Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus can throw light on various ethical aspects’ of people’s behavior. For example, one can speak about the responsibility that scientists should take for the long-term implications of their actions. This literary work produces a strong impression on many readers, in part because the author is able to create a memorable character who commits various atrocious acts. He is often described as the Monster by the narrator; nevertheless, readers should ask who the real monster is.
In this novel, Mary Shelley focuses on the concept of free will as well as the forces that shape the moral choices of a person. This is the main theme that the writer explores; in this way, she prompts the readers to think about the causes of misfortunes that struck many innocent people. Overall, Mary Shelley strives to show that despite the horrendous acts of the creature, he deserves compassion; moreover, one can say that Victor Frankenstein, who breathed life into this creature, acts much more cruelly because he does not even think about the suffering that he unintentionally causes. This is the main thesis that should be discussed in greater detail.
The author lays stress on the despair and helplessness of the monster created by Victor Frankenstein. In order to illustrate his experience, one can look at the following quote, “It was dark when I awoke; I felt cold also, and half frightened, as it were, instinctively, finding myself so desolate” (Shelley 129). Overall, some literary critics argue that the life of this monster can be described as the failed quest for “social sympathy” (Britton 3). The main problem is that other people perceive him only as the Monster that does not have the inner world. Thus treatment is probably the main reason why he accepts evil an inseparable part of human life. Moreover, he does not understand that other people do not deserve his cruel treatment. The narrative constructed by Mary Shelley shows how this lack of sympathy transforms the creature. This is one of the issues that should be identified because it is important for understanding the subsequent actions of this monster and his attitudes toward other people.
Additionally, one should keep in mind that this character does not intend to harm other people, before he encounters the cruelty of the society. In fact, this idea seems to be unacceptable to him. More importantly, one can speak about his willingness to help a family struck by hardships. Only when his assistance is rejected by other people, the monster becomes frustrated. This is one of the reasons why he says, “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on” (Shelley 243). Moreover, he begins to search for the person who exposed him to suffering. One should keep in mind these feelings go unnoticed by other people. Victor Frankenstein does not even admit that this creature is capable of feeling. This issue can be important for evaluating the actions of the main characters. Moreover, it is vital for the discussion of ethical questions raised by Mary Shelley.
Apart from that, one should speak about the behavior of Victor Frankenstein. This person enjoys the ideas of conquering nature. This character thinks that he “will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.” (Shelley 243). Nevertheless, this person is horrified by the monster as soon as he sees him. More importantly, he avoids thinking about the life of this monster. The destiny of this creature is of no concern to him. Therefore, one can say that that Victor Frankenstein is an irresponsible person who does not think about the implications of his actions. This is one of the issues that should not be overlooked. It should be mentioned Mary Shelley’s novel is often used for the discussion of such issues as social responsibility and scientific ethics (Hammond 190).
To a great extent, this novel provides many valuable lessons to people who perceive themselves as creators. To some degree, this argument can be relevant to parents who need to ensure the development of their children. In turn, Victor Frankenstein does consider this issue; in fact, he tries to turn a blind eye to it. Moreover, when this character thinks about the actions of his creature, he becomes mostly concerned with the idea of revenge. Nevertheless, it does not occur to this person that he could have contributed to the tragic outcome. This is the main moral flaw of this person whose intelligence does not enable him to feel empathy for his creature. Therefore, this individual can be regarded as the main villain of the novel, even though he continuously speaks about his good intentions.
Admittedly, one can argue that the actions of the monster cannot be exonerated; moreover, one cannot shift the blame only onto Victor Frankenstein. One should keep in mind that the monster murders many innocent people. For instance, one can mention William, Clerval, or Justine. Moreover, this people did not harm to him in any way. Mary Shelley does not deny the importance of free will. Thus, an individual should concentrate on his/her moral choices. This is one of the details should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that this character could be compared to a clean slate at the time when he was brought into existence.
During his life, he encountered mostly cruelty, and he learned to take it for granted. However, the possibility was completely overlooked by Victor Frankenstein who did not even think about the risk. This is why he does not understand why this monster can harm innocent people. These examples are important for the analysis of the ethical issues raised by Mary Shelley. The author is able to illustrate conflicting viewpoints on the nature of people’s moral choices. Moreover, the author strives to show that sympathy is critical for an individual, and it is essential for his/her socialization; otherwise, he/she may come to the conclusion that cruelty can be something acceptable. The main problem is that Victor Frankenstein’s creature was denied empathy. This is one of the details that should be considered.
On the whole, this discussion shows that Mary Shelley’s novel illustrates a variety of ethical problems such as the responsibility of the creator and free will. The author demonstrates that the monster created by Victor Frankenstein deserves compassion because from the day of his birth, he was exposed to suffering. Moreover, Victor Frankenstein can be regarded as a careless individual who does not want to think about the consequences of his actions. Moreover, the protagonist cannot accept the idea that he contributed the tragic outcome. These are the main details that can be distinguished.
Works Cited
Britton, Jeanne. “Novelistic Sympathy in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Studies in Romanticism 48.1 (2009): 3-22. ProQuest. Web.
Hammond, Kim. “Monsters of Modernity: Frankenstein and Modern Environmentalism.” Cultural Geographies 11.2 (2004): 181-98. ProQuest. Web.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein, New York, NY: Broadview Press, 1999. Print.
The role of science in the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley has been disputed by many scholars. Critics tried to consider the problem from different perspective stressing on the nature, science and human being. It should be mentioned that much research of the novel is based on the contemporary knowledge of the end of the 20th century.
The scientists were interested in the possibility of the relation of the novel to the real scientific issues even though much time has passed from the time of the novel writing and many discoveries were made.
One of the main reasons for considering the connection between Frankenstein with science remains emergence of the synthetic biology along with life and non-life, the natural and the artificial, and even the material and the informational (Belt 257). All these aspects impacted the desire to reconsider the novel from an absolutely new perspective which could not be dwelt upon before the real signs of the problems have not emerged.
The notion of the synthetic biology is defined by the engineering where the organism cells are used for creating a life from scratch applying to the innovative technologies. One of the main goals of this science is to make sure that people are able to control the life like they are able to control their machines.
Much attention is paid to the problem in the modern world and many scientists who want to succeed in the sphere refer to Mary Shelley’s gothic novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. The introduction to the novel sounds as following, “Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world” (Shelley 2007, p. 9).
Van den Belt (2009) is sure that the discussion of the Frankenstein wihing the scientific light began possible when people developed a desire to play the role of God by means of creating a life synthetically. Cloning is one of the departments of the scientific ideas which may be also considered within the novel. The contemporary advances in the life sciences allow critics to view Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein from another perspective, analyzing each thought and idea developed in the novel (McCall 2011).
The connection of Frankenstein with science may be considered from different perspectives, however, the problem of gender and the ability to give birth as the scientific aspects are closely interconnected with the problem of feminism in the novel. Many scientists and scholars tried to view the problem of the connection between Frankenstein and science from the perspective of the feminist vision as the novel is written by a woman.
Banerjee states that “Frankenstein does bring into play the theme of reproductive creation through images that evoke female reproductive experiences” (Banerjee 2011, p. 5). Reading the episode when Frankenstein emerges, the process of “gestation and birthing on the scientist” my be considered who undergoes “midnight labours,” faints, grows “pale” and “emaciated with confinement,” and suffers from “nervous fever,” “anxiety and mental agitation” (Banerjee 2011, p. 5).
“Now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 2007, p. 56) is the phrase which was the starting one for the discussion about the scientific nature of the novel. Trying to justify the scientific idea in the novel and its positive impact on the world of science, Bizony (2009) provided many arguments. It should be stated that the consideration of Frankenstein as something unnatural is a usual vision of this hero.
Still, Bizony (2009) stated that medicine has always been considered as something unnatural as only due to drugs and neither medical intrusion many people continue living and enjoy life. Frankenstein is cannot be compared with medical effect, however, he should not be considered as someone unnatural. Therefore, this is one more argument in favor of connecting between Frankenstein and science.
Many scientists are dreaming of creating a person without a man and a woman as the main participants of the process of birth. Such scientific ideas are numerous and Mary Shelley made an attempt to show what is going to happen if such a monster is going to be created in the scientific world.
She “offers a philosophical nightmare revealing the horrific consequences of methodological naturalism taken to its logical conclusion” (Hogsette 2011, p. 531) and presents the possible results of the scientific experiments. Scientists do not want to create a monster, however, they are interested in creating someone who is not born as usual people. The story in Frankenstein describes the result which may be trying to assure scientists that such approach is inappropriate.
Additionally, the novel is usually considered as the symbol of concerns people are to experience about the risks and danger of scientific experiments. The research should not be conducted in the sphere where the danger to human beings is observed. The novel by Shelley is a goods example of what may happen when the scientific ideas will become a reality (Hammond 2004).
Krischel (2011) agrees that the creation of the human being as discussed on the novel is inappropriate, however, he cannot reject the fact that the novel may be used as the Victorian science fiction with the reference to the use of electricity in medicine as it is described in the novel. The problem has been researched since 17th century.
Nowadays, it is possible to see a lot of medical equipment which applies to the use electricity for supporting human bodies living. It is impossible to say that he novel was the central factor in developing the research, there were other circumstances and arguments, however, the fact should not be rejected as well.
The research on electricity and its application continues until now. The time when the novel was written coincides with the time when the research began. Much attention was paid to the novel as to the source of inspiration, however, the scientists did not consider it as a science fiction seriously being aware of the author and her age. However, some ideas described in the novel had the scientific value, and who knows maybe some other aspects may become a part of scientific world (King & Knellwolf 2008,)
Frankenstein by Shelley is an example of the attitude of the society to the scientific research. Even though the research is necessary and it must be present as the contemporary world is constantly developing and changing and innovation is a part of this process, social opinion is to be considered as the cultural and other vision of the world may cause the contradiction to scientific discovery (Turney 2000).
Reference List
Banerjee, S 2011, ‘Home is Where Mamma Is: Reframing the Science Question in Frankenstein’, Women’s Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1-22.
Bizony, P 2009, ‘Frankenstein reclaimed’, Engineering & Technology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 82-85.
Hammond, K 2004, ‘Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism’, Cultural Geographies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 181-198.
Hogsette, DS 2011, ‘Metaphysical Intersections in Frankenstein: Mary Shelley’s Theistic Investigation of Scientific Materialism and Transgressive Autonomy’, Christianity & Literature, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 531-559.
King, CK & Knellwolf, C 2008, Frankenstein’s Science: Experimentation and Discovery in Romantic Culture, 1780-1830, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., New York.
Krischel, M 2011, ‘Electricity in 19th Century Medicine and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’, Auanews, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 20-21.
McCall, B 2011, ‘Frankenstein’s Science. Edited by Christa Knellwolf and Jane Goodall’, Heythrop Journal, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 332-333.
Shelley, M 2007, Frankenstein, Pearson Education, London.
Turney, J 2000, Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture, Yale University Press, Yale.
van den Belt, H 2009, ‘Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life’, Nanoethics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257-268.
The Romantic era of art and literature is a movement which started in Europe at the end of the 18th century, peaking around the time between 1800 and 1840. Its main proponents were keen on showing that emotion was a fundamental origin of all beauty, and in this regard, deep-seated feelings such as awe and apprehension were given new importance.
Because of this link with emotion, the era saw tradition and custom got regarded as noble and also made individuals interested in the artistic and literary fields of the time value spontaneity. The movement’s roots were in German but later spread to the rest of Europe in a bid to give prominence to emotion over enlightenment.
The Romantic era was mainly characterized by the room for free expression, which was permitted to artists of the time.
For all works of literature and art that defined the movement, creators drew inspiration from imagination, and were not required to shape their works around conventional rules set about the production of such material. During this period, originality was highly-rated and any works that borrowed ideas from the creations of other artists were shunned by the adherents of the movement.
In literature, the Romantic era was characterized by thematic revolution that revolved around criticizing the past. This movement held satire in low esteem terming it undeserving of critical attention. Some of the most renowned authors of the time were Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose main works centered around the occult.
Thomas Chatterton was the first poet to have his English works gain appreciation during the movement. Other notable authors of the period were James Macpherson, Walter Scott, Mary Shelley and Horace Walpole.
Mary Shelley and Frankenstein
Mary Shelley was born on August 30th 1797 to philosophers William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft. Her mother passed away eleven days after her birth, leaving Shelley and her two siblings under the care of her father and Mary Jane Clairnmont, her stepmother.
Godwin, being rooted in political philosophy, made it a point to take all his children through an informal education system that emphasized on his liberal political theories. Aged 17, Mary entered into a relationship with Percy Bysshe Shelley, a keen follower of her father’s ideologies who was also married. The two got married two years later after Percy’s first wife Harriet killed herself.
In the same year, while spending her summer break in Switzerland, Mary came up with an idea for the novel Frankenstein. Percy supported her and together they dedicated most of their time to writing. Together with poet Lord Byron, they spent a lot of evenings discussing the experiments conducted by Erasmus Darwin and his concepts of giving life to a dead body and combining body parts to an alive being.
At the time, the popular myth in the area was that Darwin had actually managed to give motion to dead matter. This in combination with ideas from other ghost stories that the trio read while seating around a fire led Byron to suggest that each of them should write a supernatural tale.
Mary came up with Frankenstein. She had initially planned to have it as a short story but later, with Percy edging her on, she turned the story into a novel, Frankeinstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. The novel was published in 1818.
Imperialism has for a long time been associated with the British colonial government. Imperialism policy entailed the acquisition of colonies directly by the use of military actions. This was a strategic measure that Britain had adopted to bargain more political and economic dominance.
Summary and Review
Frankenstein, the book has a lot of controversies surrounding it. People perceive that Victor Frankenstein wrote it. Little is known about the original author, Mary Shelley. In 1816, while engaged in literacy and philosophy class, the author is compelled to write a ghost story that later formed the basis of the book. Since it is a ghost story, it is bewildering literature discussing supernatural power.
The book may have many topics, but the main topic of the article is “imperialism.” Spivak affirms that the story tries to explain the origin and the evolution of man in society. He, however, refutes this claim and argues “imperialism surfaces in a curiously powerful way in the novel” (263).
What the author sets out to do is to expound on the intensity of imperialism in the story. The author explicitly points out that there are rampant cases of what he terms as “incidental imperialist” feeling in the novel (Spivak 263). He argues that the novel is evident on the axiomatic of imperialism, and he feels compelled to explain it openly.
There are several themes in the novel, but the central questions that the article seeks to addresses are the roles of male and female individualism in the creation of a society. The author remains skeptical whether the axioms of male and female individualism will address the two perspectives of “subject-production” and “sexual reproduction” respectively.
The novel is not about gender individualization. Spivak iterated this point when he claimed that the “binary” misconception about male and female individualism is undone in Frankenstein’s experiment. He argues that if the experiment is anything to go by then the decision to give or deny the woman a phallus squarely lies on the man. On the contrary, the decision to give or deny the male a womb is the female’s fate. In saying this, the author seems to suggest that God is the unrivaled creator (Spivak 264).
Personal Engagement
My engagement with the text is that the book seems more of a metaphor. As the story unfolds, every piece of information appears to points out the colonization and conquest process that were witnessed in the mid 18th century. For instance, Shelley mentions the conquest of the Americas. Part of her text seems to insinuate the discovery of the landmass and the imminent colonization and slavery. She laments that (the monster) “heard of the discovery of the American hemisphere and wept with Safie (the Muslim-Christian character) over the helpless fate of its original inhabitants” (Spivak 266).
Henry Clerval emphasized the colonization process when he gave an analogy about India. He points out the economic exploitation that the subjects (Indians) witnessed in the colonial era. Spivak warns that the reason for the aggression of India by the European powers was purely for entrepreneurial purposes rather than for missionary activities.
My position towards the article is not far from the imperialism policy that was adopted by the master to colonize the subjects. The colonization process started through softer means like missionary activities. But later own it turns out to be exploitative and deleterious trading activities such as slavery.
The above argument makes sense because, in some parts of the text, Spivak mentions that the colonial master “turned his eyes” to the East as a potential market (265). Persians were well known for long-distance trading activities that involved slavery along the African coast.
On reading the book, one may not fail to realize that it has some contradictions, problems, and loopholes. The terms used in the creation story through the synthetic womb do not come out clearly. There is another contradiction; the story seems to suggest that man is the sole creator of society. Women are given a lesser role in the procreation process. The problem with the book is that the Frankenstein laboratory reduces God to a mere antagonist rather than a creator. As it was seen later, this created a standoff between the Muslims and Christians. For Christians, such arguments amount to dogmatic misconception.
Bibliography
Spivak, Gayatri. Frankenstein and Critique of Imperialism. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996. 263-266. Print.
When addressing the confrontation of science and humanity, a serious question arises: Is there a balance between the detriments caused by the science and its contributions to the welfare of society? At the present moment, it is seems to be an affirmative “no”. Sadly enough the creativity of science is often directed at the destruction of humankind. The creation of technology of mass destruction has become a veritable threat to human existence on the planet Earth. In this respect, the main goal of scientists was not to preserve [?] human existence and welfare but to reach their ambitions, which was explicitly illustrated in Kipphardt’s “In the Matter of J. R. Oppenheimer” and Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. The scientists depicted in both texts were deeply involved in scientific exploration that turned out to be disastrous for humanity. Hence, the scientific curiosity and narcissistic ambitions that drove them to formulate new discoveries hindered their realization of the deplorable consequences.
Both texts under consideration reveal moral and ethical contradictions as the result of scientific creation. In Kipphardt’s play, it is possible to pursue the development of Oppenheimer’s outlook on the value of the invention of the nuclear weapon. Being considered as the father of the atomic bomb, he was happy that the bomb was technically successful. He understood the role of the nuclear weapon as a means of protection but not as a means of mass destruction. The price of the scientific victory resulted in a complete devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Taking a deeper look at Kipphardt’s play, it is plain to see that Oppenheimer was initially against the design of the nuclear weapon. Looking at his brainchild through dark filters, he enjoyed this dangerous beauty and he did not even suspected that this invention could bring so many sufferings to people (Kipphardt 197, scene 1).
Main body
Dr. Frankenstein also accepted the priority of scientific and personal ambition over the ethical considerations and potential outcome. By creating the monster, Victor failed to consider the consequences for society and the fate of the Creature. His scientific curiosity and narcissistic ambitions prevailed over reason; his desire to overcome natural laws and to gain the power to create something that no one had managed to create before him. When describing his brainchild and his victory over the natural laws, Frankenstein says:
No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing as even Dante could not conceived (Shelley 40).
The connection of science and morality is one of the most complicated issues of our time, especially as both notions are considered mutually exclusive. All too often, scientific projects are created with the aim to gain power or recognition rather than benefitting society. In this respect, the scientific world and humanity are separated. When addressing Oppenheimer’s achievement, its real goal was nothing in comparison to the moral struggle the scientist witnessed after the war. He did not manage to reconcile those two opposite notions, as the atomic bomb creation was not morally approved. In his turn, Frankenstein did not take into account social interests at all thus paying attention to personal problems only.
It is necessary to admit that science have always depended on political issues, as numerous inventions have been created for political control. In this way, Oppenheimer’s nuclear weapon turned into a powerful tool for dictating the ideas where the political regime tried to subject the best minds of the scientific world. This is why Oppenheimer became the victim of the political collusion, which could be pursued in the play. When he realized that, he was involved into the political completion between two powerful countries. “Oppenheimer’s subsequent, tireless activity within the corridors of power, particularly his effort to prevent the design of the H-bomb…made him the symbol of the scientific community’s meddlesome presumption among dissenting element of military and national security apparatus” (Foster n. p.). In this way, the existed political regimes presented him as unconscious accomplice. In fact, Oppenheimer did want this bomb to be used; he himself declares that he was physicist, but politicians, or the military.
In contrast to Oppenheimer real case, the political issues are also represented in Shelley’s Frankenstein but different way. Investigating opposite meanings of the monster, which can be also comprehended as the image of terror in Gothic world, it is possible to refer to this notion allegorically and to accept this monster as the Hobbes’ political monster.
The eternal confrontation between science and nature has been always explained by natural curiosity and desire to oppose and to subject natural law. However, the analyzed texts show that controlling nature may turn out to be fatal for human race. Undoubtedly, both scientists achieved sensational advances in genetics and technology, but were they beneficial for society? It is a resounding no. Shelley’s fictional story accounts on how the scientist perceived the nature in that period and, judging on this, one could firmly state that science was the main enemy and the main tool for controlling the nature (Zwart 258). Frankenstein’s Creature is, thus, a calling to nature and Victors protest against the existed natural order. As for Oppenheimer, one day say that his invention enslaved nature and made it plead for mercy. The most striking thing in this story is that the bomb itself was alien to nature of science.
In both texts, the dialogue between science and theology also took place. Perhaps, the science-religion discourse is more vividly depicted in Kipphardt’s and Shelley’s works. In the course of development of science, since Oppenheimer explained his dismay by a phrase “science has known sin”, there appeared a tight dialogue between theology and science (McLaren 25). These opposite fields are united by one aspect – the faith in the creator and in the creation. Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, and Victor, as the creator of the monster, have faith only in their scientific power that can resist the divine laws.
The religious features were also presented in the literary works through the identification of both scientists with the Devil for whom humanity and mercy were not acceptable. Hence, Oppenheimer provided many comparisons with the Devil: “If the Devil himself were on the other side, one would have to reach an understanding with the Devil” (Kipphardt 259). But the only faith he has is that “in the ultimate power of common sense.” As for Frankenstein, there are much more issues on elaboration. In particular, both Victor and the monster can be compared with the fallen angels that failed to what humanity is and why science should be human. Throughout the text, one can witness different names for the Creature – the monster, the Devil – but not as human creature.
In the play, Oppenheimer stated, “one can have a scientific enthusiasm for a thing and, at the same time, as a human being, one can regard it with scientific horror” (Kipphardt 255). By this phrase, the creator of the atomic bomb explained the essence of science, which, sometime, did not imply that the scientist could be merciful as far as the epochal invention was concerned. In the matter of Frankenstein, his creation was absolutely deprived of humanity and usefulness for society; Victor, therefore, was also deprived of this feature, as he gave priority to his narcissistic ambitions. As a whole, both creations brought harm and death to society.
In the texts, it is possible to see how the scientists, finally, expressed their remorse concerning what they had done. Their realization and horror suffered by humans was carried out with the realization of another abhorrent thing – the distinction between science and destruction had been blurred. In this way, Oppenheimer and Frankenstein sacrificed human lives for the sake of scientific development that became as a kind of idol; science became their master where there is not place for humanity.
Conclusion
The mystery of discoveries and the miracle creation tempted Oppenheimer and Frankenstein who were tied to the chariot of their scientific exploration. They gained recognition and power; they made considerable contributions to the science but to the welfare of humanity. Pursuing the achievement of the scientist from different epochs, one could pursue that the confrontation of science and humanity are still on the world agenda.
Works Cited
Foster, Jacob. Love Among the Ruins. The Oxonian Review. 6.2 (2007). Web.
Kipphardt, In the matter J. R. Oppenheimer. Contemporary German Plays: The deputy. US: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001.
McLaren, Robert Bruce. Science and Contemporary Theology. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 22. 3. (1966): 25-27.
Shelley, Wollstonecraft Mary, and Butler, Marilyn. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. UK: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Zwardt, Hub. Understanding Nature: Case Studies in Comparative Epistemology. US: Springer, 2008.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein are distinguishing works related to science and indeed, they have several things in common in terms of how the authors used science (Shelley; Stevenson). Creating pure evil from a monster made by a decomposing body, apparently, two scientists did not know how science would turn into a “horrifying” experience. This essay examines the works of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein in providing messages about science and integrity, claiming that science is used as a tool for violence.
To begin with, the majority of the scientists that launched research did not see the studies completed as the comparison between the two scientists suggested. Dr. Jekyll, for example, finds Frankenstein’s numerous scientific experiments and observations fascinating despite his abandonment. Notably, both scientists’ initial reactions to creation are quite clear and obviously different. Another message that Frankenstein’s abandoning of a scientific experiment sends is that the domains of science and integrity have distinct demarcations and bounds. For example, Frankenstein says, “My dreams were therefore undisturbed by reality; and I entered with the greatest diligence into the search of the philosopher’s stone and the elixir of life.” (Shelley, 65). A “supernatural creature can only comprehend certain intrinsic concerns,” and competing with such powers will be terrifying in and of itself. After giving life to the “monster” Frankenstein made, a horrible creature, the phrase is valid.
There are selfish motivations regarding the scientific experience in both works. By the manner he exhibits his adoration and wonder of his new scientific discovery, Henry Jekyll, unlike Frankenstein, is motivated by a sense of power and overpowering depravity. He isn’t completely honest about his desire to make a human being to disprove other biblical claims. The way the two scientists approach their research reveals a lot about their personalities.
While both Jekyll and Hyde are enthused about their scientific research, Frankenstein decides to abandon his project, calling it a bad idea. In Jekyll and Hyde, it says, ““Utterson, I swear to God,” cried the doctor, “I swear to God I will never set eyes on him again. I bind my honor to you that I am done with him in this world. It is all at an end.”, showing the acknowledgment of his actions (Stevenson, 123). The other two scientists (Jekyll and Hyde) are shown as self-centered and egotistical, but Frankenstein is regarded as a man of integrity who is true to his ideals and objectives. Frankenstein is also more sorry for starting the experiment.
What is clear is the doctors’ lack of accountability for their carelessness resulted in innocent people’s deaths. Both Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll exhibit this lack of integrity by not telling the truth about the scope of their experiments and by obliterating the majority of the evidence of their respective scientific achievements. Some of the scientific experiments carried out by both Dr. Jekyll and Frankenstein are characterized by illogic and sheer evil. In the end, both scientists had to acknowledge that, despite their scientific knowledge and self-importance, they could not overcome some of life’s strange and incomprehensible conditions, such as creation.
The experiments help understand the scientific ideas and arguments prevalent in the nineteenth century. Frankenstein is forced to abandon his scientific studies on creation after realizing that he is breaking some laws of the cosmos and experimenting with the unknown. This lack of integrity is exemplified by the fact that both scientists overlook human nature in favor of conducting destructive and forceful experiments that rule their consciences. The thought of creating a superior creature engulfs their brains, and they act without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Every scientific investigation is, in essence, governed by extensive rules of ethics that are predicated on specific levels of integrity which was not followed in both works. All research scientists must follow these ethical guidelines as a condition of employment. Most of the ethical rules and integrity that govern scientific study are broken by Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll. Any breach of such integrity will have an impact on the results of the tests and the very spirit of research. When the two scientists fake evidence in order to get the desired result, their integrity is shattered. Instead of focusing on real and viable scientific discoveries, both Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll solely attempt to gratify personal desires and ego. The two scientists went beyond the ethical limitations of human scientific investigations in their missions to regulate human behavior and discover the secret of creation and life.
The effects are terrible, as evidenced by the two academics’ “questionable study,” revealing the horrifying nature of the science used. The two scientists, Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll, seriously jeopardized the integrity of the scientific study. Human experimentation is a violation of integrity and scientific norms, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Jekyll utilized himself as a subject in the experiment. The utilization of human cadavers by Frankenstein is also regarded as a complete breach of scientific integrity. Most of Frankenstein’s and Dr. Jekyll’s scientific experiments were conducted in secret, with willful disregard for the potential damage to society. This scientific research, in and of itself, should serve as an illustration of what happens when science’s integrity is questioned.
To conclude, the topics of science and integrity in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein are shown from a side of “horrifying” as both led to a terrible experience. There was a violation of ethics in science and it demonstrates what will happen if science is practiced by people who do not follow the code of conduct and ethics. As such, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein illustrate how science can be a great tool for violence.
Mankind’s quest for scientific knowledge is as old as civilization. Yet, never before in history have humans had such a profound impact on the natural environment as now. Frankenstein was written before the advent of the modern scientific enquiry. But it predicts and cautions against the pursuit of knowledge. The book repeatedly points out knowledge, instead of making our life happier, only makes it miserable. The book also points out that irresponsible behavior on the part of scientists could be extremely detrimental. This irresponsibility may be seen as a one off incident of a particularly maverick scientist by some critics. However, this paper argues that even the best intentioned and responsible acts of scientific enquiry can result in consequences which only passage of time can predict. Since humans can never really know what the consequences of their actions will be, it is always better to err on the side of caution. And Shelley’s tale tried to caution mankind long before humans started tinkering with nature. Yet we did not heed, and the ill affects of humans tinkering with nature are now becoming visible to mankind.
In her novel, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley presents the account of Dr. Victor Frankenstein and his quest for scientific knowledge in early nineteenth-century Europe. Frankenstein achieves his ambitions by giving life to an inanimate object; however, instead of feeling any elation at his achievement Frankenstein is filled with horror and dread. As a result, not only does Frankenstein suffer, but so too does his creation, the Monster. Shelley uses the anguish of both Frankenstein and the Monster to warn readers of the negative consequences of the pursuit of knowledge. In this sense, Frankenstein is a cautionary tale that demonstrates that the natural world, created with a purpose, functions in perfect harmony if left to itself; by breaking the laws of nature, mankind upsets this delicate balance and risks dire consequences.
The act of giving life to an inanimate object using unnatural means could be considered one of the greatest aims of scientific enquiry. Even in the twenty-first century, all research in this field remains at the cutting edge of technological innovation. However, for centuries, humans have endeavored to play God by trying to manipulate the forces of nature that were once beyond their control. The invention of the airplane is one example where humans have succeeded in a quest that was once deemed pure fantasy. But there are hundreds of other fields of inquiry where success has eluded scientists, even after centuries of study and experimentation. The creation of artificial life forms belongs in this latter group. In this sense, Frankenstein is an example of science fiction in that Dr. Frankenstein manages to create life artificially by applying a level of scientific expertise that is at present beyond human capabilities. However, he did not consider the consequences of his actions just as the scientists of the twenty-first century, in their rush to come up with groundbreaking inventions, do not consider the consequences of their actions, some of which may be extremely undesirable. This essay will also discuss some of the ill consequences of this mindless pursuit of scientific knowledge which are already becoming apparent.
Frankenstein could be considered merely a story of one particular scientist and his inability to handle such a massive moral responsibility. According to Lisa Nocks, the pursuit of scientific enquiry, such as cloning and genetic engineering, should not be condemned because “the human condition cries out for these improvements” (137). She argues that such science is noble and appropriate as it seeks to “extend and revive and improve human life” (137). However, although not all science should be condemned, and although a great deal of scientific inquiry actually benefits mankind, one cannot ignore the many ills generated by scientific research.
One such ill highlighted by Shelley in Frankenstein is the alienation of humans from society as they pursue scientific enquiry. While Frankenstein suffers the most from his invention, even the simple pursuit of knowledge causes both Frankenstein and the narrator, Robert Walton, mental, physical and emotional anguish. For Walton, the main source of anguish is that he is stuck in the frigid arctic ice and may neither be able to achieve the object of his pursuit, which is to reach the North Pole, nor be able to go back home. Walton had, in fact, subjected himself to physical anguish even before he embarked on his travel when he “voluntarily endured cold famine, thirst and want of sleep” as he prepared himself for the expedition (Shelley 8). Later, in Frankenstein’s narrative, we see that he too endures similar hardships and anguish in pursuit of his quest to give life to an inanimate object. During the pursuit of this scientific quest, Frankenstein neglects his own health, stops corresponding with his family and friends, and abandons all kinds of social life. And yet, as soon as he succeeds in his endeavor, he does not experience any joy: the horror at what he has created drives him to run away from his own creation. Thus, in their pursuit of knowledge, both characters relinquish simple worldly pleasures. An older and wiser Frankenstein later tries to caution Walton when he says “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind” (Shelley 33). Also, both Walton and Frankenstein find themselves lonely and companionless during the pursuit of their respective passions. Thus, Shelley tries to caution that the pursuit of knowledge must be balanced with other worldly pursuits; otherwise, it stands the risk of becoming unhealthy because such a single-minded obsession is unnatural for humans, who are generally accepted to be social creatures.
Another parallel between Frankenstein, Walton and the Monster is the psychological price they each pay for succeeding in their quest for knowledge. Spatt points out that all three suffer as a result of their knowledge and “yearn for a return to some mythic state of natural grace” (529). The monster laments that his sorrow has “increased with knowledge”, while Frankenstein feels that humans would be free of all hardships if their “impulses were confined to hunger, thirst and desire” (Shelley 81, 64). Walton too hopes to return to a more natural world. As Shelley repeatedly tries to convey to readers, humans do not need much more than food and water to be happy. In this sense, she likens humans to animals, which are content with their ignorance. The Monster may be leading a difficult life when he lacks knowledge. But the knowledge that he is unwelcome in human society, which he longs for after becoming aware of the virtues of companionship, renders him miserable. Thus, even for the Monster, who starts his life almost like an animal, advanced knowledge proves to be his downfall.
This unhealthy pursuit of knowledge also seems to attract mostly the young: both Walton and Frankenstein are youthful when they start their respective journeys. The young are most vulnerable perhaps because in their naivety and inexperience, they do not think through the consequences of their actions. As a man grows older and realizes that all actions have consequences, he becomes much more cautious. Such pattern is shown in the novel as the older and wiser Frankenstein tries to warn Walton of the dangers of unhealthy pursuits by stating “how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (Shelley 31). Here, Frankenstein suggests that there is a natural limit to what a man can achieve, and crossing that limit can bring unhappy consequences.
Another recurrent theme throughout the novel is the influence of the natural world on the psyche of the characters. In the initial pages, both Frankenstein and the Monster find comfort in nature’s beauty, but this apparent solace is set against their feelings when confronted with the unnatural creation of the Monster. For example, Frankenstein’s obsession with his pursuit results in his alienating himself from nature, a loss which causes him to fall ill. But, in the company of Henry, he soon regains his “strength from the salubrious air” (Shelley 43). Similarly, when the Monster first comes across the beauty of nature, it has the power to cheer him “by the loveliness of its sunshine and the balminess of the air” (Shelley 95). However, as the narrative progresses, nature’s ability to offer comfort progressively decreases. This shift is important because the unnatural act of creating the monster slowly comes to foreshadow all that was naturally intended until the unnatural completely consumes the natural. The natural world is juxtaposed with the unnatural to show the healing effects of the natural and the destructive effects of the unnatural.
After the Monster meets Frankenstein and tells him his story, we realize that Frankenstein’s mistake lies not only in creating the monster but also in not taking responsibility for his creation. In abandoning his creation, Frankenstein becomes even more to blame for the actions of the monster. By taking responsibility for his creation, he could perhaps mitigate to some extent the Monster’s miseries and make him less inclined to seek revenge on his maker. By creating a new life form, Frankenstein becomes God-like in the eyes of his creation, the Monster. The Monster compares himself to Adam, with whom he “was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence” (Shelley 87). However, unlike Adam, the Monster is not created a perfect creature and is not provided with any knowledge by his creator. And because mankind is so much happier than he can ever hope to become, the Monster is consumed with envy. Here, Shelley shows that, in the process of trying to create a new life form, Frankenstein unconsciously tries to become God, but unlike God, he is not perfect, and so his creation is more like Satan in that it is much more natural for the Monster to pursue evil than good.
In Frankenstein, Shelley also tries to show how obsessive behavior can completely destroy people and hence must be avoided. By the time the novel ends, both Frankenstein and the Monster are obsessed with each other and they only seem to live with the sole purpose of revenging one another. This is apparent from the fact that Frankenstein is constantly following the Monster, who is leading him on and actually ensuring that he never loses the track. As Frankenstein mentions, “he left marks in writing on the barks of the trees, or cut in stone, that guided me and instigated my fury” (Shelley 142). And when Frankenstein dies, the Monster feels that his “work is nearly complete” (Shelley 155) and resolves to die so that what he “now feel be no longer felt” (Shelley 156). Also, this obsessive behavior leads to Frankenstein and the Monster both hating themselves. As Frankenstein confesses, his life is “indeed hateful to me” (Shelley 142) and the Monster states that “your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself” (Shelley 155). This is an apt culmination to a story full of obsessive behaviors on the part of all the major characters. After being consumed with his obsession, Frankenstein tries to warn Walton against becoming fanatical about his pursuits. Yet, Frankenstein himself is unable to give up this obsession; only death can stop him from carrying out his vain pursuit. In these final pages, and indeed throughout the whole novel, Shelley repeatedly demonstrates that obsession of any kind is not natural for humans since it prevents them from enjoying the simpler pleasure of life.
Through this novel, Shelley warns scientists, and indeed all mankind, against the consequences of the thirst for knowledge, which drives humans to tinker with the natural order of things. Just as Frankenstein is alienated from the natural world as a result of his pursuit of knowledge, mankind is increasingly becoming alienated from nature as we rely more and more on the unnatural. Today’s scientists are becoming increasingly God-like in the way they try to manipulate even the building blocks of life: the genetic code and DNA structure. Cloning, for instance, has been a reality for some years. Despite all the precautions taken by scientists, no one can really predict the impact of human cloning on the survival of the species. Even ignoring the deep moral questions pertaining to human cloning, can we really guarantee that a being which is not really human but has all the human faculties will serve the best interests of human progress? The real reason why Frankenstein’s creation becomes a monster is his alienation from society combined with an innate superhuman force. A similar level of discrimination against cloned humans could turn even the best of scientists’ intentions on its head and trigger a new, desperate level of warfare for the survival of the human race.
Shelley’s novel also raises questions that can be applied to other commonly accepted scientific practices. Genetic engineering, for example, is still a relatively new science, but it has already been embraced wholesale by agribusiness. For years, genetically engineered foods were purported to be safe for human consumption. However, recent research has shown that the health risks of GM food are much greater than any benefits they may have. Anslow lists some of the experiments which highlight these health risks. A 1998 experiment on rats fed on blight-resistant GM potatoes “found damage to every single internal organ in rats” (Anslow 25). Another experiment on female rats fed herbicide resistant soybeans saw the rats give “birth to severely stunted offspring, of which half died within three weeks.” (Anslow 25). These experiments and many other prove that interfering in nature can never have positive results. By tinkering with nature, we may irreversibly damage the natural order of things, wrecking the delicate balance that cannot then be fixed by human intervention.
Nock’s argument in favor of continuing scientific research is that it is for the good of mankind. Much of the scientific research carried out to date was conducted with the well-being of mankind in mind. For example, the automobile was invented to make it easier for humans to travel from one place to another. The inventor of the motor car could never have imagined that, in just over a century, his invention would become a major contributor to pollution, global warming, the proliferation of seemingly endless suburbs, and a staggering annual toll in deaths and injuries, to say nothing of the military applications of the motorized vehicle.
Thus, Frankenstein can indeed be read as a cautionary tale which warns mankind against the ills of scientific knowledge when pursued without full awareness of its possible dire consequences. Since mankind’s pursuit of knowledge far exceeds what Shelley could have envisioned, her warning is even more relevant today than it was when the book was written. The harmful effects of technology, such as pollution and global warming, are there for everyone to see, yet mankind’s thirst for knowledge is not yet satisfied: we seem intent on continuing this self-destructive path into an unknown future. For Frankenstein, this vain quest to play the role of god ends in his death. In this way, Shelley cautions readers that an obsession with the pursuit of knowledge may ultimately end in a similar demise, not just for the curious scientist, but for all of mankind.
Nocks, Lisa. “Frankenstein, In a Better Light.” Journal of Social & Evolutionary Systems 20.2 (1997): 137-155. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Norton, 1995. Print.
Spatt, Hartley S. “Mary Shelley’s Last Men: the Truth of Dreams.” Studies in the Novel 7.4 (1975): 526-537. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is one of the novels that are frequently argued about. The complexity of the novel and its meaning is often compared to the challenging and full of struggles life the writer herself. As a result, the critics expressing their interpretation and reflection on the novel usually tend to have very different stands. In their critiques, Sherry Ginn and Naomi Hetherington emphasize the reflection of Shelley’s psychological struggles as opposed to the popular idea of Frankenstein being an autobiographic novel.
Sherry Ginn’s Critique
In her article concerning the meaning of Frankenstein and its possible relation to the real-life events faced by Many Shelley, Sherry Ginn assumed the position contradiction the popular idea that the novel is autobiographic. In particular, Ginn gave credit to the authors and critics who contributed to the creation of the biography of Mary Shelley and reflected on her work. However, Ginn added that there exists a perspective alternative to the one shared by so many critics.
In brief, the main point of the author’s critique is illustrated by the following quotation: “reducing the novel to autobiography is too simple” (Ginn). The critic actively acknowledged the basis for the idea that Frankenstein could be linked to some of the events that happened in Shelley’s life such as: “the motherless child; the father rejecting the child; a grieving mother mourning for a dead child; a university student conducting wild experiments” (Ginn). However, at the same time, the author believed that the meaning of Shelley’s work could be better understood through the perspective of psychosocial theory and Erik Erikson’s framework in particular.
Evaluating this thesis, one can notice that Ginn offered to view Frankenstein as the reflection of the author’s identity crisis instead of a reflection of her biography. I agree with this perspective and believe that the psychosocial analysis of the contents of the novel reveals more details regarding its meaning for the author and her unconscious intention.
Similarly to Ginn, Naomi Hetherington acknowledged the opinions and points of view of the other critics reflecting on Frankenstein and what it could represent. However, instead of focusing on Shelley’s unconscious actions and worries that resulted in the creation of the novel, Hetherington proposes searching for the keys to understanding the work.
In that way, the author believed that the meaning of Frankenstein was not hidden and did not mirror the struggles and sufferings of the author. Instead, she reflected her philosophical worldview and insights. About the meaning of the novel, Hetherington wrote: “Mary herself suggested several keys with which to unlock it,” encouraging the readers to pay attention to the full title of the novel – Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus (Hetherington).
Hetherington argued that in her work, Shelley incorporated the problem of an individual’s maturation, self-image, and recognition of what being a human entails. Hetherington stated that being immature, Victor became obsessed, attempted to play God, and learned to raise the dead because he wanted recognition and could not cope with the death of this mother.
Besides, Hetherington emphasized the issue of personal values and social inclusion juxtaposed with the struggles of isolation and alienation. Practically, it could be said that the two authors shared the point of Shelley’s psychological struggle reflected in the novel (such as the problem of independence, the need to be associated with someone, and the challenges faced by the author in the search for her own identity).
Conclusion
The critiques by Ginn and Hetherington offer an alternative vision of the meaning of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley focusing on her conscious intention to communicate her worldview, as well as her psychological struggles of identity and isolation. Both authors supported their opinions with quotations from the novel itself, the works of other critics, and the psychosocial framework. In that way, it may be concluded that Ginn and Hetherington made strong points in their attempts to maintain their arguments that clashed with the more popular belief that Frankenstein was an autobiographic novel.
In the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, various themes begin to develop, and they show the experiences in her life. She wrote the book while she was on a summer holiday in Switzerland with her lover Percy Bysshe Shelley whose wife was expecting a child. Later on, Percy’s wife committed suicide, and the two got married. Despite this, her life gets marred by deaths and tragedies, and that may have inspired her to write. The book reflects her thoughts and ideas about birth, biology, and gender equality.
Birth & Creation in Shelley’s Novel
The theme of birth and creation is one of the main issues in Mary Shelley’s novel. Its portrayal is through Victor Frankenstein, who is the main character in the book. He pursues knowledge that is even beyond the human limit, and in so doing, he ends up hurting even the people that he cares a lot about.
Victor Frankenstein grew up in Geneva, and during his youth, he widely read books about alchemy. As he grew older, his interest shifts to modern science, a subject that later became the epitome of his obsession. When Victor joins Ingolstadt University, he quickly masters all that the professors teach him. While in this university, he discovers the secrets of life, and he embarks on a journey to create a human being.
Frankenstein is a ruthless man who can stop at nothing in his pursuit of knowledge, and when he discovered the secrets of life, he uses it to create a monster. He devotes all his time to creating the human being. He finally manages to bring forth life, but when he sees what he has created, he gets horrified. The monster is eight feet tall and very strong. However, his mind is like that of a newborn baby. After creating the monster, he damps it and leaves it lonely and alone. He does not take responsibility for what he has created. Instead, he develops a hatred for it and runs away to escape the monster.
Mary Shelley describes the way Victor manages to bring forth life as that of a woman giving birth and compares it to when a child is being born. She describes the place where he undertakes his research as a “workshop of filthy creation” is seen as the womb of a woman. Frankenstein has spent a lot of time creating his monster, and his body becomes weak and emaciated as a result, just like a woman who has undergone labor. The writer describes as a woman experiencing labor pains, and Victor Frankenstein’s long hour of creation is like a woman who is in labor.
His greed for knowledge leads to him deteriorating physically. His cheeks have grown pale, with study, and he has become thin and emaciated because he does not even have time to eat. His obsession and wish to succeed in creating his monster does not allow him to care for his own self. His body has begun to decay like that of a dead person. Shockingly, a person can focus on something so much that he forgets himself just like a pregnant woman who, after nine months of pregnancy, becomes exhausted.
In society, only God and women’s ability is to bring forth life, and anything else becomes unnatural. Therefore, the fact that Victor Frankenstein failed in his quest to create a child is because it is he goes against nature since he is a man. Biologically, only women can give birth, and those that try to ‘play god’ with nature fails.
This theme is further developed when we learn that Frankenstein spent winter, spring, and summer seasons while creating his monster. This directly represents the nine months that takes place before a baby is born, as the three seasons added together totals nine months. He works and toils for several months without eating or sleeping, and his body succumbs to this. Even as the monster begins to come alive, Frankenstein’s own body has begun to decay, and he nearly dies.
Frankenstein’s primary motivation was to create something which would make him happy and which he would bring up like a child. However, when his creation is complete, he gets horrified by it, and he runs away, leaving the monster alone. He realizes that he has created a very ugly monster, and, as a result, he flees away from it. The monster is devoid of any beauty that Frankenstein had conceived in his mind. Instead, it possesses terrible ugliness that leads to people running away from it. This theme, therefore, seems to directly ridicule parents who bring forth life but are not able to care for it and to give it love.
The theme of birth is essential as it is the most precious thing that brings forth life. Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, saw it as a crucial thing. This attributes to the fact that she tragically suffered a miscarriage, but luckily, she later gave birth to a son and a daughter. That is why she attached a lot of importance to the time when Frankenstein creates his creature. For her, the act of giving birth is noble.
Creation is also an essential theme for Shelley and is like a woman going through labor. Frankenstein recalls that as he created his creature, the moon watched. The moon signifies the cyclic and recurring female biology, and in Greek, the moon goddess Artemis was the patroness of childbirth. Frankenstein’s failure reinforces itself throughout the novel by Shelley, and in a way, she is criticizing Frankenstein for trying to “play God” with nature.
Shelley also attached a lot of importance on parenting. Through the theme of birth and creation, she manages to express her thoughts about it. In the real world and even the world of fiction, a child does not ask the time being born. As a result, it is entirely unfair if the child gets rejected and abused by the parents, yet, they were not forced into having the child. In fact, some people like Victor wish for the child.
Still, when the child is born and does not portray the qualities that the parents intended them to have, it faces rejection. Or even worse, it is abandoned by its own parents. Through the theme of birth and creation; therefore, Shelley criticizes people like Victor not only for creating the new being but also for leaving after it comes to life. Victor wishes to create a being that will make him happy as he will be its creator and source.
He desires to create a being that would be his child. This idea excites him so much that Frankenstein devotes his entire time in creating it, but when he realizes how ugly the being is, he recoils with horror and escapes away from the creature. He says that after he had finished creating the monster, the beauty that he had dreamt about disappeared, and instead, Victor became very disappointed and disgusted.
The monster, according to the creation by Frankenstein, is as innocent as a new-born child. He did not ask for Frankenstein to create him, and it is very unfair when he rejects him. Frankenstein’s rejection leads to the monster becoming wild, and he embarks on a revenge mission to kill those who are close to him.
The monster haunts him and is again deprived of rest as he hides from the creature. Even when he tries to go to sleep, the image of the monster still torments him, and he dreams of decaying bodies, and hence he suffers from a psychological breakdown.
Frankenstein’s rejection of the monster becomes seriously treated by Shelley. She seems to advocate for the monster to get fair treatment. For her, the philosophical argument that people are not born evil is true. Instead, it is the caring of these people that determines their behavior. Frankenstein denies compassion to the monster, and, as a result, the monster runs amok, killing people in revenge. When he tries to ask victor to end his suffering by creating a female companion for him, he fails to do so by destroying the female halfway to completion, and, as a result, the monster wages a revenge war on him.
He is so agitated that he almost becomes mad, and Clerval can’t help noticing that something is seriously wrong. His actions are that of a person who has gone insane as he jumps from one chair to another.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the theme of birth and creation is important in the book and were majorly influenced by the experiences that she went through. When she was just ten days old, her mother died, and from there, her life marks many deaths and tragedies. This leads her to attach a lot of importance on life in general, and, therefore, conception and birth came to mean a lot to her.
Frankenstein possesses both positive and negative traits that help readers build his character. The main hero can be looked at from diverse perspectives; therefore, the creation of Frankenstein’s character can be seen as believable or even sympathetic. Due to his life difficulties, such as losing many of his family members or friends, Frankenstein is generally pitied by the majority of the audience. Later, the reader can understand that the main hero feels quite lonely and pays much attention to his research and studies to cover this inner loneliness caused by the loss of his beloved ones. Despite several inappropriate or sometimes immoral actions performed by Viktor Frankenstein, the readers have a tendency to consider his character quite sympathetic because of his traumatic past and lonely present. Additionally, the hero’s character is even taken for attractive because Frankenstein possesses several positive traits such as improving his mind by constant reading, observing the surrounding nature, and being interested in many research fields (Bowta & Puhulawa, 2018). Because of these habits, the character is quite believable and trustworthy as well.
Viktor Frankenstein’s character can be considered a trope of warning, especially in several central situations in the novel. For instance, after creating his monster, the researcher simply escapes this creature and tries to hide because of the posed threat and a scary appearance (Bowta & Puhulawa, 2018). The situation in the novel does not end up well for the main character; hence, this situation can prove that running from someone’s fears, problems, and difficulties without fighting them did not prove to be effective. In addition, in the example of Frankenstein’s character, the researchers may see that not all inventions are really demanded by society and can bring more risks than profits. The monster had the ability to feel, think, understand, and even pronounce some words, which can be considered a type of artificial intelligence (Agustina et al., 2020). However, the invented creature turns out to be a threat to Frankenstein’s life which proves that people need to be careful when trying to substitute their loneliness or inner struggles with their artificial “friends’ ‘.
References
Agustina, A., Astuti, A. D., & Ariani, S. (2020). The Monster’s characteristics in Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley viewed from personality traits theory. Journal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni, dan Budaya, 4(1), 1-12.
Bowta, F., & Puhulawa, Y. (2018). Deconstructive analysis of main character in Frankenstein novel by Mary Shelley. Journal Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, 8(2), 60-71.