Category: Frankenstein

Introduction

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 Kipphardts In the Matter of J. R. Oppenheimer and Shelleys 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 Kipphardts play, it is possible to pursue the development of Oppenheimers 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 Kipphardts 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 Oppenheimers 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, Oppenheimers 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. Oppenheimers 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 communitys 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 Shelleys 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. Shelleys 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). Frankensteins 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 Kipphardts and Shelleys 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.

Introduction

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 Shelleys psychological struggles as opposed to the popular idea of Frankenstein being an autobiographic novel.

Sherry Ginns 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 authors 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 Shelleys 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 Shelleys work could be better understood through the perspective of psychosocial theory and Erik Eriksons framework in particular.

Evaluating this thesis, one can notice that Ginn offered to view Frankenstein as the reflection of the authors 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.

Naomi Hetheringtons Critique

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 Shelleys 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 individuals 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 Shelleys 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.

Works Cited

Ginn, Sherry. Mary Shelleys Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography? UFL, n.d.

Hetherington, Naomi. Creator and Created in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. UPENN, n.d.

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 Frankensteins 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 heros 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 Frankensteins 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 someones fears, problems, and difficulties without fighting them did not prove to be effective. In addition, in the example of Frankensteins 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 Frankensteins 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 Monsters 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.

Mankinds 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 Shelleys 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 Frankensteins 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 natures beauty, but this apparent solace is set against their feelings when confronted with the unnatural creation of the Monster. For example, Frankensteins 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, natures 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 Frankensteins 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 Monsters 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. Todays 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 Frankensteins 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.

Shelleys 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.

Nocks 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 mankinds 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 mankinds 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.

Works Cited

Anslow, Mark &and 10 Reasons Why GM Food WONT Feed the World. CCPA Monitor 15.6 (2008): 24-25. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.

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 Shelleys Last Men: the Truth of Dreams. Studies in the Novel 7.4 (1975): 526-537. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2009.

Introduction

At all times, people were trying to explore nature and master their laws. Curiosity is one of the major human features, and it pushes people to discover new things and seek for new inventions. However, rarely if ever scientists were interested in the consequences that their discoveries might lead to. Thus, the ethical concern about relations between nature and science was the core idea of many literary works at all times.

A novel Frankenstein (1818) by Mary Shelley is a romantic work that reflects the consequences of blind science and human ambition, and Blade Runner (1992) by Ridley Scott depicts the industrialized society and world of the future which, in fact, deals with the same problems as Frankenstein.

In this essay, we are going to discuss the relationship between science and nature as an important universal concern through the comparative study of Frankenstein and Blade Runner.

Blade Runner & Frankenstein: Comparative Analysis

First of all, let us discuss the problems and the main idea of the Frankenstein. This work was written during the epoch of Romanticism, and thus, it explores the concerns typical for that period.

The authors focused their attention on the emotional state of people and relations with nature and ethical problems of scientific discoveries. These problems are explored in Frankenstein. The author deals with the question of creating. Victor Frankenstein was intended to create a human being: So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankensteinmore, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation (Shelley 86)

Practically, he achieved his aim and made a human, but only physically. The soul of this creature was far from being a human soul. The creature was the part of the world, but it did not belong to it.

The solitude and despair pushed this creature to do terrible things. Victor Frankenstein says about his creation: I pursued nature to her hiding-places (Shelley 52). However, did he succeed in this? Certainly, he did not. Thus, the author emphasizes that creation is only Gods responsibility, and science should not interfere in natural law as it will never surpass it.

However, the work by Mary Shelly was not a final point in the discussion of the relationship between science and nature. As Nadine Wolf comments in her book: When Mary Shelley wrote this novel, she probably didnt expect that her vision of a manmade monster actually could become possible in the future. Though the development of genetic engineering, humankind is now in the same role of responsibility as Victor is in Frankenstein (20).

Really, the concern about the relations of science and nature is still popular in our era. In 1982, Ridley Scott created film Blade Runner that explored the same moral and ethical problems between science and nature.

Though the film was directed almost 200 years later than Frankenstein, in a time of phenomenal change: from IVF to genetic research to DNA and stem cell research (Dixon 20), it also argues the right oh people interfere in the process of creation.

The idea of the film was partially inspired by the medical debates around cloning: transplants of human organs became accepted though the implications of selling these have become an ethical minefield. (Dixon 21). Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner wanted to create the replicants to show the power of progress and science over nature. His creations were perfect physically and intellectually, though they lack the emotions and understanding of their creator.

As human beings that felt the need for life, they were struggling for it and tried to survive in any possible way. There is a short but very significant dialogue in the film which explains its main idea: Tyrell: What seems to be the problem? Roy: Death. Indeed, life is what all living beings want and what can be given only by nature and not by science.

Conclusion

Both works discuss the question: what is it like to be a human being, even if you are not? Both works had a very strong influence on the society they depicted. In addition, both authors explore the universal concerns about how far people can go in studying nature, it is, in fact, an amazingly sophisticated, sumptuously visionary treatise on the consequences of attaining godhood (Kempley n. p.).

The works are very far from each other in time, but very close in ideas. They demonstrate that there is a great danger in human ambitions and knowledge with respect to the dominance of science over nature to which all scientists aspire to. The main idea of both texts is that something should be beyond human understanding that some aspects of nature shouldnt be discovered by people. Otherwise, the consequences can be terrible.

Thus, the concerns about relations between nature and science were popular at all times, and Frankenstein and Blade Runner are perfect examples of it: A number of critics have claimed that the remarkable power of Blade Runner rests on a fundamental mythic structure of the novel, Frankenstein, the struggle with human facsimiles (Desser 53).
Both texts explore the relationship between science and nature as an important universal concern and provide the idea that human is a creation of God and child of nature and people have no right to interfere into the creation process.

Works Cited

Desser, David The New Eve: The Influence of Paradise Lost and Frankenstein on Blade Runner. Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scotts Blade Runner and Philip K. Dicks Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Ed. Judith Kerman. London: Popular Press, 1991. 53-66. Print.

Dixon, Melpomene, Texts in Time: Frankenstein and Blade Runner. English Teachers Association. NSW, 2008.

Kempley, Rita. Blade Runner. Washington Post. 11 Sept. 1992. Web.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Printed for G. and W.B. Whittaker, 1823

Wolf, Nadine. Nature and Civilization in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. GRIN Verlag, 2007.

Introduction

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, Percys 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 Shelleys Novel

The theme of birth and creation is one of the main issues in Mary Shelleys 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 Frankensteins 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 womens 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, Frankensteins own body has begun to decay, and he nearly dies.

Frankensteins 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. Frankensteins 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. Frankensteins 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.

Frankensteins 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 cant 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.

Introduction

Mary Shelleys 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). Victors 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. Victors parents neglected to teach him morality, and he went ahead and created a being that caused chaos throughout the story. The monster was Victors 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.

Works Cited

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones, 1818. Print.

Introduction

The Victorian period is characterized by the paradox of a grand opening in society as well as a tremendous constraint. It is known as the time of change and social advances and the time of severe regard for the traditions. Under the reign of Queen Victoria, the Industrial Revolution came of age, blossomed, and brought sweeping change across the country and the world. Life switched from a base primarily dictated by the land one owned to a social structure based on commerce and manufacturing (Greenblatt, 2005).

In this switch, people living in these changing times began to question the status quo creating a great deal of social upheaval. Social class structures started to break down, and women, too, began to question their allotted place in society.

However, at the same time, these breaks from the traditions incited a response reaction in favor of more traditional social roles in other areas, such as the refutation of male sexual relationships to the extent that one could be sentenced to death for participating in the act of homosexuality. The Victorian novel, with all of its emphasis on the realistic portrayal of social life, represented lots of Victorian issues in the stories of its characters. (Greenblatt, 2005).

Homosexuality as Frankensteins Theme

During the above-mentioned period, writers such as Mary Shelley expressed a great deal of concern with these issues. An examination of Shelleys novel Frankenstein demonstrates both the fear of and impossibility of suppressing homosexuality during this era.
During this period in history, homosexuality advanced in awareness to a socially defined term as well as a practice punishable by law. Although laws against sodomy existed for centuries before the period in which Mary Shelley envisioned Frankenstein, none of these successfully attained perpetual statuses, and most were not developed with permanent status in mind (Harvey, 1978).

Records show that while there no functioning laws against sodomy per se existed during Shelleys writing of the novel, other laws applied against expressions of homosexuality and there a strong adverse public reaction against homosexuality occurred in the early 1800s. In 1810, when thirty homosexuals were arrested in a raid on the White Swan, Vere St., London, those discharged for want of evidence were so roughly handled by the crowd as to be in danger of their lives (The Morning Chronicle, 1810).

The subject was delicately handled in the media as well. For example, one report of an execution reported the reason for the sentence as being the punishment for a crime at which nature shudders, not a syllable of the evidence on which we can state (Sibly, 1815). This sort of evidence illustrates the commonly held beliefs and attitudes among the general population regarding these issues.

However, Shelley did not live as part of the general population. The author of Frankenstein arrived as Mary Godwin in 1797, just five months after her politically radical parents, William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, who did not believe in marriage, were married (Wolf, 2004: 5). Her mother was one of the few feminists of her time, having published well-known commentaries regarding the rights of men and women and particularly for her stance that girls should be provided with an education sufficient to enable them to remain independent.

Her father was equally well-known for his libertarian viewpoints and published works. Although her mother died soon after giving birth to Mary, Shelleys father exposed her to the world of the literati. He encouraged her to use her imagination. He also allowed her to read through his collection and sit in on his conversations with other prominent writers of his time. These included William Wordsworth, Charles, and Mary Lamb, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Hazlitt (Pabst-Kastner, 2003).

She led a rather tricky life with Percy Shelley, constantly vying for his attention with others, including male writers and his first wife, and remained unmarried through the birth of her three children, all fathered by Shelley, only the latter two of which survived. Shelley wrote Frankenstein just before her second daughters birth and married Shelley just before the novels publication after his first wife had committed suicide.

Throughout the novel, Shelley explores the social abhorrence toward homosexuality by couching it in the more socially acceptable terms of the growing machine age. Mary Shelley used science as a metaphor for any irresponsible action, and what she was concerned with was the politics of the era. (Pamintuan, 2002). She accomplishes this investigation into homosexuality not only in Frankensteins use of science as a means of producing his monster.

What is also important is how he reacts to the creature and through the consistent references to the unnatural state of things in the absence of women. More in keeping with eighteenth-century moralists than with either William Godwin or Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley describes innate desire not as neutral or benevolent, but as quintessentially egotistical (Poovey, 1984: 253). Rather than being concerned with the natural order of the world and the advancement of society, Frankenstein, like the homosexual element of Britain, concerned itself with unnatural male love.

Unnatural as a Metaphor for Homosexuality

From the beginning of his education, Victor Frankenstein purposefully and intentionally turned his back on the natural world as a way of concentrating on discovering the secret of bringing life to inanimate material. My attention was fixed upon every object the most insupportable to the delicacy of the human feelings. (Shelley, 1993)

When my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature (Shelley, 1993). Despite the warnings received and the challenge to the natural order of things, Frankenstein went on with his search for in-depth knowledge, went on working on the creature he had started, went on envisioning it as a beautiful thing that would give all homage to him.

This fact demonstrates the unproductive passion of the homosexual lover, the desire to know something unnatural and beyond Gods laws. Continuously giving in to his desires blinds him to the true nature of his actions until the living monster stands facing him in all its horrendous grotesqueness.

Although he creates the monster, Frankenstein cannot bear to look upon him. The young doctor falls so ill following the creatures animation that he requires long-term care by his friend Clerval before he can travel. Although female relatives are the more traditional characters called in to be nursemaid to an ailing young man, Clerval emerges as the only individual capable of adequately tending Frankensteins despair. Frankenstein, having created something so disgusting that he cant look upon it, leaves his creation to enter the world unprotected and misunderstood at every turn, essentially dooming the creature to eternal loneliness in his monstrosity.

This total disregard for the well-being of the monster wells up immediately upon his first breath. The beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room. (Shelley, 2004: 42). Victor only agrees to discuss anything with the monster once the threat has been made to his family, thereby forcing the creature to violence as the only means to gain an ear and illustrating the imaginary creation of the unnatural relationship between two men.

The monster, on the other hand, gains his knowledge of natural life through his experiences outside of Frankensteins influence. He comes into life with a gentle spirit, ready to love the natural things of the world. While the spring warmed the earth during the monsters stay outside the De Lacey home, the monster tells Victor: 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, 2004: 119).

Here, he learns that a natural life consists of the loving relationship that develops between a man and a woman, and thus, he determines to force Frankenstein to provide him with a wife, something that terrifies Frankenstein beyond measure. The creature cannot exist within the world in which he finds himself because he is neither male nor female.

He is the only one of his kind and quickly comes to the realization that without a balancing influence, he will not find peace: You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being (Shelley, 2004: 195). With his final hope for happiness ruined with Frankensteins refusal to create a female companion for him, the monster dedicates himself entirely to the destruction of the man he wished to love.

At the end of the novel, the creature tells Walton, I had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in 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, 2004: 239). This quote refers to one of the most often cited excuses why a man might consider sodomy, which rested on the absence of the availability of women.

As previously mentioned, the monster itself emerges as a symbol of the sexual act consumed among men. His body comprises the collected parts from the bodies of other men and comes to life in an arousal spasm that Frankenstein fails to consummate or put to rest. This concept bases upon Peter Brooks (1984) outline of the traditionally male-centered approach to literature and sex in which there are an arousal period, a climax, and an end in quiescence.

In his own words, the male act starts with an awakening, arousal, the birth of an appetency, ambition, desire or intention (Brook, 1984). From this point, the aroused male takes action through a significant discharge before shrinking back into satisfaction and sleep (Brook, 1984). The Masterplot of the novel would, according to the pleasure principle, be the chain of events that restores the creature to death while accounting for all the significances of its having come to life (Winnett, 1990, p. 506).

In other words, for the novel to follow the path of male consummation, the monster must find some meaningful expression for his life, such as having made a connection of some positive sort with another member of the human race and then returned to death where he belongs. Shelleys novel thus introduces a failure of consummation among men because neither of these essential events occurs, suggesting impotence of some kind among the characters.

The creature thus emerges not only as a symbol in his actions but also as a symbol in his mere existence. As a technologically produced, free-thinking, and self-aware being, he represents the concept of mans science taking over the reproductive powers of women, supplanting the natural role and removing the feminine from the equation altogether. This produces horrific results both physically and psychologically, that quickly escalate much further out of control than could have been originally imagined.

The monsters role in the death of Justine, as well as the murder of Elizabeth, also emphasizes this concept of technology attempting to replace the functions of women, thus negating their importance to society. At the same time, Victors refusal to create a female for the monster reflects the general fear of men that women could not be adequately contained through any other means than destruction.

Victor Frankenstein emerges as a very narcissistic male, concerned with fulfilling his desires regardless of their effect upon the rest of society. This reflects the attitude held by many Victorians regarding the unnatural issue of homosexuality. Narcissistic males, Victor and Robert (like Percy), displace their homosexual goals and, in so doing, suppress any purpose outside the self.

Victor begins with a willful act of creation and ends with a weak act of inaction at the site of Elizabeths death. Mr. Veeder& in his elaboration of an analogy with Percy Shelley, he makes some interesting observations about Percys own latent homosexuality. Shelleys bifurcation, the doomed alternative to Marys androgynous model, is understood to result from an original desire for a male object: a negative Oedipus complex.

This is reproduced in Victors character, who desires Elizabeths death but finds in the monster/father not a beloved after all but a ravisher (Janowitz, 1989). Parallels are thus drawn between the authors personal life and the novel that further serve to illustrate its homosexual overtones.

Conclusion

While numerous readings are possible of Shelleys novel, it is undeniable that one of the many issues she concerned herself with was the issue of homosexuality and its effects on society. In doing so, Shelley reflected much of the sentiment of the time. Investigations into her personal life suggest Shelley perhaps also found herself trying to cope with homosexual tendencies in her lover and future husband while contemplating the incredible dynamics of life and death having just lost one child and in the process of producing another.

It is thus not surprising that she should envision the product of a homosexual relationship, its nature, and its effect upon the world, particularly given world events occurring at that time. Through the character of Victor Frankenstein, Shelley investigates the destructive forces of homosexuality as the product of his passion wanders the earth in search of a normal life it can never have.

Although hidden within a discussion of the technological advances of science, Shelley includes small details to help illustrate the homosexual bent of the novel, such as in the case of Clerval and Frankensteins deep attachment to this male character and in the killing of the female characters as a means of keeping the story couched within the male sphere.

The process of creation itself is even distanced from the natural collaboration of male and female. Through the progress of the novel, Shelley demonstrates the destructive and, at best, isolating effects of homosexuality.

Works Cited

Brooks, Peter. Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative. New York: Knopf, 1984.

Greenblatt, Stephen (Ed.). Introduction: The Victorian Age. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 8. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Harvey, A.D. Prosecutions for Sodomy in England at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. The Historical Journal. Vol. 21, N. 4, December 1978.

Janowitz, Anne F. Book Review of Mary Shelley and Frankenstein: The Fate of Androgyny. The Modern Language Review. Vol. 84, N. 4, October 1989.

The Morning Chronicle. July 10, 1815.

Pabst-Kastner, Charlotte. A Biographical Sketch of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: 1797-1851. The Victorian Web. (January 24, 2003). February 3, 2008, <http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/mshelley/bio.html>

Pamintuan, Tina. Its Alive: Frankensteins Monster and Modern Science. Humanities. Vol. 23, N. 5, September/October 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. The Essential Frankenstein. Leonard Wolf (Ed.). New York: Simon & Schuester, 2004.
Sibly, Job. The Morning Chronicle. April 6, 1815.

Winnett, Susan. Coming Unstrong: Women, Men, Narrative, and Principles of Pleasure. MLA. Vol. 105, N. 3, Special Topic: The Politics of Critical Language, May 1990.

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 Frankensteins 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 females 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 18^th 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.

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 Frankensteins 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 Frankensteins 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 philosophers 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 isnt 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 peoples 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 lifes 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 Frankensteins and Dr. Jekylls 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 sciences 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.

Works Cited

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Penguin Classics, 2012.

Stevenson, Robert Louis. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Penguin Classics, 2012.