our fall.
Upon examination of these two novels, therefore, Shelley and Maguire examine the issues of truth and its implication to the human as well as super human experience. It becomes clear that any attempts to withhold truth, at one point, lead to evil situations that are dangerous (Milner, p. 49).
Conclusion
This paper supports the proposition that the monster in Frankenstein text can be absolved from blame since the evil in its is a reflection of the human society characterized and embodied by Victor. At the same time, it is clear that Shelley used this monster in order to describe the inadequacies of human nature from limitless position in the society. Indeed the monster realizes the gender codes for real humans to be very confusing and unbelievable, hence, the translation that human society is full if flaws.
The fact that human’s rejection of the monster led to its evil nature Shelley observes that human nature is evil. To add salt to injury, humanity through stupidity leaves things to sort themselves out after serious triggering the occurrence of such scenarios. Maguire’s work reinforces the idea of the need for truth.
If truth is allowed to prevail in both novels then the situations that lead to such ugly scenes and loss of life will be averted leading to peaceful societies. The intention to the audience for these works can not be underemphasized since they deal with issues that are presented from the moral point of view, hence, reflecting some the demarcations of human life.
The question of morality in Shelley’s work takes center stage to convince the reader that each member in the society is responsible for his action. She clearly outlines the weaknesses of human kind through the reflections of mirror like monster and, hence, creates the need for self examination in the reader.
By representing Victor one who had gained enough intellectual light Shelley to some extent castigates high intellectuals. She seems to attack the very profession she has known all through her life and probably cautions the lack of self control in such pursuits. It is, thus, worth noting that in these works, the authors do not celebrate such deaths but rather their depiction is to set the stage for the audience to think about them deeply and seek to change issues and problems that may lead to such instances.
Works Cited
Bloom, B., Abigail. The Literary Monster on Film: Five Nineteenth Century British Novels and Their Cinematic Adaptations. North Carolina: McFarland, 2010. Print.
Dorn, Sherman. Accountability Frankenstein: understanding and taming the monster. New Yrok:IAP, 2007Grylls, R., Glynn. Mary Shelley. Ardent Media, 1938.Print
Glut, F., Donald. The Frankenstein archive: essays on the monster, the myth, the movies, and more. North Carolina: McFarland, 2002.Print.
Levine George. The realistic imagination: English fiction from Frankenstein to Lady Chatterley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Print.
Levine George and Paul Knoepflmacher. The endurance of Frankenstein: essays on Mary Shelley’s novel. California: University of California Press, 1982. Print.
Literature Essays. Frankenstein and morality. n.d. Web.
Milner, Hindley. Frankenstein Or the Man and the Monster! New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2004
Shmoop. Wicked. The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. New York: Shmoop University Inc. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: or, The modern Prometheus. Oxford: G. and W.B. Whittaker, 1823. Print.
Smith, Johanna and Mary Shelley. Frankenstein: Case studies in contemporary criticism. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Print.
Many novels have been converted into successful movies. But there are always adaptations that did not pay their due respect to the novels. Secondly, there are also cases where the intensity that the novel reflected on specific issues where not really highlighted in the movies that were made. There are numerous successful movies that made novels famous. There are also novels that were already famous helped to sell the movies made. In the case of the serial novels like the James Bond or Sherlock Holmes inspired ones, there was always the cinematic twist to the tales adopted. In the case of novels which were socially oriented like the blockbuster Pride and Prejudice or the Lost Horizon, the movies were made to reflect the spirit of the novel adopted. Same can also said about the science fiction stories. The Star Wars or the War of the Worlds did bring to life the characters that were locked in the pages of the novel. But with appropriate adaptation of these to suit the cinematic expression and expectations of the audience. A similar condition happened in the case of the novel written by Mary Shelley, Frankenstein too. The adaptation was however, not very much in line with the nature of character creation done in the movie. As a matter of fact, such changes seem to be happening in many movies and novels adopted. Let us take a closer look at Frankenstein to see how the novel and the movies were different and to what extent the relationship existed between them.
Frankenstein the novel
Frankenstein, though the name today refers to the monster, in the novel really refers to the scientist who created the monster. A novel written by the nineteen year old, Mary Shelley, as a creative frightening novel, was centered around the creativity of the scientist who makes a new creature out of the body parts of dead men and women. A creature thus created comes alive. His body was hideous and shocking; even the creator of the creature, Dr Frankenstein, could not face it without horror. Therefore, he ignores the creature, who escapes into the wild world only to surface later to kill Dr Frankenstein’s brother. It was found by the doctor later, that the creature tried to help a farmer family only to be thrown out later after seeing how bad looking the creature was.
The creature was judged more by its appearance, even though it was not really all that bad. But since, it was being neglected continuously, the creature turns bad. It starts killing people and starts leading a fearsome life. This turns the doctor to find a way to kill the creature. Unable to kill the creature, the doctor dies. But the creature itself sees that its maker is dead; goes off and commits suicide.
In this novel, the author portrays the new creature and the scientist in good light. The creature becomes violent only when it sees that there is no body that he could have company with. At one point, the creature even requests the doctor to make another creature of the same kind, may be a female so that he could have company. This the scientist declines to do after almost completing the female knowing that it could reproduce and start having a new line of creatures. The doctor is also not bad; he does what he thinks is the right for the people and for the creature that he created. He plays God.
Frankenstein the movie
In the movie, the entire storyline has gone for a change. Whereas, here also the doctor creates the creature that would turn violent, here, the creature is made violent. It has the mind of a murderer by accident. Therefore, it understands only violence, murder and such other activities. The movies adoption of the novel is very innate. It is not in line with the novel at all and it is more an adoption of the drama that was done later on based on the novel. Whatever be the reasons for the adoption of this nature, it is found that the story line is as follows:
The creature created continues to live in Europe close to the doctor and starts killing people one by one. Then the doctor along with the local residents and farmers make plans to kill the creature. The creature finally carries its creator to the top of a mill and drops him to the ground, accidentally. Once the doctor is saved from the creature, the people set fire to the mill in which the creature is locked up. The mill and the creature are burnt down together. The film has not adopted the novel as it is. It has taken the idea of the monster from it but let the entire story evolve in a way that would possibly please the audience.
The novel Vs the movies
This methodology of altering the novel to suit the needs of the movies is rampant among the adopted movies. This is the case with every one of the novels that has been adopted so far. In the case of Frankenstein, the alterations done to the story is too obvious and dramatic. As a matter of fact, the entire story line has been altered taking into consideration only the basic concept of creating a human like creature out of dead human parts. This idea of picking only the concept and the underlying thought from the novel has been happening in most of the movies.
To dramatize the sequence, movies like Jaws, Star Wars have all followed similar styles. The exact replica of what was happening in the novels might not find a place in the movie. Of course, there are also others that have been exact replicas of the novel. Lost Horizon is an example of such a change. Now, therefore, it is not possible to generalize and say that the movies ignore the exact storyline and create all by themselves. At the same time, it is also not true that they do adopt the exact storyline always.
New characters have been introduced in some cases. In others, characters in the novel are given a different meaning and color on the screen. This becomes a need because the expectations of the audience and to present the story in the right way could take up different connotations.
Conclusion
Based on the discussions cited above, the following conclusions can be reached.
Movies when they adopt the novels modify them to suit the media’s needs. The approach of the director and his own impression of the novel also matters in the decision that is taken during the making of the movie.
Novels are generally, the perception of the individual, in this case, the author of the book. However, in the case of the movies, there are normally more than one person involved and the team has a whole has some influence or the other on the making of the movie. That is possibly the reason, why there are lots of changes in the way a movies is made when contrasted with the novel.
Adopting the novel to the current situation at the time of filming the novel also is noted.
Character alteration to suit the expectations of the modern society is not uncommon in the movies.
References
Mary Shelley, 1818. Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. Mavor and Jones London.
The novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley appeared in 1818. It describes the problems of modern science and its consequences for humanity. The uniqueness of the novel is that Frankenstein has literary merits to ‘frighten and amaze’ (Mellor 45). There is much historical interest in the work as an example of various strains and aspects of Romanticism (Mellor 45).
Thesis Statement
Through the character of Victor, Mary Shelley portrays different stages of personal development. He underlines that real maturity is when the person accepts full responsibility for his actions, scientific discoveries, and their impact on humanity.
Frankenstein’s Personality
From the very beginning, Victor, the main character of the novel, is depicted as an immature personality, unable to accept responsibilities for his actions and researches. Only when the creature disappears, Victor jumps to the conclusion that his monster is the murderer of his brother. “I considered the being … nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave and forced to destroy all that was dear to me” (Shelley 2007).
At this point, the unfortunate Victor faces a moral dilemma: should he reveal to the authorities the existence of his dangerous creation? He decides not to and offers two reasons. First, he will be thought mad; second, the creature is too agile to admit capture.
It is worth considering whether these reasons seem adequate to explain Victor’s silence, which protects both the monster and himself (Peterfreund 79). “His position is rendered still more reprehensible when he returns to his family and discovers that the innocent Justine is accused of the murder, that she will be tried that very day and that the evidence against her looks damning” (Mellor 75). Still, Victor does nothing to save Justine and unveil his terrible secrets.
Fears and lack of courage are the main factors that prevent Victor from accepting responsibility for his actions and behavior. In general, a mature personality can answer for the consequences of his actions and behavior. In contrast, Victor finds his task increasingly revolting and begins to think of arguments against the responsibilities of a scientist. He fears that his creatures might breed and people the planet with monsters.
He speaks of the false but persuasive arguments. For instance, Justine is condemned to death, and after the trial, it is revealed that she has confessed her guilt (but she is not guilty) (Mellor 38). Victor explains: “I at once gave up my former occupations, set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation” (Shelley). When things go wrong, Victor understands that he cannot control his creation and is helpless to prevent his murders.
The turning point of the novel comes when Victor destroys his new creature, horrified by unpredictable consequences. When Victor feels ill, he confesses himself guilty of murdering William, Justine, and Clerval, thus associating himself yet again with the deeds of the monster.
He is in prison, but Mr. Kirwin is a good-natured and understanding man who does his best to help the sick man (Mellor 40). He brings Victor’s father to him, and Victor is at length acquitted of Clerval’s murder. “I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt. Soon these burning miseries will be extinct” (Shelley 2007). He speaks of his original benevolence and the miserable loneliness of his condition.
Conclusion
In sum, through the character of Victor, Shelley portrays that a person matures when he can accept responsibilities for his actions and their consequences. When Victor ‘matures’ and admits his guilt, he understands that freedom has no value to him, the world has no comforts for any unfortunate soul who bears guilt and remorse within him.
Works Cited
Mellor, Anne Mary Shelley: Her Life Her Fiction Her Monsters. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Peterfreund, S. Composing What May Not Be “Sad Trash”: A Reconsideration of Mary Shelley’s Use of Paracelsus in Frankenstein. Studies in Romanticism 43 (2004): 79.
Whenever the name Frankenstein is mentioned, there are often two possibilities that arise, viz. is it the monster God’s creation (Adam) or a devil incarnate? To most people, the obvious answer is the devil reborn. He represents evil, and he chases Victor Frankenstein everywhere, thus leaving a trail of death and destruction. He supposedly targets the people that Frankenstein cares about in life. In addition, he lives in hiding and goes on a rampage whenever Frankenstein says ‘no’ to him.
The paper looks at the ethical issues that the author highlights in her paper, such as the promotion of artificial life to help in the development of the discussions of this paper. It borrows heavily from practical biblical references and symbolism, mainly those of the creation story and the outcast to show how the creature is misunderstood (Nardo 23). It approaches the work from two literature analysis perspectives that of religion and acceptance criticism from different analysts to help to show that the monster in this context is misunderstood. Victor Frankenstein is the flawed God to his creation and that the creation is misunderstood.
Victor Frankenstein spends most of his life trying to replicate God. His main “purpose in life was to grasp the secrets of heaven and earth…his questions were still directed to the physical or metaphysical secrets of the universe” (Shelley 39). Later, Victor Frankenstein continues to proclaim, “A new species would worship and acknowledge him as its origin and creator…many magnificent and joyful natures would owe their existence to him” (Shelley 55). In an overview, his objective is to nurture life out of death and defeat it in the process. In this way, he overly dedicates himself to fully learning science and all its aspects, and he openly talks about pushing the limits of science even further.
At last, he manages to attain his objective of defeating death. He successfully creates the monster and gives it life, which is his ultimate achievement. To the readers, up to this point, Victor Frankenstein is a successful creator. However, the monster that he makes cannot be termed as a human or an animal. The description offered explains it as something unique. However, even without knowing his behavior, people judge him as evil.
In this context, the creation is indeed Adam, who is living being designed to look like his creator and reside on earth as instructed. However, the faults of the creator start to show when he intentionally abandons his creation, leaving the monster without any sense of right and wrong that would have helped him become a better being. The creator never teaches his creation anything, and he leaves the being to fend for itself. Left without any guidance, the monster naturally steps out to explore its surroundings.
In her article, Ann Mellor looks at the psychosocial and social effects themes of abandonment and lack of proper guidance on the nature of the monster. She shows that there is a close association between the author Mary Shelley and the Monster that Victor Frankenstein animated then abandoned (Mellor 19).
The author would relate better with the monster after it is left to fend for itself while excluded from all companionship and parental love. Mellor argues that such settings typically promote the development of negative outlook towards other individuals and their surroundings (18). In her analysis, Mellor argues that there is no way to live normally when raised in such hateful and rough surroundings, and thus, the monster is a product of his surroundings (18).
Unknowingly, the creature’s mindset follows the philosophy that all humans are good. Therefore, it also believes itself to be good, and this concept is derived from the ideas of Condorcet and Rousseau (Mellor 20). It only continues until he finally sees his reflection; then, he understands why he is consistently treated differently. The attacks and the constant rejections are on the rise. Mary Shelley uses the physiognomy concept to highlight how society judges character through the outer looks.
During the period that the monster spends residing near the De Lacey family, he learns how to read, and one of the books that he read is Paradise Lost. As the Monster reads the book, he starts to debate whether he is the devil incarnate or Adam. He reasons that he is similar to Adam. Like the biblical figure, he also had no earthly relations in existence, but if compared, their situations were far from being similar in almost all aspects…many times she believed his position related more to the devil’s, for often, like him when he analyzed the magnificence of their creators, envy arose within them(Shelley 132).
This explanation clearly demonstrates that the Monster is more than the cruel being that his creator and society portrays him to be. He has a high affinity for speech and thought. His creator, Victor Frankenstein, never even thinks of such possibilities. He never believes that the Monster can think for itself or even be a fully-formed creation. He just assumes that since he is an elaborate speaker, it is because he is well versed in using his speech to bad things.
Literary criticism on Frankenstein by Nardo explains that the self-destruction of Victor Frankenstein is due to his self- centeredness (64). His work supports Mary Shelley’s argument of avoiding pre-judgment through the understanding that the scientist, Victor Frankenstein, is a representation of self-gratification behaviors. Nardo claims that the scientist’s self-sufficiency nature offers the justification to do whatever is pleasing, even if it hurts others. In a bid to attain fame and personal objective, people risk losing everything, even those close to them. The need to know and discover is average (Nardo 45).
Nardo wonders what the limits of the ‘discovering’ in seclusion should be without public support or a guiding ethical motivation (61). His analysis mainly asks if excelling as humans are possible without first identifying primary boundaries as individuals.
Faced with the evidence of a higher divine power, viz. a god, the creature starts to question his ideas and opts for those of Frankenstein. From this point, the creature denounces all his ethical principles that he carefully nurtured and instead became obsessed with the principles of Frankenstein. Mellor states that Frankenstein is from an era where the freedom to seek individual action and thought helped change the burden for life’s results (19).
The ‘creature’ in the book is thus not a type of divine punishment for Frankenstein for attempting to copy God as many presume. The literature shows that regardless of whether there is a divine being or not, Frankenstein is accountable for his behavior and even the untimely demise of those he loves. He is fighting against his ego and not his God. From this suggestion, the main theme of the novel states that with wisdom comes individual obligation, and denial leads to an unfortunate end (Nocks 138).
Victor Frankenstein’s failure as a god also shows by the fact that when asked to provide a companion, he fails in that respect since he cannot bring himself to give another life. In this light, he seems to own up to his mistake as a god by declining to add more evil through creating more monsters. He views the outcome to have affected his family by claiming, “three years before he engaged. Similarly, creating a Monster who’s unrivaled evil affected him and left his heart with bitterness” (Shelley 170).
Nock explains that what he fails to see here is that it is not the fault of the Monster’s existence, but his neglect of teaching it. From his perspective, he believes it is the right thing not to bring another Monster into existence. His reasoning helps affirm that the creature is not how he is due to nature but mainly because he is a product of his environment. He never thinks that creating a second creature would offer a better life and hope to the first one, hence heal and nurture the first. Victor Frankenstein goes ahead and destroys the second creature before it comes to life, and consequently, the Monster vows to kill Frankenstein’s bride, Elizabeth, on their wedding night.
In conclusion, Victor Frankenstein is a man out to seek fame and glory, but the only problem is that he searches in the wrong places. No one can argue that he is not a genius, but he uses his brilliance in ways that defy the laws of science and reason. As an individual, Frankenstein misuses his knowledge, and eventually, he is too selfish and angry to care for what he creates. In the end, Victor Frankenstein is not a God. On the contrary, he is closer to the devil incarnate than to God. As shown, the creature is full of kindness, love, and grace as opposed to the supposed creator, which shows that he is simply a misunderstood creature.
Works Cited
Nardo, Don. Readings on Frankenstein, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.
Mellor, Anne. “Making a Monster.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley. Ed. Esther Schor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 9-24. Print.
Nocks, Lisa. “Frankenstein, in a better light.” Journal of Social & Evolutionary Systems 20.2 (1997): 138-146. Print.
The Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and H.G. Wells’s “The Island of Dr. Moreau” (1896) address convergence of themes from possibly divergent perspectives of science-based fiction that had related significance and meaning. Frankenstein and Wells’s recognize outcomes of genetic engineering and scientific experiments that lose locus of control and result in to unexpected outcomes that add a new dimension of the body of knowledge to the literature of humanity and values of humanity and co-existence. The books identify issues on the inability to control genetic engineering and outcomes of uncontrolled genetic engineering. The books present a conflict of interest on values of humanity, humanness, and human identity.
Objectives of the essay
This essay builds on the arguments presented by Frankenstein (1818) and Wells’s (1896) and examines the mechanism science fiction has developed since the late 19th century to the present day through the development of a construct that informs on the relationship between humanity, human values and its corresponding “others” for instance extraterrestrials, robots, monsters, human versus machine or human versus animal hybrids relative to inanimate natural phenomena. The essays further identified and reports on encounters between human relationships with “others” towards shaping and modeling definitions of humanity and explore arbitrary of the categories that are employed to categorize human bodies and behavior on the foundations of race, gender, and sexuality.
The interpretative method application
The texts Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Nineteenth-Century Responses, Modern Criticism, 1818 By Mary Shelley and Wells, H. G. The Island of Doctor Moreau, 1896, Edition Mason Harris was analyzed by employing Foucault genealogical approach. Foucault genealogical approach finds application in context and textual analysis due to its capacity to provide relationship between knowledge and power that influences on identity. It also contributes into understanding of human and inhuman identity. It takes perspectives that make it possible to determine implications in different diverse ways through which identity is perceived. Foucault genealogical approach makes it possible to utilize human or inhuman knowledge and power to identify self-knowledge and mechanism it influences on identity subject to underlying objective interests. Graham (pp.25-34) however recognizes that Foucault genealogical approach has been subject to criticism because it tends to contribute into relativists interpretation of knowledge and power constructs for identity that paves way for nihilism. Foucault genealogical approach is best suited for ideological critique analysis which results into diversity of thinking dimensions as opposed to rationale of acting differently regardless of inhuman or human dimension of identity. Baldick (p.61) recognizes that Foucault genealogical approach suits application in scenario that is characterized by manipulation of knowledge and power towards developing different constructs for identity and self.
Contribution to literature on human identity
This report contributes into literature of humanity identity by identifying elements that have been used to form definition of humanity, values that define humanity and implication of the different definition of humanity to the modern literature on human identity and humanity through reflection of creation natural and artificial and symptomatic relationship with the nature of self on current community.
The foundation of Frankenstein perspectives
Frankenstein (pp.1-3) reports on definition of life as a continuous process that goes past death. Frankenstein (pp.22-48) claims human evolves from matter as documented by Darwin theory of natural selection that contributes into generation of a “spark of life”. Frankenstein (pp.6-11; pp.17-23) claims creation is not perceived or oriented towards humanity but “is structured towards creating a human companion” as claimed by Well’s (pp.1-4). Frankenstein (pp.17-20) claims if creation is structured materially human, the “outcome that manifests as human is never accepted as human but rejected “as other”. Frankenstein (pp.55-72) argues creation supports cloning debate and engineering since genetic engineering is build on cloning of cells from matter or materials. Frankenstein data (pp.25-33) posits essentiality of the vein of argument that derives foundation from objectification of human matter as independent of human which translates into loss of human rights and freedoms that should be bestowed to humans as illustrated by Wells (pp.2-6).
The concept of fear and its manifestation
Frankenstein (pp.30-32) and Wells (pp.2-5; pp.67-79) argue human and non-human characteristic is emotionally influenced by fear especially fear of the unknown. In addition, fear of the unknown has been documented by Rauch (233-234) as a powerful emotion that affects efficiency of mankind. A number of authors have indicated that mankind greatest unknown phenomenon that brings forth fear is sustained by failure to understand self (Baldick, pp.9-10). Wells book (pp.1-175) represents meditations that are structured on seeking understanding of self, source of humankind fear and understanding of identity-associated elements that predispose fear of unknown. Self-identity is important yet failure to understand self stimulates fear as demonstrated by the Bergonzi in his introduction to the Island of Dr Moreau (pp.1-7). Rauch (pp.240-4) alleges fear is manifested in form of a monster that is characterized by “uncanny human-yet-inhuman nature” that is created to represent and exhibit human characteristics. As a result, creation of a human-yet-inhuman form brings forth trouble to creator subject to artificiality and compatibility of human identity between human and inhuman. Refusal to accept self-identity results into manifestation of self-alienation
Knowledge and identity
Levine (p.28) notes that Frankenstein reflects a story that was fueled by evils of unstructured knowledge. The evil nature of the new knowledge was source of conflicts, death and destruction which resulted into Victor’s blame for the new found knowledge. Conflict in identity that occurred was fueled by material form of the monster which was indifferent from decisions and reactions to the new knowledge acquired. The blame was illustrated by a dialogue between Victor and Walton
“Learn from me…how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge” (Lipking, p.224).
A dramatic irony however is feasible in Victors blame for the acquired new knowledge as opposed to personal objectives for the creation on glory and fame hence psychologists perception that “human live alienated from their bodies, mind, fears and desires” (Huntington, p.78). Powers (p.453) claims human psyche is driven by fractured and alienated context that paves way for perception of humanity as material creatures (Moers, p.221) that are under constant external complex and uncontrollable circumstances (Harris, p.79). In addition, Mellor (pp.285-6) notes that the influence of alienation results into human evasion of ambiguities of humanness. This has impact of humanity reliance on concept of self which fuels alienation and despair in human and humanity as documented by Lipking (pp.227-8).
Concept of humanity
Hunter (pp.97-101) concrete truth on humanity is in contrast to reality in human and its relationship with “other” as documented by Wells (p.1-3). Humanity based on Dickson (pp.12-6) and Wells (pp.5-9) is structured on presence, essence, truth and reality that is different from perception of “other”. Thus, humanity forms basis and foundation for human thought, language and experiences that “other” human demonstrate. This has resulted into concept of humanity being remodeled to include focus on essentiality as a function of human-inhuman or natural-artificial relationship. As a result, meaning of humanity has evolved towards identification of instances when knowledge of self (Graham, p.60) could translate into “destruction” which predisposes alienation. The modern society however has continued to evolve subject to influence of technology, nature and what constitutes nature. The shift presented by modern-day society is perceived as “erosion of human values that influence on physical and psychological integrity of the concept of humanity which might impact negatively or positively on divine evolution that ultimately shape the dynamics of essential qualities of humanity and nature.
Perception of humanity towards humanity definition
Through reflection of humanity, human perceive own becoming alien and uncanny. As Moers (p.216) claims, the artificial nature of identity is influenced by recognition of need for emphasis on belief of destruction which is impossible to maintain because of its fragility. Human values are constantly evolving and tend to alien. This has drive attitude that human body is a form of Frankenstein monster and creature that inhabited the earth as documented by Darwin evolutionary theorem and have been undergoing evolution (Page, p.5-19). This perception is illustrated differently by Moreau through genetic engineering to create hybrids of animals which illustrated fluidity of humanity, shape of human inclusive of human form
Implication in the society and science
Frankenstein and The Island of DR Moreau (Lipking (315-7) and Dickson (pp.5-6) though differ by a period of utmost a century, they address issues on materialistic foundation of life. Qualitative content analysis (McConnell, pp.34-7) on the texts have claimed the texts have explored “entanglement of humanity in terms of flesh” subject to uncanny replication of the body, expression of diverse humanity values across space and trends towards transcendence as documented by Powers (pp.452-467), Bergonzi (pp.2-6) and Moers (pp.215-222). Lipking (pp.313-331) has documented that Frankenstein revolved on the aspect and element of romantic potency with regard to Eramus Darwin’s predictable nature while Moreau (Alkon, pp.23-4) revolved on unpredictable nature. The texts share similarity in terms of romantic materialistic foundation (Hunter, pp.11-15; Reed, pp.9-12). The romantic element (Botting (pp.35-7) and materialistic element (Graham, pp.27-31) contributed into “conflict of philosophy with regard to monster and creation. Levine (pp.212-5) reports on conflict between scientific materialism and romantic. The differences are evident in Mowers “Female Gothic” with respect to her analysis of internal world of Victor that differs from Moreau perspective.
Materialistic evolution
Materialistic evolution was evident through Darwins theory of evolution via natural selection (Page, pp.4-9). Compared to Frankenstein and Moreau (Alkon, pp.56-58) Darwin perspective on “commonness of the origin of species brought forth fear on nature of humanity, position of abhumanness and challenged teleological perspectives on humanity revolution. Perception of humanity was elevated to higher level than previously based on biological principles. Thus, monsters and human, natural or artificial were considered as separate species that could not procreate naturally through fertilization but emerged from common ancestry. Humanity as a result, cannot be separated as independent from other creation which resulted into Moreau question “how do human manage to create social order? Hunter (pp.65-6) claims social order in human was constructed and maintained by logic and reason as opposed to foundations of instincts.
The degeration concept in Moreau
Writing of Moreau took place at a time when issues on degeneration were a major debate amongst different philosophers which were based on perception that humanity has capacity to regress to a more primitive form as documented by Hunter (pp.90-3), Mellor (pp.277-8) and Philmus and Hughes (pp.23-4). Thus, humanity and human values were undergoing constant evolution whose outcomes could not be predicted.
The abstract nature of human via abhuman
Frankenstein and Moreau texts have employed a creation that borders “not-quite-human-not-quite-other” or abhuman as a reflection on position of monsters or cyborgs in the humanity development. Abhuman features as documented by Alkon (p.12) are characterized by ruined values, and modeling of humanity based on traditional construction of human and humanity values and humanity identities. Abhuman characteristics have been documented by Johnson (pp.23-28) and Coren (pp.6-15). The foundation of abhuman has been claimed to be based on psychological and philosophical integration towards revolution of humanity. The outcomes were characterized by radical destabilization of differences between human and animal. Botting (p.3) has reported that abhuman could include degenerated human values amongst Moreau beast people and Frankenstein creature.
Redefining cyborgs and monsters
Moers (p.218) claims the concept of abhuman includes creatures like cyborgs and monsters. The characteristics of cyborgs and monsters (Alkon, pp.32-5) and their values provie foundation for construction of human nature based on social perspectives. The cyborgs and monster values provide direction into which social context could be applied towards understanding abhuman as background of identifying foundation of social human dimension and mechanism it influences human values revolution. Based on Graham (pp.112-3) Cyborg satisfied Frankenstein creation definition as a living fusion build of human and non-human elements. Cyborg (p.114) further demonstrates human, mechanical, organic and fulfils border between a special creation, species and categorization of human. Cyborgs satisfied fit for the social theory than human through its diverse weather adaptations that human as illustrated by death of Victor the creator in the North Pole under extreme low temperatures from ice conditions
The human values of the cyborgs, as a product of technology or thought-of-experiment, has contributed into development of understanding of humanity, humanity identity and human values as documented by Graham (p.51; 55-56). Moers (p.65) in her feminine perspective notes that human nature extends beyond sense of essence but specifies “nature delineation of borderlines between human-non-human, and natural-artificial relationship” Levine (p.28). Moers (p.220) notes that new emerging definitions of human, humanity and associated values are not based on destructive existing qualities. This made Moers in the “Female Gothic” to argue that emerging definitions are based on identification of “fault-line of human and cyborgs and fragility of the border between human and non-human. This has resulted into new perception and emergence of plethora of meanings, significance, attitudes, new social foundations, new allegiances to creation and creator and identities on human, humanity and non-humanity. This was fundamental in illustration of differences between Frankenstein and Moreau. This however gains value from reflection of social unconsciousness and perception of cyborgs and monsters as children or progenies of creation. The fascination of human being, through has fear component, rests on need to domesticate and disempower the cyborgs or elements in non-animal that threaten mankind. In addition, Baldick (p.45-6) has shown that cyborgs have presented a human problem based on their cultural values and cultural orientation because the cyborgs through their absence or presence which has not been documented for it to be accepted as natural or human. But coren (pp.15-7) has documented that cyborgs and monsters have played a greater role in shaping human understanding of self subject on the culture of the cyborgs.
Emergence of cyborgs and monsters
Rauch (p.229) data suggests monsters are part of procreation and qualify to be “children”. Wells (pp.167-71) notes that although monsters can be pushed or hidden, they return to torment by bringing forth “better knowledge of human values place in history” (pp.172) or history of having knowledge of the place human inhabit. Harris (pp.105-8) notes that the return of monsters is born of “self knowledge” (p.106), human knowledge (p.107) and “human discourse” (p.108). The monsters seek knowledge on human perception of the world as documented by Alkon (p.41), need for “true human” toe valuate cultural assumptions and validate on “race, gender, sexuality” (Harris, pp.109-112) as well as need for human to identify “differences between “racial, gender and sexual orientation” and scope of human tolerance” on monster intrusion (Coren (p.61-3). The monsters seek to understand rationale for their creation by human as documented by Baldick (p.12) through attempts to determine why creators made them, rationale for the culture that gave way to their creation and nature of “human identity construction” that fueled the creation of the monsters.
Reflection on the concept of uncanniness
McConnell (p.28) notes that uncanniness is derived from combined familiar and unfamiliar features or what Hunter (p.79) documents as heimlich and unheimlich respectively. The familiarity and unfamiliarity based on Huntington (p.22) brings forth fright. This emerges from incapacity to comprehend “boundary between fantasy and reality” especially when confronted with reality of the imaginary phenomenon. This is illustrative that identity is constructed on distinct connection on what is known and principles that define “what values we live” (Page (p.34). a true monster is product of human or humanoid (Plimus & Hughes, p.21). the moster or artificial creation acquires “emotions of fear” if humanoid as case of Frankenstein while human fails as in Wells, H.G. monster acquires emotions of disgust and alienation as documented by Mellor, p.281). Acquisition of emotions by a monster or humanoid is primary to subversion (Lipking, p.321), inversion (Reed, p.56) or expectations (Hunter, p.95). Human as a result react negatively to what deviates from “normal expectations” hence depiction of humanity variability from humanness.
Process of self destruction and its significance
Hunter (pp.99-101) reports that self-destruction was associated with recognition of artificial nature of humanity identity. The monsters and hybrid animals in Frankenstein and Moreau respectively were a representation of self that had turned uncanny that normal human have tried to destroy without success. The self-destruction was symbolic through possible cutting of proverbial self-one hand which could have amounted into self-mutilation. Thus both artificial and natural could be said to have had mutual association and dependent on one another for survival hence artificialness identity is symbolic and its processes in life diverge from human which brings forth need for identifying what constitutes human and artificial towards determination of substantive difference in identity.
Delicacy of the evolutionary theory
The artificial (thus the monster) satisfied the Darwin’s perspetive of evolution. Nature through selection brings forth creatures that are better adapted. This agreed with Frankenstein (Hunter, pp.122) that the creature had better adaptations to extreme conditions of weather than human and could have moved at higher speeds than human. Due to lack of compatibility or to find close associate, the monster desired to have a companion “to minimize its agonizing pain of solitude” (Moers, p.217). This was partly due to abandonment of the creature by its creator Victor (Hunter, p.3-4). Evolutionary theorem as posed by Darwin resulted into Victor’s self destruction because Victor failed to define limits for labeling “others” due to failure to construct significance of artificial and natural and their existence. This observation contributed into definition of knowledge to include not “what is true or untrue” but demarcation of what power needs to achieve through “direction of purpose of knowledge”.
Regression effects and its significance
The disastrous outcomes of Victors creation has been documented to have been subject to his regression against nature and God’s intentions. This has been associated with Victor’s punishment for going against interests of God, a supreme being in creation which results into a cautionary perceptive of scientific research. The cautionary to the scientific research was structured to ensure experiments were performed within control and understanding of human. Inconsistencies in understanding were subjective to need to abide and subscribe to laws of nature hence as Meors in “Feamle gothic” notes, Victor’s death in the North Pole was form of “punishment for raping nature” (Moers, p.223). In addition, Mellor (p.283) notes that nature revenges to entities that violate its principles and intentions through destruction
The core to family destruction
Levine (pp.210-212) claims nature obstructed Frankenstein from constructing “normal human being”. Moers (pp.215-8) notes that Frankenstein work constituted unnatural method of procreation which resulted into Frankenstein failure “to construct a normal human being”. This resonates with Graham (pp.23-5) data that indicates unnatural methods of procreation result into unnatural beings” that lack qualities of normal being. The unnatural being had features like “gigantic stature, watery eyes, shriveled complexion and straight black lips” as documented by Levine (pp.26-7). Lipking (pp.314-5) claims that the physiognomy of the “unnatural being” formed basis for Frankenstein “withdrawal from his procreation”. In addition, the “hatred of the Frankenstein child” paved way for development of events that played a key role towards “destruction of Frankenstein family, friends and self” as documented by Johnson (pp.12-19; pp.46-87). Baldick (pp.22-29) claimed “destruction of Frankenstein family, friends and self” was driven by “aberration characteristic of the monster”. This formed basis for Lipking (pp.220-1) drive to determine the “degenerated state of the monster”. The monster had capacity to “do everything”. As a result, Lipking (pp.24-8) got fear-possessed emerging from “unnatural and supernatural”. God created earth and its contents in seven days but Frankenstein workmanship went past God’s, eight days which demonstrated possibility of mankind betterment of nature compared to God. The creature in Frankenstein after social interaction with human recognized its wretched and imperfect state though perceived as superior to human. The creature (Hunter, p.94) doesn’t perceive its superiority but could identify its differences with normal human.
Threats to orthodoxy and religion
Natural philosophy as alternative name for Science (Levine, pp.209-10) was part of enlightenment process. The foundation of natural philosophy during early 19th century was to identify materialistic explanations for world, origin of creation and species and need to identify essential laws of nature as documented by Graham (pp.82-85). Due to conventionalism and principles towards identity of essential laws of nature, the adopted methodologies resulted into shift of project scope to examination of principles of divine creation as opposed to examination of human body construct. This paved way for threats to orthodox and religion. Alkon (pp.25-7) documents how varieties and diversity of materialism became central focus.
Victor’s objective interests
The tragedy of procreation was not based on need for gaining new knowledge. The tragedy lay in the path that was used to gain the new knowledge. Thus, the path to gaining the new knowledge was catalyzed by objectives for acquisition of the new knowledge post attainment and foundation of reaction on the outcome of the creation thus the monster. The path towards gaining new knowledge was structured towards gain of personal glory and fame. The achievement of new knowledge as a product of glory and fame was summarized by Victor’s dialogue to Walton:
“Wealth was an inferior object; but what glory would attend the discovery, if I could banish disease from the human frame, and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!”(Coren, pp.51-76)
The creator Victor was demonstrated to be happy, enjoying glory of his creation and knowledge that had given rise to his fame that made him be gloried by family, friends and relatives for his “creation of a new species”. Based on Victor own words as quoted
“A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve their’s” (Lipking, pp.321)
Based on Lipking (p.321) it is evident that the creation was made towards creators egocentric desires to attain glory and fame.
Deficiencies in artificial creation
The deficiencies in artificial creation was brought about by inability to abide and subscribe to ownership through demonstration of allegiance
“I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me” “Rauch, p.298).
The monster didn’t demonstrate allegiance through failure to “behave like a proper creation”. The creation demonstrated cultural, moral or ethical values by recognizing its creation and mentor. The challenge lay not in the art of generating new knowledge that turned out to be destructive to friends, family and relatives. The challenge lay in managing the dangers of the creation. The outcomes of the creation resulted into rejection of moral and ethical foundation of the creation that contributed into abandonment of the creation hence loss of companionship. The relativistic interpretation was that the creator was filled with egotism and disturbed by power of his knowledge to procreate when the creator could not measure or perceive the power of procreation. The relativistic interpretation of fear of unknown could have been different if a different creature other than human had been created. Lack of benefit to the community (relatives, family and friends) provided foundation of the conflicts that form prose of the narration. It could be interpreted that Victor, the creator, made his creation for his own benefit which formed foundation for his abandoning the creation without justifiable reason hence corresponding rejection by the society Victor claimed his creation would serve.
The community considered the creation unacceptable and foreign because the foundation of creation was based on personal gains as opposed to community benefits. It could be concluded that Victor had objective of increasing his knowledge at the expense of the community moral and ethical interests which resulted into unacceptability of his project. The foreignness of the monster as documented by Johnson (pp.102-5) belonged to species of knowledge that had not been contextualized (Moers, pp.216-8) though the primary objective was targeted at seeking treatment for human death and diseases. The experiment went astray from key objectives of Victor by failing to add value to community but instead causing death and destruction that provided foundation for Victor’s failure to recognize mechanism his new knowledge could add to community service. This was based on fear of unknown.
Foundation for rejecting creation
Levine (p.25) and Hunter (p.2-3) illustrates Victor’s desire was to design a creation that has resemblance of human through human values and human identity expression. The evil of knowledge of Victor (Rauch, p.241) was magnified by “exalted imagination towards “ability to give life to an animal” and assigned the creature a human label. The creator, Victor, had developed identification with the creature before it breathed as his offspring which gave foundation of parent’s child idealization. The creature inspired fear and awe which finally sustained his remorse and rejection of his own creation. This further resonated with God rejection of man Adam post sinning although the backgrounds were different as settings. Rejection was fueled by narcissism as opposed to humanitarian foundation subject to gigantic shape of the offspring as documented by Hunter (p.9). This resulted into Shelly’s rejection of the purposes of knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge itself and responsibilities attached to the acquired knowledge.
Reality and its psychological foundation
Following victors observation of outcome of its creation (Hunter, pp.50-51), his reaction were characterized by psychological fear of failing to accept the results. Victor attempts to escape to sleep was both psychological and symbolic. God rested after his creation was complete. Upon his awakening from psychological and symbolic sleep, Victor was frightened and ran out as documented by Lipking (p.223) thus
“I escaped, and rushed and rushed down the stairs” (Lipking, p.52).
Narcissistic identification of Victor and Victor creation was responsible for fear subject to horror of facing reality as documented by Levine, p.216). This could translate into conclusion that life has physical foundation which is not attached to metaphysical or transcendent foundations. The psychological fear and fright were based on material body that could conduct human processes namely move, think and acquire language but the altruism had a different foundation towards the creation
“His words had a strange effect upon me. I compassionated him, and sometimes felt a wish to console him; but when I looked upon him, when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened, and my feelings were altered to those of horror and hatred” (Botting, p.99).
The reflection of the physique of the creature meant normal human might have had similar traits as the creature portrayed.
The legacy of thoughts
The evil of knowledge was destroyed subject to altruism. Thus, the sake of normal human contributed into desires to banish thoughts structured towards new creation as illustrated by Victor’s dialogue:
“I had resolved in my own mind, that to create another like the fiend I had first made would be an act of the basest and most atrocious selfishness; and I banished from my mind every thought that could lead to a different conclusion” (Hunter, p.118).
It could be perceived that thoughts that could contribute into a different alternative conclusion, irrespective of its outcomes contribute into alternative use of acquired knowledge.
Thin difference between natural and artificial
Relativistic interpretation of Frankenstein and Moreau in that the Frankenstein, unlike Moreau, the creation had resemblance of natural human being as documented by Powers (p.460) that “the creature was naturally good”. The goodness of natural being in the Frankenstein creature however changed post contact with human being and learning development of the creature. This illustrates the disadvantages that emerged post acquisition of new cultures and new knowledge. Artificial cyborgs or monsters ought to retain their culture without gaining knowledge on human culture. As a result, the dangers in Frankenstein were subject to social interaction between the human and non-human. Shelly in Hunter (p.29) indicates human and non-human relationship was fueled by desire for companionship that was innately characterized. As a result mankind demonstrates “element of solitude” as documented by Alkon (p.35) which is foundation of mankind natural state and also laid foundation for mankind criticism of the unnatural as foreign hence corresponding rejection. In Frankenstein, as documented by Hunter (Frankenstein 1818), the creation rot he creature began life as a normal animal, demonstrating traits of animal which were observed through its physical desires. The creature could never have understood what “death represented or meant or significance of death” without social interaction with human. As a result, the primitive state of the creature could have remained its solitary state as documented by Powers, p.453).
Significance of awakening of the artificial to the natural
Mellor (pp.276-9) claims there was significance in the awakening of the monster. In addition, Mellor (p.277) notes that awakening was associated with dissemination of new knowledge that had been let uncontrolled in the world. The knowledge was unstructured and was not ordered which differs from Wells “The Island of DR Moreau” in the ordered and controlled knowledge of the creation. This signifies resemblance of lack of order in the monster’s behavior (pp.280-3). The monster was pure and like a child, new nothing. The society as a result of lack of interaction had not spoiled his nature. The monster had qualities of natural man in his childhood “through satisfaction of hunger under oak tree”, “his quench of thirst in streams” and “slept under the oak tree” where it fed (p.281-2). The awakening was illustrative of natural characteristics of a natural being. The creature as documented by Hunter (p.78) could have passion to express itself in its own mode but “uncouth and inarticulate” silenced it through development of fright and fear. The creature had desires to express itself in its own language that was independent from its immediate surrounding language of birds and animals but failed to get common creature like itself to share language. Language that Mellor (p.276) identifies with “cry of nature” was absent in the creation of Victor towards seeking help in times of danger or intense suffering as documented by Graham (p.41) and Moers (p.66).
Adaptiveness of artificial over natural
The artificial creation was more adapted to different weather conditions than natural man. Victor, the creator of the monster, died in pursuit of the monster when he was exposed to harsh climatic conditions of North Pole. The “glaciers, storms and freezing temperatures provide a limitless source of terror for almost any mortal” (Moers, p.219) which meant the monster was exception. The relativistic interpretation of death of the creator as opposed to the creation provided basis that nature is equally good and equally bad through its capacity to contain both healing which have been expressed by Frankenstein and the monster at different parts of the text. This is different perspectives given that in Wells (The Island of DR Moreau), the artificialness is controlled by society suggestions which meant the creation of the monster in “The Island of DR Moreau” was driven by society benefits as opposed to Frankenstein that were based on achievement of personal glory and fame.
The relativistic interpretation identified conflicts and dilemmas of knowledge and its various significance and mechanism it shapes human and humanity. The convergence of Frankenstein and Wells on inability to from pure forms of human is based on continuity of challenges on established conventions on human identity. The shift in traditional foundations of identity, nature and technological evolution have eroded and preserved elements of humanity while at the same time validating maintained distinctions. Shelly writes from background of human essentialization while wells adopts post-Darwin stance that essentializes on the animal yet both efforts to create human have had disastrous outcomes. It is possible to conclude that binary elements namely natural-artificial and man-animal are symbolic and interdependent for survival.
References
Alkon, Paul. Science Fiction Before 1900: Imagination Discovers Technology. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein ‘s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-Century Writing. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Bergonzi, Bernard, ed. “Introduction.” H.G. Wells: A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1976. 1-7.
Botting, Fred. Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1991.
Coren, Michael. The Invisible Man: The Life and Liberties of H.G. Wells. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd., 1993.
Dickson, Lovat. H.G. Wells: His Turbulent Life and Times. New York: Atheneum, 1969.
Graham, Elaine. Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002.
Harris, Mason. “Vivisection, the Culture of Science, and Intellectual Uncertainty in The Island of Dr. Moreau.” Gothic Studies 4.2 (2002): 99-116.
Hunter, Paul, ed. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Nineteenth-Century Responses, Modern Criticism. 1818. By Mary Shelley.New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
Huntington, John. The Logic of Fantasy: H.G. Wells and Science Fiction. New York: Columbia University press, 1982.
Johnson, Diane. Introduction. Frankenstein. By Shelley. 1818. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
Levine, George. “Frankenstein and the Tradition of Realism.” Hunter 208-214.62.
Levine, George. “The Ambiguous Heritage of Frankenstein.” Lowe-Evans: 25-38.
Lipking, Lawrence. “Frankenstein, the True Story; or Rousseau Judges Jean-Jacques.” Hunter 313-331.
McConnell, Frank. The Science Fiction of H.G. Wells. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Mellor, Anne. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Hunter 274-286.
Moers, Ellen. “Female Gothic: The Monster’s Mother.” Hunter 214-224.
Page, Michael. “The Darwin Before Darwin: Erasmus Darwin, Visionary Science, and Romantic Poetry.” Papers on Language & Literature 41.2 (2005).
Philmus, Robert and Hughes, David, eds. H.G. Wells: Early Writings in Science and Science Fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975.
Powers, Richard. “Rousseau’s ‘Useless Science:’ Dilemma of Paradox?” French Historical Studies 2(4), (1962): 450-469.
Rauch, Alan. “The Monstrous Body of Knowledge in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism 34.2 (1995): 227-253.
Reed, John. The Natural History of H.G. Wells. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1982.
Wells, H. G. The Island of Doctor Moreau. 1896. Ed. Mason Harris. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2009.