Category: Frankenstein

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

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

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

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.

Introduction

Directed by James Whale, Frankenstein, a 1931 film, story line is largely adapted from the Peggy Webling play, which is based on Mary Shelleys novel by the same title. The film features the story of human struggles to unveil the realities of nature, through deploying science to recreate life.

Frankenstein was done during the pre-code era. With the adoption of codes for regulation of films with moving pictures in 1931, it was apparent that the movie was open to censorship. With this critical acclaim, the paper seeks to scrutinize how Frankenstein (1931), through its textual operations attempts to generate a socially or politically appropriate message and whether or not it succeeds in doing this.

Additionally the paper respond to the questions: does the film expel, discipline, or otherwise manage the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning and whether these elements end up subverting or overwhelming this sanctioned message.

Overview of Frankenstein

Frankenstein opens up by Edward Van Sloan warning on the immense horrors to ensue in the course of filming, before the audience is opened up to eerie and dismal cemetery. As Dirks reveals, the presentation of a funeral is silent, but conducted in a terrifying atmosphere setting, characterized by mourning sounds with the priests mumbling prayers (Para.3).

When the mourners leave, the casket is cautiously lowered into the grave and is filled up with soil, which causes chilling sounds as it hits the coffin. Upon the disappearance of the gravediggers, Frankenstein and Fritz emerge to dig up the fresh grave to access the coffin. Unfortunately, the brain is useless.

Elizabeth, the wife to Frankenstein, is disturbed by her husband absence for a number of months and considers looking out for Dr Waldman (her husbands to be a mentor) to aid her in finding Frankenstein. In his secluded laboratory, Frankenstein does not have a healthy brain to use in his endeavor to recreate life.

Consequently, he sends his assistant, Fritz to invade the laboratory of Dr. Waldman to obtain one. Scared by a powerful and horrific loud crash, he hastily picks the defective brain (criminal brain) and quickly leaves. On one stormy and proverbial dark night, Frankstein permits Elizabeth, Fritz and victor to witness the final parts of his experiment in his watchtower laboratory.

As the body is raised to the laboratorys ceiling, all his electrical equipments are engaged, and the body then comes down in a brilliantly pyrotechnic scene (Dirks Para.2).

When the hand slowly moves, Frankenstein is overwhelmed with joy and proclaims the famous movies lines- Look! It is moving. It is alive. Its alive&Its alive, its moving, its alive, its alive, its alive, its alive, its alive!&in the name of God. Now I know what it feels like to be God (Dirks Para.2).The defective brain, however, makes the creature to acquit itself with only murder, hate and horror.

Frankenstein (1931) attempts to generate a socially appropriate message

The scene where Elizabeth, Dr. Waldman, and victor meet Frankenstein, after his long disappearance, is assertive of the existing gender differences relations stemming from historic inequalities between men and women. Elizabeth insists that she was not leaving Frankenstein that very night.

However, Frankenstein maintains that he could not suspend his experiment, and harshly utters to Elizabeth youve got to leave (Dirks Para.2). Surprisingly this is the final decision. Elizabeth was not to walk away with him. This reflects male dominance in terms of making decisions.

Another scenario reflecting unbalanced gender relations is the scene where the marriage, between the two, is postponed to pave the way for Frankenstein to pursue his creature intentionally to kill it. While it is largely agreed that the weeding would be postponed by a day, Frankenstein asks, A day? and furthers says, I wonder&there can be no wedding while this horrible creation of mine is still alive (Dirks Para.3).

These incidences of gender imbalances, in terms of making decision, largely make the film inconsistent with the struggles beginning in 1926 America, to accord equal rights to both genders within the societal mindsets. Rather they reinforce on the ability of men to dominate women.

Since time immemorial, man has endeavored to unveil and resolve miseries of nature. Apparently, Frankenstein miseries of life and death have disturbed the world immensely. Where does life come from? Where does it go while one dies?

Can it be reclaimed and re-installed? In the contexts of imminent religious faith, which was spreading across the globe, in 1930s, the movie Frankenstein was ideally socially relevant in attempting to unveil responses to these queries.

In contrast to religious mindsets and rules of Christianity, the movie is indeed a violation of the production codes of 1931, which were later to be reinforced further by the additions of more codes in 1934. The codes prohibited employment of episodes ridiculing any religious faith.

Unfortunately, the movie depicts Frankenstein assembling body parts, stolen from dead bodies, to form his creature that was later to turn out mysterious to human beings.

Indeed, the defective brain that made the creature dangerous to life of people including Frankenstein and his mentor Dr. Waldman was also stolen from the medical college laboratory belonging to Dr. Waldman. Additionally, in the film Dr. Waldman himself acquired the body parts including brains used in his laboratory by digging up graves to steal the parts.

In this context, the movie seems like justifying stealing in as much as it helped to acquire objects vital to resolution of certain human miseries. In deed, this was largely against the then spreading concepts of Christianity, which held that stealing, was both religiously and morally inappropriate irrespective of justifications raised henceforth.

Even though the film may have managed to show that things acquired through stealing can indeed work by making Frankensteins experiments using them a success, the horrors attributed to the Frankenstein experiments later were more than thought of confirmation of mans inability to create life held by Christianity faith.

Arguably, from a textual approach, Frankenstein attempt to share the life creation task with God was immensely challenged by the aftermaths of his experiment. His famous proclamation  Its alive. Its alive&Its alive, its moving, its alive, its alive, its alive, its alive, its alive!&in the name of God. Now I know what it feels like to be God (Dirks Para.2) is blasphemous according to critics.

Precisely, following the enactment of 1931 production codes the phrase: Oh  in the name of God. Now I know what it feels like to be God (Dirks Para.2) has been removed from the film scenes. In this context, it is possible to argue out that, despite the high success of the film, it failed to meet the preconceived anticipations of peoples religiously constructed mindsets. If it had to, the creatures needed to have not acquired life.

From a different dimension, the meaning of the film may be looked as being reflective of the societies anticipation of coming into terms with various societal advances evidenced in other films but later to form the realties of 1980s to present world technological advancement especially in robotic and their applications in executing tasks often unsuitable for normal people.

In this context, Frankensteins struggles to create human being-like creature may have lacked meaning then and hence get contested especially in the realm of religious believes but today, the significance of the creature is real. A possible argument is how this relates to the plot of the film.

As a rebuttal, to attribute this meaning to the film is a question of examination of premises of the films narratives. One premise is that the monster is incredibly animated. However, as Spadoni reckons the monster is not alive on the same way that other characters in the film are and hence the story of his origin, like in his physical appearance, underscores the deeply compromised nature of the monsters living state (102).

The creature is given life by electricity. This provides a rigid connectivity between the Frankenstein film and Metropolis. In this context, Spadoni writes, in Whales film, the scene in which the monster comes to life  influenced by the scene in Metropolis (Lang 1927) in which a robot is transformed into the likeness of Maria-retains and intensifies the earlier films copiously visible presence of electricity (102).

An attempt to achieve the conception of mans ability to create creatures, capable of performing tasks, similar to those performed by human beings through the help of electricity, is indeed amplified by incorporation of copiously audible electrical effects.

In this regard, one may argue out that, the implication of the phrase the creature is alive textually, is that the creature can perform activities performed by human beings, but the creature is not necessary a human being, as evidenced by differences in its appearance and that of real human characters.

Frankenstein (1931) attempts to generate politically appropriate message

Frankenstein presentation of the process of creation of the horrible creature in an attempt to certify mans fantasies of nature depicts the harsh consequences of conferring powers to few people, often becoming non-human analogous the monster. The creature is created, speaks and then escapes.

Political policies often involve a hefty process of creativity in an attempt to resolve certain social problem that attracts public interest. A part from certain low ranking human figures being raised into super human figures, tantamount to that of the monster in Frankenstein, it makes no sense if such figures do not speak out the powers conferred to them, in the right way.

Arguably then, Frankenstein may be seen as constructing politically significant message in response to George Cannings- a foreign secretary of states then, while at the house of commons on the issue of emancipation of West Indians slaves.

He remarked on the capacity of slave debates To turn him loose in the manhood of his physical strength, in the maturity of his physical passion, but in the infancy of his uninstructed reason, would be to raise a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent romance (OFlinn 204).

In this context, the film depicts rhetorics of the manner in which liberal states people could have deployed its source; Mary Shelleys novel, to delay reforms and the manner in which the monster issues referred by Canning (slaves), were transformed into brute mindless rhetoric.

What can be learnt from the films in a political context is the ability of monsters to get out of control of its philosophical creators- public. In the film, audience experience situations in which the monster struggle Frankenstein in a mill, having not even spared the person who mentored its creator (Dr. Waldman).

Additionally, people see the monster, though seemingly harmless, as having the capacity to ruin even innocent people like the young girl who was drowned by it. The remorse and guilt experienced by the creator perhaps well explains the damage executed by individualistic politicians, who only comes into terms with consequences of their poor use of power when such consequences cannot be reversed.

However, to correct peoples mistakes in conferring powers to few people, the film may be argued to spread the message that people needs to struggle. In this end, the novel seems to warn against the recklessness of the radical philosophers who tries to construct a new body politic (OFlinn 204).

Indeed, the creators of those powers given to monsters risks even to lose their life in getting those in power out of it. Frankenstein was nearly killed by products of his innovation!

Personal opinion

On watching the film Frankenstein, several queries emerge in the minds if viewers. Some of these queries are, does the film expel, discipline, or otherwise manage the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning?

In addition, do these elements end up subverting or overwhelming this sanctioned message among others? Production codes of 1931, which are followed by further reinforcement by the 1934 production codes, prohibits and sanctions some meaning in films.

In Frankenstein, the audience was opened fully to grasp every detail of situations involving explicit presentation of various methods of crime. For instance, the audience saw the monster getting hold of the little girl and throwing her into the pond thinking that she could float just as flowers did.

In the film, the fact that the monster has defective brain seems to justify this reckless action with possibilities of shifting the sympathy of the audience to the monsters cognitive defects due to human errors rather than the child drowned.

Additionally, a terrifying and a moody scene are filmed featuring Fritz and Frankenstein cutting a hanged man by his gallows to obtain his brain. This also explicitly shows scenes of crimes. In this context, in various ways, the movie depicts elements that might conflict the sanctioned meaning, which end up subverting or overwhelming the sanctioned message.

Conclusion

Directed by James whale, Frankenstein depicts the extents of danger that peoples obsession with unveiling the miseries of nature can pose to the existence of even the miseries resolvers. Dr, Waldman and the young who engaged in a play with the monster was killed while its creator Frankenstein escaped narrowly.

This being the basic interpretation of the film, the paper goes went further to assert that textually the film embraced attempts to generate socially or politically appropriate messages.

However, in the light of 1931 and 1934 production codes the paper claims that the film fails to expel, discipline, or otherwise manage the elements of the film that might conflict the sanctioned meaning by these codes by explicitly depicting every detail of scenes of execution of crimes.

Works Cited

Dirks, Tim. Frankenstein (1931): Review, 2009. Web. <https://www.filmsite.org/fran3.html>

OFlinn, Patti. Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein. Literature and History 9.3 (1983):199-205. Print.

Spadoni, Robert. Uncanny Bodies: The Coming of Sound Film and Origins of Horror Genre. New York, NY: University of California Press, 2007. Print.

Frankenstein is the dramatic story of a scientist whose enthusiasm for science led to terrible consequences and personal misfortune. The protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, lost his dignity, honor, and faith in people in the pursuit of knowledge. For him, his picture of the world was probably the most important one, and Victor was unwilling to accept other points of view and face the monsters of reality. He created a benign image around himself, gradually revealing himself as a man incapable of loving the living. The reasons for his cruelty and rudeness lie in his character and family traditions, which he could not transcend.

Initially, the reader sees Victors attitude toward the world around him: his family comes first. Victors childhood is almost perfect, he is allowed much, and he learns the world quickly. His hot temper was counterbalanced by the calm Elizabeth and his school friend Henri. Victor began to be interested in the sciences, but he soon decided that science would never be the truth and took up mathematics (Shelley). This inclination change could have saved Victor from his terrible fate, but Rock was more potent than the Spirit of Good. And the desire to comprehend the mystery of the dead became the X idea in Victors mind.

After moving to Ingolstadt, Victor returns to Natural Philosophy and seeks new knowledge. His mothers death touches him, and his world is shattered, but he let this event go. University scares him more, and the unknown lurks danger, but the thirst for knowledge and the search for wonders are stronger. Victor seeks support among his professors and meets Professor Waldman, who treats the student with tenderness. Victor forgets about his family for two years, during which time he is only interested in science (Shelley). It reveals him as a man possessed who has lost his altruism and benevolence. Victor becomes aware of himself as a god, which leads to the inconsistency of his personality.

The future of someone like Victor will be unequivocally wrong: his God complex will lead to a collapse of personality, and his denial of all that is good will change his attitude toward life. Victor seeks to create beings who will worship him. I am aware of the storys outcome in general terms, but it seems that Victors fate will be terrible. For such a man of the time, when philosophy and alchemy tried to explain every phenomenon, he will probably see in the awful Rock a just punishment. Victor is a devotee of natural philosophy, but I think the global questions of life and death also bother him. Later on, he will delve into the reasons that led him to create the monster.

Victor has lost his humanity, gradually turning into a monster: he tortures animals and violates any ethical rules of science. Such an attitude will lead to his not appreciating the creature he has created and will disown it. Victor has lost his capacity for empathy and is unlikely to take full responsibility for the consequences. He could realize his potential for good, but obsession holds him back.

The drama of Frankensteins fate allows the reader to follow the path of a man who has lost his ability to empathize and take responsibility. Victor grew up a noble boy but gradually turned into a monster. In the future, he will become the worst version of himself, for which he will be punished. He will probably reflect on the reasons for the punishment, but his obsession will not allow him to understand it.

Work Cited

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. Page by Page books. Web.

Introduction

Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus is a novel written by Mary Shelly that was first published in 1818. The author tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who artificially animated a body assembled from parts of corpses. Although Victor intended to create a beautiful creature, the result did not meet his hopes, as the revived being caused horror and disgust in Frankenstein. This paper claims that Frankensteins unwillingness to accept responsibility for the fate of his creation, the monster, led to his excruciating psychological suffering and became the cause of a series of tragic events.

Parenting and Responsibility in Relations between Frankenstein and the Monster

When the creature came to life, it was ugly and looked like a dead man. Although Victor chose the most beautiful body parts that he found in the anatomical theater, the creature did not meet his hopes. It had watery eyes and yellow skin through which muscles and veins could be seen. The monster was of inhuman height since Victor could not find a way to assemble minor parts of the human body. Terrified of his creation, Victor fleed from his apartment, where the experiment took place, and when he returned, he saw that the creature has disappeared.

Further in the life of Frankenstein, tragic events unfolded, the cause of which was the free will of the monster. The novel has several storylines, and the story is told alternately on behalf of Frankenstein and the creature. The book also has a frame; it begins and ends as a story in a letter that a sea captain who has reached the North Pole writes to his sister. Using this technique, the author allows the reader to look at events from different perspectives and draw their conclusions about who was responsible for what was happening  a monster or Frankenstein.

The monster and Frankenstein are not one, but they are undoubtedly connected (Sherly 3). Victor is a selfish person who was making sacrifices in the name of his goals. He begins the experiment, pursuing his ambitions and not caring about the consequences. Therefore, the connection between Frankenstein and the monster is fatal. From the beginning of the novel, Victor perceives the creature as his sworn enemy, and eventually, it becomes his enemy. At the same time, the creature, which Frankenstein did not even give a name because of his disgust for him, is capable of deep affection and has the character of a child who gradually matures. His character is formed under the influence of a series of events that harden him. Finally, he turns into an adult looking for a way to take revenge on humanity and, most importantly, on his creator.

Scholars are mainly unanimous that the novel raises questions of responsibility and considers the connection between creator and creature as a father-son relationship. Lepore admits, Among the many moral and political ambiguities of Shelleys novel is the question of whether Victor Frankenstein is to be blamed for creating the monster  usurping the power of God, and of women  or for failing to love, care for, and educate him (11). He adds, The Frankenstein-is-Oppenheimer model considers only the former, which makes for a weak reading of the novel (Lepore 11). In other words, the scholar emphasizes that although the monster perceives Frankenstein more as his father, and his attitude towards Victor resembles that of a son, the reader should not forget about Frankensteins responsibility of a different kind  to God, nature, and humanity.

He violates the spiritual and cosmic law, breathing life into an imperfect body, and must be responsible for his choice. It is noteworthy that during the first dialogue between Frankenstein and the monster, the latter pathetically exclaims, How dare you sport thus with life? and then asks to make him happy (Lepore 8). A monster that possesses a human self-reflective consciousness calls itself Adam, or Fallen Angel, and curses its creator (Lepore 11). Therefore, the connection between the monster and Victor can be seen as that between the creature and the demiurge.

However, the fathers and children issue is still more emphasized in the novel. This topic was important for the author, who at the time of writing the novel had lost her child and felt guilty about it (Lepore 13). Refusing to care for a monster could be viewed as a violation by Frankenstein of the parental duty since, as a rule, the child has a parent who takes care of it. Johnson notes that Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus offers a critique of the institution of parenthood (15). In the introduction to the novel, it is stated that the novel has been seen as a warning against unfettered ambitions, technology, rejection of difference, and poor parenting (Shelly 5). Therefore, it is necessary to separately consider these two essential topics  the psychological nuances of the relationship between the monster and Frankenstein and the universal responsibility for the murders.

Interestingly, Lepore notes that the acquaintance with Lord Byron influenced the formation of the image of Frankenstein, who put his ambitions above all else, just like Byron did (Lepore 12). It is known that Byron left his children, and one of his daughters, Marys nephew, died at the orphanage at the age of 5, after Byron forbade Mary and Percy Shelly to adopt her. Therefore, the topic of irresponsible parenthood had a very personal meaning for the author.

Psychological Nuances and Universal Responsibility for Killings

Given the interpretation of the relationship between the monster and Frankenstein presented above, it is evident that this connection was psychologically highly intense. From the monsters confession, the reader learns about his initial innocence, confusion, and desire to become a part of the world, a part of someones life. However, he is met with violent rejection and fear; the monster confesses that he is horrified by the sound of his own voice. After the first painful encounter with reality and remembering the horror and disgust on the face of its creator, the creature decides to take revenge on humanity for its pain of loneliness and physical sufferings. He finds books in the forest, which is an impetus for the monster to develop critical thinking. After analyzing his unfortunate situation, he begins to see in Frankenstein, his creator, the cause of his suffering. The monster also makes him responsible for his happiness and, being unhappy, makes Victor the target of his revenge.

The monster intends to destroy everything that is dear to Victor to make him feel alone and completely helpless. Therefore, the monster kills his brother William and tosses the medallion to his nanny, who is then executed. After that, Frankenstein finds the monster, and he confirms Frankensteins guesses about the murders. Victor feels terrible fear and guilt for creating a creature that has become a murderer. The intensity of his experiences is so strong that his psyche ousts them from a sense of self-preservation, and Victor fails to take the universal responsibility for the monsters deeds.

It must be admitted that the author probably does not consider Victor to be the only culprit in a series of tragic events. At the end of the novel, the reader hears the monsters confession that after the brutal murders he committed, Frankensteins death made him even more miserable than Victor. Crushed by the awareness of its responsibility and feelings of guilt and loss, the monster promises to disappear and never be seen by people again, from which the author of the letter concludes that the monster committed suicide.

The culmination of pain and awareness for Victor occurs when the monster fulfills the threat of being with Frankenstein on his wedding night. Victor suggests that the monster threatens to kill him when he finally finds happiness, but the creatures plan is far more sophisticated. Trying to take revenge on the scientist for destroying the female prototype, which could become his partner and save him from the suffering of loneliness, the monster decides to kill Victors beloved. He does not regret his deed but enjoys revenge by pointing out the window at Elizabeths body while Frankenstein searches for the monster outside, weapon in hand.

At this moment, the monsters kinship and attachment to Victor are completely destroyed, and Frankenstein decides to pursue the creature to take revenge on him and prevent possible future murders. Heartbroken and desperate, Victor follows the creature to the North Pole, where he dies exhausted on the ship that picked him up. Before his death, Frankenstein bequeathed to the assembled public to seek happiness in peace and avoid ambition.

From a philosophical point of view, it cannot be said that Frankensteins dislike of the monster inevitably led him to murder and hatred of people. The creature was rejected and disappointed by humanity in general, and he did not have anyone to comfort him in a moment of despair. In general, the tragic events in the novel can be seen in part as the result of a dramatic accident or unfortunate coincidence. It must be admitted that Frankenstein was genuinely inspired by his experiment and believed that he was on the verge of some miraculous scientific discovery. All the more bitter was his disappointment when he realized that the monster was ugly outside and unhappy inside.

Disappointment and resentment at the creation did not allow Victor to complete the second experiment to create a pair for the monster, as the thought maddened him that he should make another equally ugly and evil creature. Of course, these two creatures could not threaten humanity as a species. But they threatened Victors pride as a scientist and exacerbated his frustration, so he could not sacrifice his inner peace in the name of the creatures happiness.

Thus, it was argued how Frankensteins unwillingness to take responsibility for the fate of his creation, the monster, led to his excruciating psychological suffering and caused a series of tragic events. The characters of the monster and Frankenstein are linked by the bond of the demiurge and creation; Frankenstein is also the symbolic parent of the creature. In an attempt to avenge the denial of responsibility and recognition of its role, the creature takes revenge on Victor. The monster curses him as a creator and does inhuman deeds to darken Frankensteins scientific awe. He also kills his loved ones, which is an act of more personal revenge because Victor refused to care for the creation and doomed him to loneliness and suffering.

References

Johnson, Barbara. My Monster/My Self (1982). A Life with Mary Shelley. Stanford University Press, 2020. 15-26.

Lepore, Jill. The Strange and Twisted Life of Frankenstein. The New Yorker 5 (2018).

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. ARC, Amsterdam University Press, 2018.

Sherly, Dwi Putri. Monstrosity and Humanity in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: A Formalistic Reading. Diss. Universitas Andalas, 2020.

Theme of Companionship in Frankenstein: Introduction

The theme of family in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is not the only central topic raised in the writing; however, it is the issue that most explains and opens up the complex context of the book. Family is one of the most important parts or aspects of any human life; indeed, most people feel the intrinsic need to relate to someone throughout their lives. Strong family ties frequently play a major role and satisfy in people the essential feeling of belonging. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that an individuals family has a profound impact on the way a person evolves and the kind of behavioral patterns he or she exhibits. Many psychologists state that poor family ties or distant familial relationships have a detrimental effect on a persons psyche and might result in a feeling of insecurity. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the topic of human companionship in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and dwell upon the underlying ideas this theme reveals.

Human Connection in Frankenstein

Despite the fact that the book has elements that are characteristic of science fiction, its core lies in philosophy. While reading the book, it becomes impossible for the reader to stop wondering about the meaning of human existence and the things that make a human being happy. However, toward the books ending, it becomes obvious that almost any living being strives for companionship and affection. The very nature of people points to the fact that a human being is the result of the interactions and affection of two people; if an individual is lonely, he or she cannot be fully harmonious and originative. The distant relationships between Victor and his family led him to the search for other ways to fill the void in his soul (Zimmerman 154). Despite the fact that the monster was created by a scientist, the monster himself also strived to be united with people and was capable of introspection, learning, and real feeling.

Importantly, although Victor had created a creature that could feel and desire affection, he ran away from his creation. The reason for his abandonment was much deeper than disgust or loathing at the sight of the monster. Instead, Victor ran away because of fear and an understanding that he had condemned the creature to eternal and ceaseless mental suffering (Bentley 339). Just like his creator, the monster would always wander in search of a kindred soul capable of reciprocating his spiritual needs.

How Is Victor Lonely in Frankenstein?

It is significant to emphasize the reasons that were pushing Victor to create the monster. The main motive of the scientist to create life was the desire not only to study nature and humanity but also to get universal recognition. However, once a person receives such recognition, he or she also obtains a certain level of power, strength, and ability to influence other people. Notably, the desire for power had deep psychological roots in Victors mind. He sought to gain this power in order to compensate for his inferiority, which originated from family circumstances and personal problems. His spiritual loneliness prompted him to strive for influence.

Despite the fact that Victor had initially stated that he grew up in a happy and harmonious family, he also stressed that since childhood, his life had been a secluded one (Zimmerman 140). In his letters to Margaret, he wrote that he had no close friends and that there was no one to share his sorrows and joys. As he put it, I have one want which I have never been able to satisfy (Shelley 18). Indeed, Victors soul was in need of reciprocity from another person who could understand him. Consequently, throughout his life, the scientist was experiencing an acute shortage of intimate relationships that would bring him mutual understanding and satisfaction. This loneliness was the psychological trigger that initiated his desire to dominate. When he created the monster, he felt omnipotent, even though he had to give up his own strength and morale to create him. However, blinded by loneliness and his desire for recognition, Victor did not pay attention to the immorality of his actions. Rather, he was moved by serious psychological problems.

Why Does Frankensteins Creature Feel Lonely?

Throughout the book, the reader notices the incompleteness of almost all families. It is reasonable to state that Victor created the monster because his family was incomplete and that the death of his mother had pushed him to create a living being that could substitute for this loss. Notwithstanding the fact that Elizabeth played a major female role in his family, she could never replace his natural mother (Shelley 34). Therefore, he created the monster not to fulfill the role of his mother but rather to fill the place of his missing family member. Although the loss was beyond his control and he was helpless in this situation, he did have the power to create a living being that could somehow respond to his need for closeness. The same feelings were brought out in the monster as well. The reason why he asked Victor to create a female companion for him was not limited to his desire to have an intimate relationship but also included his spiritual striving to feel close with someone (Shelley 114). He was rejected by his creator and could never find a soulmate, but living in solitude was unbearable torture for the monster, so he made Victor create a mate who would share a life with him.

When the monster stumbled upon the family living in the cottage in the woods, his loneliness and desire to have a family became even more intense. The family unknowingly educated the being and taught him how to survive. However, this family was also incomplete as there was no mother in it. Agatha did her best to perform similar functions as mothers usually do and took great care of the family members. Apart from learning essential life skills, the monster also understood what it meant to be compassionate and came to realize that he wanted to be loved in the same way the family members loved each other (Zimmerman 154). Although the father was blind and the family was very poor, its members did their best to take care of each other, and the monster wanted to join their family and help them as much as he could. This part of the book particularly highlights the importance of having a family and how having close relationships can make people happy.

When observing the family, the monster comprehended how badly he wanted to have someone with whom he would be able to communicate. The core of this desire was the need for someone who could understand how he felt and could share the bad and good moments with him. When Victor refused to make his companion, the monster started killing Frankensteins family members to make his creator understand how it felt to be all alone and how strongly a person needs to have close people by his or her side. Nevertheless, blinded by rage and hatred, Victor wanted to kill the monster for what he did without understanding that, in fact, he did the same to the monster and was the only one to blame (Bentley 345).

Why Does the Monster Want a Mate?

The monster did not only repeat the life story of Victor in some way, but he also served as his reflection. Like Victor, the monster was desperate to find a soulmate; thus, the monsters story of deprivation as a double of Victors own stressed the despair a person feels when he or she does not have a proper family (Zimmerman 136). Throughout the book, the reader can observe that the monsters longing for closeness with people was similar to that experienced by Victor. In addition, the woodshed scene revealed that the monsters complete invisibility at the close suggests the degree to which Victors own inner world remains unspeakable (Zimmerman 151). Victor never felt support from his father, and he was alone in his strivings; in the same way, the monster wanted to become a member of the De Lacey family but was rejected by them despite his pure intentions. Importantly, the similarity of the monster and his creator is reflected in their need for closeness. The monsters desire to have a family has the same origin as Victors desire to fulfill the void in his soul connected to the loss of his family member.

Companionship in Frankenstein: A Reflection

Despite the fact that tragedy and despair seem to be the leitmotif of the entire book, its essence can be summarized as the importance of having a connection to family. All the lamentable events occurred as a consequence of the absence of this connection, both for Victor and his creation. Victor lost himself in science due to his need for power, which was caused by a lack of strong family ties. The loss of his mother left a wound in his heart and a void in his soul that he wanted to fill by creating a new family member while losing any sense of responsibility and morality in doing so. The monster was created a lonely creature and sought a soulmate who could become his family. Being rejected by people and deceived by his creator, he resorted to violence to make Victor comprehend the feeling of being completely alone and without family. Thus, the actual evil was neither Victors actions nor the monster but rather their isolation from family.

Conclusion

Family is not only one of the most significant things in a persons life, but it also forms people and gives them direction. Having a dysfunctional family or weak familial ties might have a detrimental effect on a persons psyche. Having no close relationships might push an individual to search for a soulmate throughout his or her entire life and unconsciously act immorally. From the example of Frankenstein and the De Lacey family, the reader comprehends how deep relationships can affect a person. Suffering from isolation, Victor created a monster who was also doomed to be alone. Therefore, the need to have a bond with the closest people in ones life surpasses all other relationships; the absence of this connection will hurt any living being.

Works Cited

Bentley, Colene. Family, Humanity, Polity: Theorizing the Basis and Boundaries of Political Community in Frankenstein. Criticism, vol. 47, no. 3, 2005, pp. 325-351, Web.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Sever, Francis, & Company, 1869.

Zimmerman, Lee. Frankenstein, Invisibility, and Nameless Dread. American Imago, vol. 60, no. 2, 2003, pp. 135-158, Web.

Scene 1: The Beach

(ROMEO and JULIET find themselves trapped on a tropical island. The sun is shining brightly, and the weather is scorching and humid compared to summers in Verona).

ROMEO: (Worried). Where are we? And what happened to the boat?

JULIET: (Calmly). Im not sure about the boat, my dear. Is it an island? It seems like were alone.

(ROMEO and JULIET take a moment to admire the view of an infinite blue ocean, an empty sandy beach, and a green tropical forest right next to it. The brief moment of happiness is abrupted by a sharp cracking sound coming from the forest).

ROMEO: (Terrified). Did you hear that? Were not alone here. Im sure its some wild animal or a The monster thats going to attack us!

JULIET: Stay calm, Romeo. Im going to check out the forest.

ROMEO: (Screaming). Are we going to die? Juliet, my love, dont go there.

(Right at that moment, a boy comes out of the woods, covered in leaves and dirt, which appears to be some kind of camouflage.)

ISHMAEL: (Reaching his hand for a handshake). Hello, friends. My name is Ishmael Beah. Glad to find you here.

ROMEO: (Reluctantly shaking Ishmaels hand). Im Romeo, and this is my beloved Juliet. Do you live here?

ISHMAEL: No. Ive never seen this place before. I was shocked to find myself in the forest this morning. I think its dangerous to stay on the beach. We need to move fast to the forest. Follow me.

(ROMEO, JULIET, and ISHMAEL are leaving the beach).

Scene 2: The Forest

ISHMAEL: (Trying to hide his tears). Before I got here, my parents and family were killed during the war, and I was forced to become a child soldier when I was 13.

ROMEO: Im sorry to hear that.

JULIET: Me too. You are a brave young man, Ishmael.

ISHMAEL: (Smiling). I guess I was just lucky to meet the kind people. With their help, I learned to forgive myself for everything Id done during the war. They also helped me escape and put me on a plane to a safe place. Now I want to spend my life helping other people. By the way, the plane is the last thing I remember.

(ROMEO and JULIET nod their heads in agreement as they realize that they dont remember how theyve managed to get to the island).

ISHMAEL: It is now your turn to share your story.

JULIET: One early morning, we left Verona. There were always feuds and conflicts between Romeos family and mine. Of course, they couldnt let us be together. So, I decided to travel to the east of Italy to find a way to escape further, and Romeo supported my idea of finding a boat.

ISHMAEL: (Shocked). Im surprised to hear that someone might want to run away from home. I would give anything in the world to see my family again. Sorry for interrupting you.

JULIET: (Smiling kindly). Oh, dont worry about it. So, I had an idea to steal a boat from a local seaside pier. Leaving the shores of Italy was the last thing we remembered before waking up on the island.

(ROMEO, JULIET, and ISHMAEL are approaching the cave).

Scene 3: The Cave

ISHMAEL: (Proudly). This is my hideout. I disguised the entrance to the cave with palm leaves so that nobody would find me here.

(Inside, they find a campfire and some strange equipment scattered around the cave).

ROMEO: (Nervous). Is all this yours?

ISHMAEL: (Worried). No, Ive never seen it before. There must be somebody here.

(A tall man in rugged clothes appears out of the dark).

VICTOR: Hello, boy. Ive been waiting for you.

(ISHMAEL comes forward, holding a massive rock in his hand, ready to protect his new friends from the crazy-looking stranger).

VICTOR: Im not going to hurt you. I need help. Ive heard you want to help others, Ishmael.

ISHMAEL: (Suspiciously). Who are you? How do you know my name? Were you spying on me?

VICTOR: (Reluctantly). Maybe a little. Sorry, I forgot to introduce myself. Ive been avoiding human connection for a long time, so I might sound impolite sometimes. Im Victor Frankenstein, a scientist.

ROMEO: (Irritated). What do you want from us?

VICTOR: The thing is, I created a monster a while ago that killed my family and destroyed my life. I found this deserted island to hide the monster here.

(Speaking of the creature, VICTOR looks proud and disappointed at the same time).

VICTOR: (Continues). I tried to lock up the creature on the island so that there would be no more victims of my mistake, but the monster managed to escape.

(Romeo gets nervous again, while brave Juliet and strong Ishmael come up with a plan).

JULIET: We might trick the creature into the volcano crater weve seen from afar. Victor should make a new monster to attract his creature to the edge of the crater.

(VICTOR creates a huge bird-like creature and brings it to life with his bizarre scientific skills. Both monsters fall to the deep crater leaving no sign of their existence. The characters finally find peace on the island, leaving their troubles, concerns, and past lives behind).

Frankensteins monster is, perhaps, one of the most sympathetic characters in the pantheon of monsters that have become emblematic of the horror genre. Although modern readers are unlikely to find the novel quite as chilling as their predecessors did, Frankenstein raises quite several disturbing themes that still hold relevance for modern society. Despite being rather straightforward, these themes are given a chance to develop in Frankenstein, gaining additional poignancy and showing the complexity of social relationships, the role of prejudices, and the challenges of changing the mindset and attitudes of a community.

Of the multitude of complex issues that Frankenstein covers, the ones of prejudice and lost innocence seem to stand out since they are interlaced with the characters journey. As a result, throughout the novel, the themes in question evolve. For instance, the concept of prejudice transforms from people being averted by the monster to the monster becoming convinced in peoples malevolence. At first, even Frankenstein rejects the monster: All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! (Shelley). In turn, the theme of the lost innocence starts with the creator being completely naïve to what he unleashed on humankind and slowly realizing the outcomes of tampering with nature, concerning the serpent being an allusion to Millers Paradise Lost (Shelley; Ryan 25). Therefore, the author addresses the complexity of thematic development directly in the novel.

In addition, the choices that Shelley makes throughout her book are consistent with the Plot Diagram, yet they make the reader linger for a seemingly disproportionate amount of time on the rising action. One might argue that the specified change of pace disrupts the narrative, yet it, in fact, contributes to building the tension, thus making the final reveal all the more devastating for the audience. Specifically, the use of the technique known as the embedded narrative, where the correspondence between Victor Frankenstein and his sister seemingly interfere with the main narrative, creating three separate speaker entities, serve as a powerful tool for building tension (Barth 10). Thus, the Plot Diagram elements allow emphasizing the key themes in the novel, namely, the ones of isolation and the complexity of social interactions, setting the tone for the rest of the novel.

Similarly, Shelley uses the Methods of Characterization framework in a way that allows emphasizing the claustrophobic nature of the book. The contrast between the physical description of the monster and the initially peaceful nature of his actions creates the setting for exploring the theme of prejudice quite thoroughly, as Basiya remarks: The only source of his energy is his hate for people who do not accept his existence and who only live according to prejudice (176). As a result, the problem of prejudices and the unwillingness of the public to reconsider their perception of the unconventional as inherently evil is outlined impeccably.

By using the Methods of Characterization and the Plot Diagram in an innovative and refreshing manner, Shelley emphasizes the importance of the themes raised in her book. Namely, the issues of prejudices and the complexity of interpersonal relationships, as well as the linked idea of changing peoples attitudes, are represented quite vividly in the book. Thus, Shelley creates a compelling narrative that might seem a bit slow at first, yet quickly escalates to a series of drastic events.

Works Cited

Barth, Florian. Annotation Guideline No. 5: Annotation Guidelines for Narrative Levels and Narrative Acts. Journal of Cultural Analytics, vol. 11201, 2019, pp. 1-12.

Basiya, Rajesh V. The Monster Is Alive: 200 Years of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. Language in India, vol. 18, no. 7, 2018, pp. 174-187.

Ryan, Faith. Monstrous Femininity: The Female Abject in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and John Miltons Paradise Lost. The Albatross, vol. 8, 2018, pp. 24-32.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. Gutenberg.org, 2008.