The main character of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was sure regarding his uniqueness: “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (42). The reason is that Viktor Frankenstein was a young scientist obsessed with the idea of creating a unique living creature by referring to science and alchemy.
Still, he cannot love this monstrous human being, and this fact leads to disastrous consequences (Cengage Learning 7; Seal 84-86). This novel represents the key characteristics of Romanticism through accentuating isolation from society, the focus on exploring nature, and the freedom of desires and feelings (Chase 165-166; Varner 137-138). Viktor, a Romantic character, chooses alienation as his path in the world that leads him to misery, and he develops as an irresponsible scientist who does not realize his duty.
Alienation in Shelley’s Novel
In Frankenstein, alienation is discussed through the perspective of sorrow and despair for the main characters. Although Viktor was brought up by loving parents, he always wanted to isolate himself from other people to focus on science (Gottlieb 127-129). Viktor states: “I must absent myself from all I loved while thus employed” (Shelley 117).
These words accentuate Viktor’s focus on himself and his desires that later determine his path, leading to more obsession with science and creating a new living being, as well as to more alienation while being locked in his laboratory and conducting experiments. Viktor’s alienation further leads him to despair because of creating the monster, but Frankenstein’s creature also suffers from isolation because he cannot be opened to society and accepted by it (Nesvet 348).
His first experience of interacting with people is described the following way: “The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me” (Shelley 83). The creature that wants to be loved faces the cruelty of the world that makes him become even more alienated and concentrated on revenge.
Responsibility in Frankenstein
In addition to making him and his creature be isolated, Viktor does not accept the idea of duty and responsibility for his actions because of his inability to understand what it means to be responsible for the creation. Being focused on a scientific aspect of creating, Viktor ignores his duty as a creator and a “father” (Bloom 22; Halpern et al. 50; Nair 78). As a result, the creature is forced to ask: “How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind” (Shelley 78). In this context, Viktor understands his duty only after his creature’s words.
However, he still does not accept his responsibility as a “father” because he cannot love his “child.” Thus, the creature states, “Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (Shelley 78). From this perspective, it is possible to note that Viktor is unable to take responsibility for his actions and perform his duties as both a scientist and a creator despite his ambition.
Conclusion
Alienation and the lack of responsibility regarding the scientist’s actions for society can be viewed as partially related to the modern world. On the one hand, the isolation of a scientist today cannot lead him to impressive results, but this characteristic is typical of Romanticism. On the other hand, modern scientists change the world, and they need to be responsible for their actions. Therefore, the ideas stated by Shelley in the novel should be reconsidered from the perspective of the modern world.
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Infobase Learning, 2013.
Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. Gale/Cengage Learning, 2015.
Chase, Cynthia. Romanticism. Routledge, 2014.
Gottlieb, Evan, editor. Global Romanticism: Origins, Orientations, and Engagements, 1760–1820. Bucknell University Press, 2014.
Halpern, Megan K., et al. “Stitching Together Creativity and Responsibility: Interpreting Frankenstein across Disciplines.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 36, no. 1, 2016, pp. 49-57.
Nair, Lekshmi R. “Playing God: Robin Cook’s ‘Mutation’ as a Reworking of the Frankenstein Theme of the Creator Pitted against the Creation.” Writers Editors Critics, vol. 6, no. 2, 2016, pp. 77-82.
Nesvet, Rebecca. “Review: Frankenstein: Text and Mythos.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, 2018, pp. 347-351.
Seal, Jon. GCSE English Literature for AQA Frankenstein Student Book. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Novels that have the same literary significance as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are bound to have an abundance of themes and to cover a broad intellectual territory. In addition, every critical reading can locate some additional themes that repeatedly occur in the text, but the author had no intention of incorporating them.
Of course, Frankenstein, as a text that is often reread and reanalyzed by critics, has been found to hold an abundance of themes. In this essay, I discuss some of the themes that have been identified by the critics whose works have been collected in Norton’s critical edition devoted to this novel from the literary canon.
In the novel, Mary Shelley tackles rather profound and challenging subjects such as the problem of egoism. The conflict between egoism and altruism and the status of the two forces in human nature is still rather puzzling. However, Shelley seems to take a rather strong stance in favor of the idea that egoism is the primal force that humans cannot control. Hence, all the dangerous human creations are in reality products of egoistic drives.
Poovey (346) writes, “More in keeping with the 18th century moralists than with either William Goldwin or Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley characterizes innate desire not as neutral or benevolent but as quintessentially egoistical”. In other words, Shelley seems to think that humans are driven by egoistic forces, which is why Victor does not consider the potential moral and other consequences of his actions. Victor is moved only by his egoistic impulse to create something unique.
Next, Shelley deals with the theme of imagination providing a truly powerful understanding of its nature and its moral character. Namely, Shelly clearly thinks that imagination is an all-consuming and extremely powerful force; however, unlike her contemporaries and fellow romantics Wordsworth and Coleridge, she is doubtful about the moral character of imagination (Poovey 349). Moreover, Shelley seems convinced that imagination is, in fact, inherently amoral and one might even argue immoral (Poovey 349).
Given the fact that in their creative capacity, humans are always driven by egoistic forces, imagination in the romantic sense, as an ultimate expression of human creative powers, has to be fundamentally contradictory to morality. Morality is the concern with the other while imagination is the concern with the self. The two are rarely compatible.
Another important theme in Shelley’s novel is the status of the female in the modern world. The impression that emerges from Shelley’s account of Frankenstein’s creation is that he has a drive towards eliminating the female sex from the natural world. Mellor (355) argues that the underlying force in Victor’s project is to undermine the function of females in the modern world. Victor tries to achieve that in a number of ways.
He does so, primarily, by creating new life without a woman involved in the process, thereby already undermining the essential role of women in reproductive processes. Furthermore, what he does next is to create a male immortal creature which is to provide the inception of a future artificial and immortal form of life.
However, Frankenstein refuses to create a female that would be the companion of his monster. Therefore, Mellor (355) argues that Frankenstein’s implicit desire is to free the world from females by making them completely redundant.
The novel Frankenstein also deals with the topic of categorization of human traits into female and male. The division is, fundamentally, between rational and irrational characteristics and, of course, in the male-centered world, this binary is virtually identical to the female and male binary in such a way that the female is always associated with irrational, while the rational belongs to men. Indeed, Victor’s scientific work, which is the epitome of the rational process, has to be completely separated from his love for Elizabeth (Mellor 356).
Love and other emotions belong to the domestic sphere, which is the sphere of female activity, and hence all the emotions are, in a sense, female. In connection to the previously discussed topic of the status of the female in the modern world, one can conclude that the world in which the public sphere of rationality and science becomes dominant naturally tends to the female redundant.
Mary Shelley ‘s novel is also an attempt at resolving one contradiction inherent in the Romantic thought, which is the one that holds humans both naturally good and inherently doomed to destroy nature in their attempts to improve it. Lipking (425) argues that Mary Shelley’s novel is the perfect embodiment of the Romantic contradictions. According to him, the Romantic thought was filled with unresolved, fundamental contradictions, which is why those who aim to give an account of the Romanic doctrine face immense problems.
Specifically, Lipking (425) believes that Rousseau’s philosophy that holds men to be naturally good, but collections of people, namely societies or cultures, to be forces of decay. In the same way, Lipking (425) notices how Shelley’s Victor is moved by the desire to improve upon nature only to create a monster that is clearly a threat to its delicate balance.
An important theme in Frankenstein is the problem of influence of the adults and mentors on the young. In the way in which she approaches this subject, Shelley shares a lot in common with a great romantic figure Rousseau (Lipking 428). The novel shows how adults often miss opportunities to instruct the young about the right ideas and instead inadvertently push them in the wrong direction.
Lipking (428) writes that Victor’s belief that his father could have shown him the right direction by carefully explaining the intellectual merit behind one of the books that he was reading embodies this view. Victor’s father’s decision to denigrate the book by calling it “rubbish” provoked a kind of rebellion in Victor’s mind thereby pushing him in a completely mistaken direction.
Certainly one of the most fundamental themes in Frankenstein is the dilemma between materialist and mystical interpretations of life. Butler (408) argues that Shelley’s novel is a large-scale attempt at acting out the debate that was at the center of intellectual life of the early 19th century. This debate was about the correct way to interpret life, and the opposing positions were those that can be called materialist and mystical.
The materialist view would hold that human life can be explained on the basis of material or physical forces that could be studies by science of the day. On the other hand, some thinkers believed that human life is a phenomenon radically distinct from electricity, gravity and other forces known to man (Butler 409). Shelley then writes an entire novel to explore the materialist view and see the implications of that position (Butler 409).
Mary Shelley’s contribution to the scientific debates of the day does not stop there as she tackles the popular topic of wild children that was the subject of virtually every scientific and intellectual debate of the time. These debates were spurred by the discovery of a wild boy who was later named Victor in the woods of France. Of course, the fact that the boy’s name was the same as the name of the main character of the novel is hardly a coincidence.
The boy found in the forests near Paris could not speak, and a young doctor who took care of him could not teach him to speak despite serious efforts (Butler 410). Mary Shelley’s monster does speak and learns to do so in a completely mysterious manner so Shelley might be suggesting that the ability to speak might be, at least to a certain extent, inborn.
There are reasons to think that there is a theme of male superiority pervading the novel. London (394) argues that Frankenstein is a novel that upholds the image of the male as somehow gender neutral as the creature’s gender identity is rarely mentioned, and there is no allusion to his genitals in the description of the monster. However, the reference to the female takes place only in relation to uncontrollable drives and irrational reproduction.
London (395) reminds us that Victor refuses to create a female counterpart of his monster in order to prevent a race of “devils” from populating the Earth. Therefore, these basic facts seem to undermine most feminist interpretations of the novel as undermining the gender norms or even the tendencies to view the monster as female (London 396).
In contrast to the male body as gender-neutral and innocent, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the female body is presented as the locus of the primitive drives. London (397) argues that critics who have identified the female with the irrational in Shelley’s work are essentially correct. However, she points out that it is specifically the female body that holds the forbidden and sinful forces that seek to corrupt morally upright male characters.
For that reason, the text of Frankenstein should be considered a manifestation of the dominant ideologies of the early Victorian era that sought to equate the female with immoral and primitive forces of human nature while sanctifying the male (London 397). As is known, the Victorian era was characterized by the great emphasis on covering the female body as virtually all its parts were held as having sexual connotations.
In conclusion, there is an abundance of themes that Mary Shelley tackles in her famous novel Frankenstein. This paper has cited only some of the topics that were identified by the critics contributing to Norton’s critical edition devoted to this work. The novel deals with some deep philosophical dilemmas like the nature of life, the character of the human nature, the nature of imagination and the famous debate on the wild children.
In all of these areas, Shelley produces very interesting and profound responses that certainly spurred a lot of debate in the intellectual circles of the day and continue to do so in the contemporary period as well. Furthermore, there is a lot of material to talk about themes of gender relations in the modern world as they appear in the book.
It is not certain whether Shelley was trying to criticize and undermine the status of the male and the female in the Victorian era, but the novel embodies a lot of bias towards patriarchal notions related to gender. Consequently, masculinity is related to rationality, science and moral purity, while the feminine seems to host primitive and irrational drives.
Works Cited
Butler, Marylin. “Frankenstein and Radical Science.” Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 404-16. Print.
Lipking, Lawrence. “Frankenstein, The True Story, or Rousseau Judges Jean Jacques.” Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 416-34. Print.
London, Bette. “Frankenstein and the Spectacle of Masculinity.” Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 391-404. Print.
Mellor, Anne. “Possessing Nature: The Female in Frankenstein.” Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 355-68. Print.
Poovey, Mary. “”My Hideous Progeny” The Lady and the Monster.” Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 344-55. Print.
Despite the description of a being created by Frankenstein as a wretch and the evil that he commits, he causes the feeling of sympathy. It is not his fault that he is rejected by everyone. On the contrary, Victor, the “parent,” evokes antipathy since he produces a creature, leaves him alone, and then blames him for his actions. Frankenstein and society are responsible for the chaos caused by the creature.
Main body
Frankenstein is a bad parent who is devoid of honor, decency, and feelings. He exposes his “child” to various tortures and trials – first by negligence, and then intentionally. Frankenstein creates a being rejected by society; one who everyone hates and is afraid of, while all he wants is love and care. The creature responds: “I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel” (Shelly 78). Frankenstein himself creates a monster for which he does not want to bear responsibility. He brings this creature into the world and renounces it. At the same time, society regards him as a decent and moral person.
This creature is, in fact, quite similar to a human being. If it was not for the surrounding anger and cruelty of people, he could have been different. From the book, it is clear that Frankenstein creates a kind and highly intellectual being with excellent physical characteristics (Shelly 97). This wretch is unpretentious, sensitive, and hardy. Frankenstein puts his creation at the mercy of fate from the first minute. A person is born innocent initially; throughout his or her life, he or she chooses a particular path, kind and sympathetic or cruel and evil. Instead of accepting the wretch as he is, the “parent” and society treat him like an animal.
When the wretch full of despair and loneliness goes to his creator with a request, he receives a cruel refusal, which overturned his inner world and dooms him to eternal loneliness. The creature becomes a monster not only externally but also internally: “If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear” (Shelly 115). While the wretch is away from people, he quietly recruits mind-reason and disinterests good deeds. As soon as he tries to make contact with people, they heartlessly reject him, and his soul gradually hardens. Perhaps, the following passage explains the reaction of society: “Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change” (Shelly 156).
Conclusion
Thus, the Frankenstein book had a great influence on the human mind as it presents a lot of hidden and deeply meaningful issues, reflecting the truth about human society. This book is not about the skills and ingenuity of the protagonist, rather, it is about how sometimes society is cruel if it sees something new and unexplored. It shows that a person is responsible for those whom they have tamed or created. No matter how difficult the obstacles were and no matter how society perceived the new creature, the responsibility for what Frankenstein did should have been carried.
During the Victorian era, roughly the second half of the 1800s, the world was forever changed by the effects of the Industrial Revolution. The widespread use of machines and factories significantly altered the way in which people lived their lives and thought about their world. “By the beginning of the Victorian period, the Industrial Revolution … had created profound economic and social changes, including a mass migration of workers to industrial towns, where they lived in new urban slums” (“The Victorian Age”, 2007). Achievements of technology and machinery inspired a great deal of new scientific debate in all areas of life. Charles Darwin’s recently published Theory of Evolution caused people to question the assertions of the Bible itself (Landow, 2006). An increasingly educated public added ever more voices to these debates, which was helped by the growth in newspaper and other periodical publications. These were made possible as a result of the introduction and increased production of the printing press. Literature in all its forms made it possible for every educated individual in the country, no matter how far out in the rural areas, to learn about and contribute to the widespread discussions that were taking place regarding the major political and social issues of the time. This did not occur simply in the realm of the non-fiction news articles but also happened within the pages of the increasingly popular fiction novels being produced. “The Victorian novel, with its emphasis on the realistic portrayal of social life, represented many Victorian issues in the stories of its characters” (“The Victorian Age”, 2007). One of the biggest questions of the time concerned itself with the role of the scientist and his potential scheme to claim the position of God. This is one of the primary questions dealt with in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein in which Dr. Frankenstein can be seen to take on the role of God in his creation of the monster as the ‘new’ Adam.
Victor Frankenstein, the main character of the story, intentionally adopts the position of God in his attempt to overcome the forces of life and death and place them directly in the hands of man. His goal is not simply to understand how life comes to be but to overcome the natural forces of death in order to more fully serve his own individual needs. His intention is to reanimate already dead tissue in order to create a new life based on Frankenstein’s terms rather than God’s. While Shelley discounts the science of the past as being unproductive and unimaginative, she illustrates that the science of the future will manage to break through these boundaries. “The ancient teachers of this science,’ said he [Frankenstein’s first professor], ‘promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted and that the elixir of life is a chimera” (Shelley, 1993: 40). However, she suggests through Victor’s experience that there is an upper end to how far science should strive. “Victor Frankenstein, the ‘modern Prometheus’ seeks to attain the knowledge of the Gods, to enter the sphere of the creator rather than the created” (Bushi, 2002). Throughout the story, Shelley illustrates how science has reached a point where God is no longer necessary or used as a staying power for the investigations of its practitioners.
As he participates in his scientific studies, Frankenstein continued to imagine himself as creating a better human than the one created by God, deliberately taking on the role of God himself and deliberately pursuing the creation of a ‘new’ Adam better than the one God created. In doing so, Victor is certain that he can manipulate the powers of nature established by God as a means of enforcing the better, stronger and more efficient powers of man. “The comment that seems evident in Frankenstein is that God has abandoned Man; the progression of history sees Man abandon God in the Victorian era” (Bushi, 2002). Frankenstein never thinks of himself as moving against religion in his scientific pursuit of the ideal man, yet his assumption that man as God created him was imperfect and inefficient is, in itself, a denial of the concept of God as an all-perfect being. In spite of his knowledge that he is manipulating the laws of nature, Frankenstein continues to develop the creature he started, imagining it to be a beautiful thing that will remain forever devoted to him, just as Genesis illustrates God imagining his ultimate creature, Adam. However, Frankenstein’s accomplishment of Godlike creation turns out to be something hideous, capable of inspiring terror upon first sight and Victor cruelly banishes it from his sight without a single thought for its welfare. “Shelley underscores the self-centeredness of those who have power like Victor Frankenstein … He’s narcissistic, he’s really hungry for self-aggrandizement” (Bennett cited in Pamintuan, 2002). In many ways, this action reflects the contemporary concept of God as having turned his back on mankind, cutting it loose to discover on its own the terrors of science and creation while it also criticizes man for his arrogance in assuming God is no longer necessary in the modern world.
In much the same way that Frankenstein can be seen to adopt the position of God, the creature he makes can be seen in terms of Adam, God’s first man. While he is not pretty to look at, the monster is obviously ‘born’ with a very gentle spirit and awakens to himself in an Eden-like garden wherein almost all of his needs are met by the wilderness that surrounds him. As he becomes more and more aware of his surroundings, Shelley inserts Lockean philosophy regarding the development of the individual as the monster is demonstrated to have a blank soul, the tabula rasa, that must depend on his environment to learn what he needs to know. “Like most contemporary Lockean philosophers, she [Shelley] asserts that circumstances activate and direct an individual’s capacity for imaginative activity; the inclination or predilection thus formed then constitutes the basis of identity” (Poovey, 1984: 253). Like Adam, the one thing this wilderness doesn’t provide him with, though, is companionship which he discovers, after being violently chased from the first village he comes to, is unavailable to him because of the combination of his looks and his lack of knowledge. Using true ingenuity, he determines to hide outside the DeLacey home and learn the art of communication with fellow creatures walking the planet. The monster’s gentle nature is illustrated to a great degree as he describes to Frankenstein his thoughts as the spring warmed the earth during his stay outside the De Lacey home. He tells Frankenstein “my spirits were elevated by the enchanting appearance of nature; the past was blotted from my memory, the present was tranquil, and the future gilded by bright rays of hope and anticipations of joy” (Shelley, 1993: 119). However, observation from afar was not enough to ease the monster’s isolation and he attempted to join the family in the only way he knew how, by making his presence known and discovering, again, that his appearance will prevent any kind of intelligent association.
In the progression of the monster through the story, one can trace an analogy with the progression of mankind after having left the Garden of Eden. After he is chased from the loving and patient home of the DeLaceys, the monster becomes obsessed with thoughts of revenge against his creator, yet he is unable to reach him and manages instead to again find respite in the solitude of nature. “The day, which was one of the first of spring, cheered even me by the loveliness of its sunshine and the balminess of the air. I felt emotions of gentleness and pleasure, that had long appeared dead, revive within me. Half surprised by the novelty of these sensations, I allowed myself to be borne away by them; and, forgetting my solitude and deformity, dared to be happy” (Shelley, 1993: 148). However, even in these silent places, the monster is unable to avoid the negative elements of life as he is injured while attempting to save a woman from being drowned by the rushing waters of a spring-fed stream. With his final hope for happiness thwarted in his creator’s refusal to create a companion for him, the monster dedicates himself completely to that creator’s destruction. In the end, the creature tells Walton, ”I had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in the excess of my despair. Evil thenceforth became my good. Urged thus far, I had no choice but to adapt my nature to an element which I had willingly chosen” (Shelley, 1993: 239). In making this analogy, Shelley both justifies man’s refusal of God as an act of retribution against God’s seemingly turning his back on man as well as criticizes man for his own folly in assuming he could make such a refusal without paying a heavy price of his own.
With the advancement of the Industrial Revolution, mankind believed all things were possible and God was no longer necessary as a stabilizing influence in their lives. “The positivism of Auguste Comte proudly proclaimed the intention of science to invade all the dark areas of human knowledge and enlight a new man into an era free from religious obscurantism” (“The Myth of Frankenstein”, 2004). This is the sort of scientific attitude Shelley addressed in her novel as she places Frankenstein in the position of God and his creation in the position of Adam. However, rather than simply being a criticism of science, “Mary Shelley used science as a metaphor for any kind of irresponsible action and what she really was concerned with was the politics of the era” (Pamintuan, 2002). In her portrayal of the destruction of both science and creation, Shelley brings forward the importance of responsibility in science and the need for spiritual caution in developing new ideas. The concept she introduced into the general discussion of taking things too far, losing control of the situation because of trying to push too many boundaries all at once, has been applied to everything from science to religious doctrines to political policy in the years since the book was written.
Works Cited
Bushi, Ruth. “The Author is Become a Creator-God: The Deification of Creativity in Relation to Frankenstein.” Mary Shelley and Frankenstein. (2002).
Landow, George. “Charles Darwin.” The Victorian Web. (2006). Web.
“Myth of Frankenstein.” Five Minutes to Midnight. (2004).
Pamintuan, Tina. “’It’s Alive’: Frankenstein’s Monster and Modern Science.” Humanities. Vol. 23, N. 5, (2002).
Poovey, Mary. “’My Hideous Progeny’: The Lady and the Monster.” From The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1993.
“(The) Victorian Age.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2007.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not only a classic gothic novel and arguably one of the first examples of science fiction in modern literature but also a statement on many crucial social topics. Among the things, the novel implicitly refers to the age-old nature vs. nurture debate about whether one’s personality is defined by the inborn qualities or the upbringing one receives in the course of one’s life. The crucial figure of the Creature suggests that Shelley solves this issue in favor of nurture: while not inherently evil, it turns to revenge and murder as a result of unsuccessful interactions with humans.
Although the novel may seem to justify the idea that the Creature is inherently evil, this notion falls apart upon closer inspection. When describing his initial impressions of the Creature coming to life, Victor cannot – and, frankly, does not attempt – to hide the disgust at how it looks, even though he composed its body himself (Shelley 50). Moreover, when the Creature prostrates its arm forward, Victor immediately concludes that it does so “to detain” him (Shelley 50). Based on that, one could think that the Creature is evil from the start, but this assumption is plainly wrong. As the Creature itself later reveals, his soul initially “glowed with love and humanity,” and it came to his creator seeking nothing more than paternal love (Shelley 104). Even after his soul is hardened, it demonstrates self-restraint and does not attack Victor at will, even though it can easily overpower him. Martinović is right to note that, at its ‘birth,’ the Creature possesses a “childlike innocence” rather than inborn ill will (44). If anything, an attempt to represent it as evil from the start highlights Victor’s unreliability as a narrator.
In contrast, the novel offers plentiful evidence in favor of the Creature being shaped by experiences rather than inherited factors. If the Creature’s story is true – and, given the situation, it would hardly gain anything from lying to Victor – it attempted to be genuinely helpful at first but suffered rejection because of its appearance. Martinović points out that its interactions with de Laceys demonstrate both desire to help, as when it secretly gathers firewood for them, and the ability to feel remorse (45). The turning point of its relationship with humankind is the episode when it saves a drowning girl only to be shot instead of thanked. It is at that point that the Creature vows “eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” and becomes the monster Victor thought it to be from the very beginning (Shelley 155). Although the novel’s titular hero could use it as a retroactive justification for his initial rejection of the Creature, the text speaks to the contrary. The Creature’s cruelty, which eventually leads it to commit multiple murders out of revenge, is not inherited but caused by its interactions with humans.
As one can see, Frankenstein solves the old debate of nature vs. nurture quite decisively in favor of the latter. While Victor posits that the Creature is evil from the beginning, he is an unreliable narrator, and his depiction of the events is most likely a retroactive attempt to justify his actions – or lack thereof. In contrast, the Creature’s story demonstrates there was no inborn villainy in him, and it only became the monster after numerous negative experiences overcame its initially benevolent predisposition toward humanity.
Works Cited
Martinović, Nera. “Nature vs. Nurture in the Case of the Monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.” Kick: Students’ Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, 2019, pp. 41-46.
The story introduced by Mary Shelley at the beginning of the 19th century continues to provoke the minds of modern readers. Her Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus shows how the progress of science may contradict most ethical beliefs and interpersonal relationships. The ambiguity of the conditions under which the Monster was created makes people think about the causes and effects of scientific cruelty and unpredictability. Although Victor Frankenstein seems to be responsible for the wretch’s behavior due to his egoism, departure, and fears, the impact of the creature’s individuality cannot be ignored in the story.
Despite his intention to prove the worth of the experiment, Victor Frankenstein is one of the most selfish characters whose ambitions explain the wretch’s behavior. His “violent” temper and “vehement” passions explain the desire to study but “not to learn all things indiscriminately” (Shelley 20). When he achieved the goal and created a new being, “breathless horror and disgust” filled his heart (Shelley 35). Victor was seized with egoism and the inability to accept his mistake and improve the consequences. His selfish attitude toward the creature makes the reader feel sorry for the latter, proving the role of the scientist and underlying the level of responsibility.
The relationships between Victor and the creature are similar to those between parents and children. Since childhood, Victor enjoyed his parents’ attention and support and prioritized his recognition pursuits first. He admitted that his parents “were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence” (Shelley 19). Thus, he was aware of the impact of parents on the child’s development, but he preferred to leave the creature instead of offering his care. A child without guidance cannot grow normally, and similar damage is evident in the wretch’s behavior, verifying Victor’s mistakes as a parent.
Finally, the roots of the creature’s murders can be traced back to the fears that Victor was unable to control. Although he took many successful scientific steps, Victor neglected the worth of ethics and humanity in the experiment. With time, he recognized his mistakes when he “hurried on with irregular steps, not daring to look about” because his “heart palpitated in the sickness of fear” (Shelley 37). Unfortunately, Victor did not try to change something, which led to the wretch being exposed to society.
At the same time, one might believe that Victor should not be the only one responsible for cruel behaviors in the story. According to Sarkar, the creature was “violently rejected” in all his attempts to join a society, showing the worth of the external environment in human development (115). However, if the creature took such steps, he could make some decisions and understand his choices. When he addressed Victor for help, he had certain reasons and evaluations. He believed he was “benevolent and good,” but “misery made” him a “fiend” (Shelley 70). Thus, he is a rational creature who is able to think, conclude, and take responsibility for his wretched behaviors.
In conclusion, understanding the level of responsibility for the wretch’s behavior in Frankenstein may be based on several aspects. On the one hand, Victor is the scientist who should control and evaluate the situation from its beginning till the end. His selfishness, departure, and fears are not the best examples for the creature to follow and grow normally. On the other hand, Shelley introduced the creature as a constantly developing character. Thus, its contributions and decisions have to be recognized. In this story, the wretch cannot be treated univocally because of the presence of multiple internal and external factors.
Works Cited
Sarkar, Proshanta. “Rise and Fall of the Monster: A Study of Inequality and Social Madness in Frankenstein.” New Literaria, vol. 1, no. 1, 2020, pp. 115-121.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin. Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. EBD, 1994.
Mary Shelley’s story of Frankenstein and the monster remains one of our contemporary myths. This study reviews this myth by analyzing its history in literature in the pre-film times, beginning with an examination of the strings of meaning arising out of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in respect of the political “monstrosity” images occasioned by the French Revolution.
Baldrick goes on to trace the erratic makeovers of the myth in the imaginary tales of Lawrence, Hoffmann, Melville, Hawthorne, Conrad, and Dickens, as well as in writings of Carlyle and Marx (12).
Discussion
Monstrosity, according to Baldrick, is to be construed as that was regularly applied as a figure of a specific vice or transgression (13). And when the monster is the king, the quintessence of regal/imperial power whose sanctions or privileges drew expressly from a celestial source, the moral lesson offers even much more fascinating consequences, since a monster-king almost entirely appears as a symbol of God’s trial for the sins and mistakes of a nation or country (14-15).
Baldrick further establishes that “the representation of fearful transgression, in the figure of physical deformity, arises as a variant of that venerable cliché of political discourse, the body politic” (14). He also goes on to contend that in such cases where political turmoil and revolt appear, the ‘body’ is said to be sickly, unproductive, and distorted/ deformed monstrous (15).
In addition, Baldrick concedes that as the state is put in jeopardy to such an extent that it can no longer be reasonably associated with a central and hallowed totality (that is ‘the king’s body’), then the “humanity recognizable form of the body politic is lost, dispersed into a chaos of dismembered and contending organs” (14).
Lack of appreciation is a monster that relates to another element of monstrosity, and Baldrick stresses that it is the “vices of ingratitude, rebellion, and disobedience, particularly towards parents, that most commonly attract the appellation ‘monstrous’: to be a monster is to break the natural bonds of obligation towards blood-relation” (13).
In Frankenstein, therefore, the most notable attribute of the association between the creator and the creature is insurgency, resistance, or disobedience, regardless of how much it can be reasonable.
Baldrick’s ‘In Frankenstein’s Shadow’ is an indispensable input to what is promptly gaining primacy as decisive and learned compromise regarding the integral nature of Mary Shelly’s narrative to the comprehension of the two concepts of the Romantic ‘spirit of the age’ and of mythical modernism (15).
Baldrick convincingly explores and analyzes the extent to which the ‘myth of modernism’ and Shelly’s discourse permeated the 1800s, particularly in England, France, and Germany.
It is to be appreciated here. Thus, that of significance is affectionate, motherly, and fostering presence in the rearing of a child. Mastery of language and a myriad of emotions, and isolation and lack of motherly or relational love and care alter personality into a real monstrous self (24).
The damage and waste occasioned by the constant fights between the creator and the creature have been construed as a warning of the imminent dangers of contemporary science.
Aims and objectives of the book under review
In his new and fascinating book, Chris Baldrick (1987) reviews the importance of monstrosity in respect of the 1800s writings with a concentration on the significance of monstrosity in the context of the nineteen-century writing, focusing on the classification of Frankenstein as a myth.
In fact, Baldrick succeeds in impressing upon us the contention or assertion that “in modern usage, ‘monster’ means something frighteningly unnatural or of enormous dimensions” (10).
Conversely, prior usages which persist to the 1800s, the term ‘monster’ was associated with such implications/undertones which were both physical and obviously moral and as Baldrick contends, the ultimate goal is: “to reveal the results of vice, folly, and unreason visibly, as a warning to erring humanity” (10).
In this, he succeeds by comparing colonialism and imperialism to the monster, which was created by humans but which has finally turned against them.
He goes on to propose that, in general, sense, it is worth appreciating that the monster is “one who has far transgressed the bounds of nature as to become a moral advertisement” (12). Therefore, one who disobeys authority is a monster.
Critique
In spite of the wits and lots of significance that Baldrick’s review project, it is pretty obvious that he fails to invoke other writers’ ideas in expounding on the subject. Notable here is his failure to refer to Richard III, yet this is an excellent resource worth being consulted.
Therefore, my belief is that the story/drama maintains reasonable associations with the skeptic’s contentions, in which Richard III appears to provide a connection in the main chain of the handling of monstrosity resulting in the theoretical framework which appears in Frankenstein.
From a conflict perspective, therefore, the monster here stands for the industrial working class, the fodder of the owners of the means, the obliteration of the body politic by the masses during the French Revolution, and a dystopia born of excessively massive growth in population (16).
Baldrick’s view of both the monster and the intended companion as subalterns and less human is central to the process and practice of colonization and the whole concept of imperialism, in which the colonial master is powerful and superior compared to the powerless and inferior servant/slave. The novel further generates, unexpectedly, patriarchal anxiety arising from the fact that the author, Shelly, is a woman (45).
Though the completion of this novel might have gained the impetus from the desires of both Mary and her husband, such other factors as debates between the vitalism and materialism school of thoughts might also have motivated the completion.
Conclusion
The central thesis of the book is an actual nightmare of being held up in a monster that is disturbed by its own image on top of being frowned at, shunned and avoided by the society, qualify as a social repugnant.
This novel essentially proposes to the contemporary reader to rethink the position and propositions of science, especially in view of such controversial subjects as genetic engineering and other areas where modern technology is highly appropriated. The book also succeeds in impressing upon us the need to reconsider the association we have with our own body and its association with the universe.
This Baldrick proposes to be done by questioning the preconceived viewpoints of aesthetics, especially the manner in which the creature is shunned by the society by virtue of its physical appearance. Finally, Baldrick reveals that the myth’s most influential associations have “centered on human relationships, the family, work, and politics” (33).
While many people may tend to blame the ‘monster’ of the story for the murders that occurred within the Frankenstein family line, it seems clear that the true murderer was none other than Victor Frankenstein himself. It requires only basic knowledge in Florida state law and modern psychology to realize that Frankenstein is guilty of first degree murder, meaning any reasonably educated person would come to this conclusion. Florida law code XLVI provides its definition of murder under Crimes chapter 782; Homicide. Code 782.04 defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being … 2) When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate any” of a number of conditions. Frankenstein’s crime falls under conditions (k) and (q). Condition (k) states “unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device or bomb” while condition (q) states “felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism.” As a careful study of the case will reveal, Frankenstein did knowingly and willingly discharge a destructive device into an innocent and unprepared public in creating and then releasing his monster. He also knowingly and willingly committed an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism in deliberately goading the monster into further acts of evil without finding any means of neutralizing him. As a reasonably educated person, I intend to prove that Victor Frankenstein is guilty of first degree murder under Florida law.
First, Victor Frankenstein deliberately committed an act in furtherance of terrorism in continuing to pursue his line of scientific inquiry. He has received a number of warnings from many of his professors regarding his unnatural studies, but continued to pursue them regardless. According to Professor Krempe at the University of Ingolstadt, “The ancient teachers of this science … promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera” (Shelley, 1993: 40). Victor knew his studies were taking him into realms that would terrorize others if they knew, but admits that he continued in studies that “forced [him] to spend days and nights in vaults and charnel-houses. My attention was fixed upon every object the most insupportable to the delicacy of the human feelings” (45) while “my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature” (49). Despite the warnings Frankenstein had been given about his study and its potential to unleash unlawful havoc upon society, the doctor continues to work on the creature he had started until the living monster stood facing him.
Frankenstein would like us to believe that it was only at this point that he recognized the monster as hideous, but then he willingly and unlawfully discharged this potentially dangerous creation of his upon the unsuspecting world. Without even getting to know what might be accomplished with the monster, as it seems to have originally had a very sweet and gentle nature, Frankenstein rejects it in every possible way, providing it with no means of avoiding trouble. Speaking for himself, the monster has indicated that it lived peacefully if isolated in a shed of the De Lacey home, slowly gaining knowledge of the world it should have acquired from its maker. “My spirits were elevated by the enchanting appearance of nature; the past was blotted from my memory, the present was tranquil, and the future gilded by bright rays of hope and anticipations of joy” (119). Unfortunately, his experience in this outer world, one in which his appearance continuously and consistently inspires terror and violence, pushes the creature into a corner in which he has no options but to commit the acts of murder within the Frankenstein family. As the creation told Walton on the ice, ”I had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in the excess of my despair. Evil thenceforth became my good. Urged thus far, I had no choice but to adapt my nature” (239). From a psychological point of view, Frankenstein’s absolute refusal to help alleviate the creation’s crushing loneliness is analogous to igniting the fuse and was every bit as conscious.
Frankenstein, having created something so hideous he can’t bear himself to look upon it, abandons his creation and allows it to enter the world unprotected, uncared for and misunderstood at every turn, thus discharging a deadly weapon into the world. More than this, Frankenstein refused to give the creature any aid designed to neutralize the creation’s deadliness. Knowing that the monster intended to cause yet more destruction in the world and who the monster was likely to target, Frankenstein’s deliberate refusal to do anything to help his creation comprises another instance of contributing to an act of terrorism. Although he had the moral responsibility to contain his creation and the ethical responsibility to ensure it was given proper care and treatment, Frankenstein washed his hands completely of it in full knowledge of its destructive capabilities. This fulfills the definition of first-degree murder under Florida state law 782.04k. Having been warned of the dangerous nature of his creation and creating it anyway and then knowing the intentions of the creation and doing nothing to stop it fulfills the definition of murder under Florida state law 782.04q. Either one alone would be sufficient to convict Victor Frankenstein of murder.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. The Essential Frankenstein. Leonard Wolf (Ed.). New York: Simon & Schuester, 2004.
Mary Shelley’s epic novel Frankenstein is one of the key texts in contemporary literature as it explores the possibilities of human scientific advances. The book is full of tragedy, and this may have resulted from the difficult life that the author lived in her childhood. The novel is dark and gripping, and it is an illustration of the depraved state of human beings. Frankenstein is a story full of tragedy.
The Tragedy of Victor Frankenstein
The novel begins in Geneva, Switzerland, with the youthful Victor Frankenstein, his adopted sister, as well as his mother and father. The life of Victor depicts the first tragedy in the novel. The tragedy of Victor is seen due to his loneliness and struggle with the world on his own.
His tragedy was a tragedy of fulfilling the wishes of his parents, even if he did not want to. Regarding him as a toy, his parents perceived that he “was in their hands to direct to misery or happiness” (Shelley, 34). Victor’s childhood was full of miseries, and this subconsciously made him desire to have somebody he could control as he wished. More so, his parents failed to instruct him on how to differentiate between what is right and wrong.
This failure led to the second tragedy in the novel: the creation of the monster. Victor had a keen interest in Natural Philosophy and Chemistry, and he went to school in the town of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, Germany, where he created the monster.
Despite his desire to have someone to control, he was unable to exercise authority on the monster because it was another living being who could make its own decisions. The monster was a ‘dream come true’ to him, but it brought more tragedy than he had anticipated. Because Victor did not think about the scientific consequences of his actions, this dramatically changes the mood of the novel as the new ‘being’ creates havoc throughout the story.
In the creation, he did not consider the previous warnings by various scientific experts that not paying attention to all the aspects of scientific discovery is detrimental. Once the monster knew how to read, write, and think critically, it brought tragedy to its creator as well as to other humans.
Another tragedy in the novel appertains to the difficulties that faced Victor and his family after the creation of the monster. Soon, his younger brother is brutally killed, and he is forced to go back home.
Upon reaching, he again comes face to face with the creature. The monster enters into a bitter argument with Victor and gives him a terrible request to create another ‘being’ to be his friend. Otherwise, it will not leave his family and mankind alone. The creature tells Victor that he will not relent until it gets rid of him and all his family members.
Conclusion
The tragedies in the novel took place in a chain reaction. Victor’s parents neglected to teach him morality, and he went ahead and created a being that caused chaos throughout the story. The monster was Victor’s puppet. On the other hand, Victor was his parents’ puppet. The lack of responsibility from both sides is what caused chaos in the story. Thus, the story of tragedy reveals that one evil generates another evil.
Literature has been used as a tool by different authors to analyze human actions in many societies. From fiction to nonfiction books, writers use literature to explain various activities that involve human beings.
Literature offers an individual the opportunity to reflect on society in a way that is not confrontational. Although novels are always categorized as fiction, authors of these stories always draw their examples from society. Such books are always based on what transpired in the lives of authors. Conversely, novels are always recollections of people’s experiences in life.
Frankenstein is a piece of literature that brings out different societies in different countries. Narrated in the first person, the book provides readers with a picture of a normal family set up. The adoption of children is common in various societies in Europe.
The author has successfully managed to bring out world realities through a piece of literature. This story is based on the societal set up of Geneva, Swaziland. Although the author briefly introduces us to other countries in Europe, such as France and Italy, the attention shifts to the city of Geneva.
This article discusses the role of the family and education in society. It narrows down to evaluate how education and the family affect the life of Frankenstein. It is noted that the two aspects are the major socializing agents. The family is the primary socializing agent while the school is the secondary socializing agent. In modern society, the family is losing its primary role of socialization to education. This is clearly brought out in the life of Frankenstein.
Role of Family in Frankenstein
In the story, the family serves as one of the major socializing agents in society. The writer shows that a child acquires societal norms and values through family members. Societal norms and principles are significant since they allow a child to interact freely with other members of society.
The writer demonstrates that through the family, normative components of culture are transferred from the older members of society to the young ones. The child and other members of the family are able to develop capacities that would generate creative thoughts. These thoughts would permit the child and members of the family to respond appropriately to various situations and events in life.
Through the family, children are able to learn how to relate with parents, their future partners, other members of society, as well as their youngsters. The writer shows that the family is the basic socializing agent in society. Frankenstein confirms that children are capable of relating to society through the family. In case a child fails to interact with society, the community would face challenges associated with formlessness.
The role of love in the family is an additional theme that can be depicted in the story. The author observes that the family is charged with the responsibility of uniting society. The society should acknowledge, accept, and appreciate each individual in society. Frankenstein illustrates that family love is fundamental in human life.
The writer argues that marital love means a lot as opposed to feelings and sexual expressions. The author illustrates that family love is a gift that is characterized by harmony and faithfulness. In the story, the family plays a big role in regulating sexual activity. It is frequently expected that sex relationships occur in some sort of marriage association. Such relationships are regularized through some social rules.
Therefore, a family has some significant responsibilities regarding sexual relations. Sex should take place within a standardized setting. Just like in any other society, the family in Frankenstein’s story exists to provide financial support to other members of the family. In the story, this takes a different form. The family gives each member some form of support to empower him/her economically.
Finally, the family exists to satisfy emotional needs regarding love and safety. In the story, most individuals depend on their families for emotional support. In the story, relatives loath children, but they do not stop loving them. The feelings of such children are dreadfully perplexed by the treatment they get meaning that the family is the major caregiver in society.
Role of Education in the Story
Education is vital to an individual’s success in society. This is according to the writer. School offers individuals an opportunity to sharpen their skills, which would further prepare them physically, emotionally, and socially for the world of work in mature commitments.
Through education, society can maintain a strong community that can actually produce health care experts, knowledgeable healthcare clients, and maintains a healthy populace. The author claims that without an educated population, society cannot develop either socio-culturally or politically.
It can be observed that education plays an important role in regards to storage and transmission of knowledge. This would mean that school is responsible for keeping knowledge safely and dispensing it to those who need it. Through published books and journals, learners can access what others have invented in various fields. In the story, the writer observes that scientists publish an article regarding their findings.
Such publications are vital in distributing ideas in society. Scientists are always supposed to publish their works for others to review. However, in the field of technology, findings are not made public because such findings are utilized in developing valuable goods. Scientific findings are made public because they aim at educating the population while a technological finding is kept secret because it is a resource. It is not surprising that individuals seek patents immediately. They come up with certain technologies.
In Frankenstein’s story, education plays a role as regards status ascendancy. Education is one of the few legitimate means that beneficiaries may utilize to improve their status rankings in society. Schooling facilitates mobility within occupational or political rankings.
Education offers an individual with an opportunity to shift from one social status to another. The writer tries to express that education diversifies an individual’s chances in life. The writer of the story underscores the fact that education is the solution to various problems afflicting society. Through education, good traditions, principles, and awareness against inhumane practices such as violence, dishonesty, and infections are enhanced.
Through analyzing the story, it can be observed that education is an important aspect of human life. It transforms an individual to enjoy advanced life in collective well-being. It equips people with desired attributes that are essential in leading decent lives. In the story, it can be reported that education molds an individual’s behavior. Individual personality benefits from the positive transformation that facilitates interactive fluency and social appeal. In the story, educated persons do not pose threats to others.
Instead, individuals act as social magnates and social glue, which means that they attract others. Earning a professional award in education prepares an individual to participate and contribute to organizations, corporations, and associations. In the story, therefore, education offers individuals with the power to move on and do things constructively. Education provides an individual with various perspectives. A learned person will always have alternative plans in life.
The Effects of Education and Family
Frankenstein was keen to acquire knowledge from his teachers in school. He was convinced that it was only through education that one would understand the world. In this case, the writer believed that education increased an individual’s orientation to the world. From what the author says, it was his interest to ensure that knowledge offered in class remained in his memories.
He says: “I took their word for all that they averred, and I became their disciple” (Wilke and Hurt 21). The author also notes with regrets that the father was not a scientist and, therefore, he could not be in a position to help him interpret scientific subjects. His determination to acquire formal education saw him secure admission to the University of Ingolstadt.
The parents inspired him through encouragement. Indeed, the presence of Elizabeth was comforting. However, as Frankenstein was about to join the University of Ingolstadt, Elizabeth fell sick. His mother had to take care of her. Unfortunately, the mother contracted a similar complication that would later kill her.
This was very devastating. She had been a driving force to his ambitions in life. The reality that he would live without her was itself a monster. He was to go to the school that was some miles away from home. It would be much better if the mother was still alive. He would have some hope of seeing her when he would visit during recess. However, he was sure that the mother was no more.
He decided to go for a pure science course at the university. He had developed a special interest in chemistry. He believed that chemistry was the best subject. While in school, memories of his family at home preoccupied his mind. He could imagine Elizabeth and other family members sharing meals. However, the oppression caused by her mother’s death left him with injuries to the extent that he could not live peacefully.
He loved the mother and could not believe that she was gone. Such memories would affect his studies and socialization. Sometimes, he could not avoid them, especially when he faced hardships in school. The mother was his source of strength during such hardships. Her absence was a reality that Frankenstein had to take time to accept. The family he left had been the only consolation. He felt that the world was empty without his close relatives. Therefore, one may say that the family has a strong influence on an individual’s life.
It is evident that the family ties strongly affected the life of Frankenstein throughout his life in school. Although he was keen to gain knowledge from this university, he could not avoid a nostalgic mood when his memories flashed back to his family at home. From the story, it is true that, though Frankenstein appreciated education, family ties affected his concentration. Therefore, education and family ties are two things that are closely related. An individual can only perform well in school when he/she has a settled mind.
Works Cited
Wilke, Brian and Hurt, James. Literature of the Western World Volume II. 5th ed. New York: prentice Hall, 2000. Print.