Mary Shelley's Past: the dream versus reality

The question of Frankenstein’s origin is one which has puzzled many. The thought that a woman could come up with such a horrid idea was unnerving at the time which is why many sought to find a logical explanation. In her introduction, which she wrote as the result of the insistence of many who wished to unravel this mystery, Mary Shelley attempts to explain how the idea of such a monster came to her.  However, she wrote this introduction over a decade after her book was published, not wanting to cause any personal intrusion in her novel. She gives a very general and brief report of the summer in which Frankenstein was created and addresses the fact that this idea in no way was sparked by past experiences or pain she had felt herself. She states that she knew no measure of true pain back in those days, for her loss came much after. The reader can infer that this lost companion whom she speaks of was her husband, yet she makes it a point to not mention his name, keeping her personal life locked away and to herself.

            Shelley’s attempt to satisfy the reader without giving any personal information and keeping it as general as possible makes one wonder if it was simply a ploy to keep people from speculating and dabbling more into her life. The fact that she stated she had known no pain back when the story was created wasn’t entirely true. She had experienced a miscarriage before that summer and had to cope with the fact that she was seeing a married man and that the child she was carrying would have been a bastard child in society’s eyes. Although what Mary Shelley stated may be true, that there were no personal implications within the story, the fact that the idea came to her in a dream brings in the subconscious. She may not have thought more of the dream, or she may have simply not wanted to share her fears with the public, yet the dream clearly has some underlying resemblance to her life, embodying certain fears which could have arisen in her mind.

            In the dream she had that summer, which she describes in her introduction, she saw a creature being rejected by his creator. With this she may subconsciously be channeling two different fears within her: the first being the rejection of any child she had in the past or would have in the future, not only from Percy himself, but from society as well; and the second being that the creation of life would be accompanied by death once again. The fact that Victor leaves the creature on its own and that society rejected him, perpetually remaining outside of society marked the creature’s fate, and it’s this very fate which may have subconsciously sparked this terror, for she didn’t want her child to grow up without a father and being ostracized by society. These of course are mere speculations, which string together Mary Shelley’s subconscious to her vivid imagination, which in no way lead us to a concluding thought.

Discussion Questions:

In your opinion, are Mary Shelley’s fears entwined in her novel? Does she remove herself from the text as she states?

What significance does that dream have in your opinion? 

Using Frankenstein's Creation: Susan Tyler Hitchcock on Frankenstein

In this excerpt from her book Frankenstein: A Cultural History, Susan Tyler Hitchcock discusses the ways in which Frankenstein’s name has been used throughout history. The Victorians—who didn’t believe that the scientific breakthroughs of human beings could really add anything to the world—saw Frankenstein as a model of “mistaken idealism” (Hitchcock 263). Cartoonists used the image of Dr. Frankenstein to satirize political decisions, they felt, were leading the social system to an upheaval. In these situations the working class became Frankenstein’s creature, ready to destroy their creator. In other situations, such as wartime political cartoons, the creature often represented the opposing force, feral and ready to destroy the underprepared British forces. Essentially, to the Victorians, Hitchcock argues, the creature represented a dangerous other who, not only, did not deserve sympathy, but who was also capable of leading the misguided ‘Frankenstein’ to ruin. It was only the “radical philosophers [of] the late 1800’s” (Hitchcock 265) who saw the monster as a positive comparison as he was the force capable of making change, despite the situations he was faced with. 

Mary Shelley 1797-1851

In the United States in 1852 the myth was being used in a way similar to how it was being used in the UK. The creation represented something not necessarily evil, but certainly misguided, that required others in the community to educate it and show it the light. The creation in this scenario being the working class or the general public, while Frankenstein represented those in the upper class who were capable of providing education. In the 1900’s, as the United States aged their first colonial war against the Philippines, Frankenstein became a symbol for the United States itself while the creature became a symbol of a giant destructive force bent on ruining the American way of life. Due to the shifting sympathies between Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster, by the 1900’s people were beginning to use the name Frankenstein interchangeably to describe both. This was a result of people being unfamiliar with the novel and instead only being familiar with how the myth had been used in political cartoons, articles, and other modes of opinion that utilized Shelley’s story. This confusion over the characters also occurred because there were few copies of the novel actually in circulation and it wasn’t until 1912 that the general reading population actually had access to the text.

Hitchcock provides her reader with useful information about how the Frankenstein myth has been used and abused. From people only having a vague sense of what the story is about, to characters being seen in accordance to completely different sympathies, Hitchcock argues that through societies use of the Frankenstein myth, the original meaning has been lost in a wider cultural sense. The ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality being applied to Frankenstein is potentially problematic when looking at the original text because it loses all sense of connection between Frankenstein and his creation. Of course it keeps the sense of responsibility, the sense that Frankenstein brought his monster into the world, that he tried to defy nature, but it loses the sense of Frankenstein as a failed parent, as a mother. Focusing purely on Frankenstein’s God complex—as the political cartoons often do—loses Victor Frankenstein as an individual. Once the personal aspect has been lost then the story becomes less about a person and more about a society. 

Susan Tyler Hitchcock

Frankenstein did not just create the creature out of some need to defy nature. Frankenstein from early on seems to be reverent nature to an extent. Watching the power of lightening, being overwhelmed by the beauty of the sublime in nature, finding comfort in the outdoors, it seems Victor cares less about overcoming nature and more about being a part of it. Nature is often referred to as a feminine force—Mother Nature—Frankenstein creating his monster wasn’t about him being a God, it was about him being a mother. The need to create and be an equal to the world he loves so much. Victor labored over his child, worked hard to create a creature that would reflect his ideal new life. Spending months away from the world, hardly eating or sleeping, until finally he had created something he had thought to be beautiful. Victor’s sin doesn’t lie in the fact that he created this being, his fault lies in the fact that he reduced him to a monster. Reducing the complexities between Frankenstein and the creature to a relationship where Frankenstein was misguided and created something beyond his understanding undermines the femininity of the story, the issues of motherhood, and the responsibility of being a parent. It is through this reduction of the relationship between Frankenstein and his monster that cultural understanding of the text becomes simplified to a problematic extent. 

For excerpts from Susan Tyler Hitchcock's book Frankenstein: A Cultural History, go here.
For a very strange 'Monster Mash' parody video that will probably disturb you on multiple levels, go here.

Discussion Questions:
1.  At various points in history, depending on the situation, the opinion on whether or Frankenstein or the creation is the hero seems to shift. Often they still represent the same things in political metaphors—Frankenstein being the political force or upper class while the creation represents the working masses—only the sympathy changes. What do you think this says about the ways in which readers were interpreting Frankenstein?

 

2. As mentioned in the blog, Frankenstein and the monster used as a metaphor are used as a way to include people under one label and create a very “us versus them” situation. What do you think is the effect of using literary figures as a means to represent entire groups?

 

3. What about the way in which the myth was reaching the public? It is unlikely everyone had read the novel themselves, instead it was often situations like these cartoons that made people aware of the myth. How do these cartoons affect people’s understanding of Frankenstein and the themes presented in the novel?

 

The Responsibility of a Scientist

The theory of electricity didn't just bring the promise of a new, more efficient source of energy, it brought the promise of unlocking the substance of life itself. One of the most significant scientific debates in Europe, during this time period, was the "Vitalist Debate," where scientists argued whether or not the source of life was of divine origin or not. There were two main figures on both sides of this debate. One was Abernethy, who argued that life was based on some mysterious, fundamental "principal of life" that was super-added into human beings to give them life. The other figure was William Lawrence who argued that life was caused by material substances that are inherent to the human body without needing some sort of intervention from something that is outside the human body. Many people believed that the key to the problem of Vitalism lied in electricity. Many scientists like Luigi Galvini and Giovanni Aldini performed experiments where they administered electricity to dead animals and even human corpses in an attempt to reanimate them. 

Pictured: "Science" 

At this time, in light of the experiments of scientists like Aldini and Galvani, the reanimation of the dead seemed like a real scientific possibility. This was a world where science began to explore ideas that seemed blasphemous to explore. This was the world where Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, the first science fiction novel. 

In Frankenstein, the main character is Victor Frankenstein, a young man studying chemistry in Ingolstadt who becomes obsessed with creating life. He works for many months collecting the remains of corpses and assembling them into his creature. Frankenstein succeeds in his mission and immediately becomes horrified with his creature, who ultimately ends up murdering several of his loved ones. 

It's very easy to read Shelley's novel as a warning for scientists who want to play God, but Shelley's message is much more complicated than that. Despite what Hollywood might want you to believe, Victor Frankenstein is not a "mad scientist," in fact, I wouldn't even call him a scientist. Frankenstein is a student of science. The only true scientists in the novel are his professors, Krempe and Waldman. Shelley paints Waldman as a benevolent mentor for Frankenstein, he is kind and well spoken and represents everything that is right with science. Waldman urges Frankenstein to study all branches of science in order to become a true man of science. At this point in history, science was a much broader term encompassing more than just the "natural philosophies." Waldman urged Frankenstein to broaden his breadth of knowledge to prevent him from becoming a "petty experimentalist."

This is what a true scientist is, a true seeker of knowledge.  Frankenstein is not this. He becomes obsessive, narrows his area of study to fulfill one sick ambition--reanimation of the dead. The crazy thing is that Frankenstein actually succeeds. He creates a living creature, and more than that. He creates a creature with a soul. The "monster" he creates feels, thinks, has desires, feels love, feels hate. The creature becomes murderous because Frankenstein neglects him. 

It's not that the act of creating the creature that is inherently evil. Part of what made Shelley's novel so controversial is that it takes the materialist side in the Vitalist debate. Frankenstein is able to create life out of inorganic material. The evil that comes from his experiment is not in the actual reanimation, it's in the way Victor refused to follow up his experiment and deal with the ramifications of bringing new life into the world.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is the character of Victor Frankenstein a critique of scientists like Aldini and Galvani? What statement is Shelley trying to make about the science of her time?

2. Victor Frankenstein did not consider the consequences of his creation and let his creature go loose, and this led to the death of an innocent child. In the process of creating a female companion for his creature Victor actually thinks about the consequences, and he decides to destroy the creature for the sake of humanity. Was this the right thing to do? Should he have denied his creation a companion?

Family Affairs in Frankenstein

At the time that Mary Shelley was writing her novel Frankenstein, the British Empire was generally concerned with the idea of the preservation of the "nuclear family." This being the ideal family that has a patriarchal structure in place. The husband and father is the main dictator of the household and deals with the responsibility of providing for the family. In Mary Shelley's, Frankenstein, family structures and lineage plays an important role in the development of Victor's character. His parents are ideally a representation of what the nuclear family should look like.

At the beginning of the novel, Alphonse, finds his wife Caroline kneeling by the coffin of her deceased father. Shelley chooses this to be the first interaction that we see between Alphonse and Caroline to show that he picks his wife based on her vulnerability. Alphonse is aware that Caroline is desperate for companionship after losing a father figure. So, Alphonse does not only serve as her husband throughout the text, but as a father figure as well that confines her to a domestic sphere within the home. Shelley states that, "Caroline is portrayed as a plant capable of surviving only under the careful cultivation of her surrogate caretaker" (18). Her surrogate caretaker being Alphonse. From the beginning of the novel, Shelley makes it clear that she is critiquing the idea of what a "perfect" family should look like. At this time, the "perfect" family would have all women submitting to the patriarchal figures within the home.

(Above: Picture of what the ideal "nuclear family" would look like)

Mary Shelley also suggests that family structures are carried over and reflected in their children. When Elizabeth joins the Frankenstein family, Victor treats Elizabeth exactly how Alphonse treats Caroline. Both men view their wives as weak and unable to survive without them. Both men view the female body as possessions that they have complete control over. Victor states that he saw Elizabeth as " . . . a possession of my own" (21). Shelly offers a critical approach to stating that the "nuclear family" can only exist if the men are in complete control over the women in the family. But, the woman in the family have to be weaker and willing to let the men rule over the family in order for the family to "properly" function. However, Shelley challenges this notion of the perfect family within the Frankenstein family when Victor creates the monster. 

The creation of the monster could be a reflection or hinting towards having a child outside of wedlock. This challenges the notion of the "nuclear family" because of the way that Victor creates the monster. Besides having children with his wife, Victor "births" or "creates" his own child. However, his refusal to take responsibility for the monster after he creates the monster critiques his ability to be a successful father or caretaker. 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1) Discuss how Victor's inability to care for the monster leads the monster to becoming violent? What would you say Shelley's "ideal" family would look like? What type of familial structures would be in place? 

2) What family patterns do you see being transferred through the generations of the Frankenstein's? Could these patterns been broken? Explain, why or why not.

The Creator and Creation: Who Is The Real Villain?

As we become engrossed in Dr. Frankenstein's tale, and in turn, the tale of the monster himself, our human sympathies are tested and evoked even in the twisted feelings/perceptions of the monster. Aesthetically, our monster is a living representation of all things terrible and supernatural.Created by man, he is the result of the imperfect, sometimes evil, endeavors of the human race to achieve that which we are not designed for-- the attainment of power over life and creation. We watch Victor Frankenstein achieve this goal, compromising his ideals and human virtues to create man in his own image: imperfect and inherently evil. From a religious standpoint and one that accurately coincides with the history of man, our image is one of the beauty and successes of nature, or God, but our accomplishments are those of destruction and vice, that some would attribute to the workings of the devil. We are created in God's image and tainted with the temptations of evil; Shelley uses her knowledge of religion and particularly the epic Paradise Lost as groundwork for her understanding of human nature.

If we consider humans as created in the image of perfection yet poisoned with the passions of evil, we can then begin to discover where Victor Frankenstein's creation of his own being went wrong. The power to create life was one bestowed on God and He alone, and by attempting to capture and master these powers, Frankenstein has stepped into the workings of the devil. For in biblical history, Lucifer is the only other character we can refer to as one who tried, and to some extent succeeded, in attaining Godly powers. Because of this we can equate Dr. Frankenstein to no other force but the devil himself. If we see man as an imperfect physical manifestation of God, then Frankenstein's monster is, in turn, an imperfect manifestation of man. Victor attempts to create a being in his own image and succeeds as completely as is humanly possible.

So what makes the monster so terrible? Aside from his physical repulsiveness, he seems to be a virtuous character as much as any mortal man can fulfill the dimensions of virtue. However he is still an image of terror, one that haunts our very nightmares and leaves us trembling in fear for our lives. He is a man, in the most imperfect sense of the word. Created by man, he cannot possess physical or natural beauty, for his very existence is unnatural and is a crime to the natural order of things. His creator was committing the ultimate sin by harnessing godly powers and making them humanly accessible. Because of this, Frankenstein's monster is created in the image of sin-- ugly, detestable, and presumptuously evil.

Created in man's image, the monster possesses all the same passion, desire for companionship, and thirst for knowledge as man himself. He is no different than you and I; he simply wishes to understand the world and how it works, and share meaningful relationships with those whose company would benefit his well-being. These people do not exist for our monster, unfortunately, and the lack of companionship in his life is what eventually leads to his own disorder and murderous tendencies. Don't we see this very isolation and hopelessness lead to human murders of other people? Whether it's a medieval aristocrat murdering his beloved's lover out of jealousy and misery, or a neglected student full of hatred and revenge shooting up his own institution, we see again and again the murderous capabilities of humans throughout history.

Frankenstein's monster is just another person, shunned by the world and his creator, doomed to walk the desolate forests and mountains of the earth alone, searching in vain for some positive connection to life. His intelligence allows him to identify and understand the origin of his miseries, and even in this light logic leads him to seek out his creator and resolve his problem through the creation of a bride, a single friend, of his own. How can someone be evil who seeks to protect others from his wrath and create happiness for himself?

His outstanding virtue is never clearer than when he saves the little girl from drowning, and is yet again condemned for his actions.When he is shot, he exhibits nothing more than human rage and passion; "The feelings of kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind," (Shelley 99). Even to the mildest of dispositions, the monster's reaction to being shot falls directly in the realm of a probable human reaction. If this had been an actual human being, I dare say in this moment he would have pursued and killed his attacker on the spot. Even here we see a higher level of virtue and respect for life than that displayed by humans.

Again and again we see the monster's overwhelming virtue give way to murderous rage. When he is detested by every living being, including his creator, how can we possibly make judgment of his actual character? It has been corrupted heavily, not only by the actions of mankind and how he is treated, but by the nature of his creation itself and his creator. Even the man he could rightly call a divine Father is unable to behold the disgusting being he has created, horrified by the idea of life created from death.

Above is a trailer for a modern rendition of Frankenstein, rather a sequel to the story borne from the pages of Mary Shelley. Here we see human curiosity and desire for discovery overcome the commonplace knowledge that the man-made monster is a force not to be reckoned with. This is just one more recent film portrayal of this inhuman, yet incredibly human, monster.

Discussion Questions

What attributes make Frankenstein's monster so vastly different than humankind? Arguably, is he better or worse (morally, physically, etc...) than humans themselves and why?

Why is the monster's creation considered a failure? Do you agree with Victor's opinion, or are there ways in which his creation can be considered a success? Explain.

Frankenstein's destruction of Innocence

In an essay in Critical Terms for Literary Study ideology is described as a tool for controlling societies and managing social contradictions. The dominant social class controls the critiques and views that are seen in their own world. A dominant social class that desires to encourage the lower social class to focus on producing and exporting profitable products to make money to sustain their society may bring to light the benefits and importance of their position.

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" does not seem to create an ideology that is aimed at one specific group of people. More important themes and symbols seem to litter the book, making a bigger influence with critics over the years. The novel does focus on the tribulations and the consequences of Frankenstein delving into the powers of God. Maybe Shelley is crafting a cautionary tale. However, Frankenstein's agony and the trauma he suffers can indicate that Shelley is trying to continue a tradition that nature should not be controlled and surpassed by man alone.

Victor Frankenstein found himself in great pain and agony as soon as the monster came to life. He was bedridden for days and looked ill. Frankenstein's physical condition has become worse and he is even acting out of place. The doctor "traversed the streets without any clear conception," as his "heart palpitated in the sickness of fear." These physical descriptions describe a man who is wounded and ill. Frankenstein's condition has worsen to the fate of a zombie. He is in pain and is not in the best state as his suffering surrounds his obsessions to defy nature and create life,

Frankenstein also suffers when it comes to his relationship with his family. His ambition and obsession with science leads him to ostracize himself, but the creature also brings pain to Frankenstein's family. His cousin William is murdered at the hands of his own creation. "The sweet child, whose smiles delighted and warmed my heart, who was so gentle, yet so gay!" as Frankenstein's father describes the young boy, is a child who's death resembles an innocence lost due to Frankenstein creating the monster. The death of William is just one of the consequences for the monster's creation.

The monster is not a creation of nature as Victor Frankenstein created him out of science and research. He is not a man or woman birthed from a man and Frankenstein, along with his loved ones, is being punished for that transgression. This is not a world that one would want to live in and Shelley is showing us that by framing the novel with a darker aesthetic. Frankenstein is often described as "melancholy" and devoid of joy throughout most of the novel. This darker setting is used put in place after the monster has been created. Shelley is showing readers how dark and perilous the world is when a person defies the laws of nature.

The darker, downtrodden aspects in the story of Frankenstein reveal a place that many people were people would not want to live. Shelley's focus on realism and consequences in the novel have an important affect on Frankenstein. The loss of the scientist's innocence is highlighted with the many deaths that the monster leaves in his path while also proving that their is a responsibility to be upheld with scientific discovery.

Discussion Questions:
1): With her novel "Frankenstein," Is Mary Shelley upholding an ideology that men and scientists in general, should not break away from the rules of nature? Is this accentuated through the death of Frankenstein's innocent family members at the hand of the monster? Is this a realistic claim to make now?
2) Is their a significance that the creature murders William instead of a random passerby? Does it have more of an impact on the novel if it is just a child?

Narrative Structure and the Will of Nature in Frankenstein

Reading through the first half of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, it's not difficult to imagine how rich scholarly discussions have perpetuated for the nearly 200 years since its publication.  The novel appears at once very openly interpretable, partially due to the relevancy of the novel with modern and romantic readers and also to the novel's ambitious scope. Though relatively short, the novel presents itself as the summation of early romantic influences, commenting on the passions, nature, the sublime, and issues of masculinity and femininity, all while directing its focus forward toward the unknown.  As I was reading, I was struck by the narrative structure, how the interwoven perspectives of Walton, Frankenstein, and the creature show each characters' receding levels of humanity.  As the novel proceeds inward, readers must contemplate who is man and who is monster, a feat somewhat more difficult than the novel would have us suspect.

Walton, Frankenstein, and the creature in an unintentionally appropriate color sequence

The humanity of each character can be represented by their relationship with nature, since as readers, our sympathies are placed in those who exist with nature rather than those who try to conquer it.  Robert Walton is the overly ambitious, self-consciously self-educated explorer, who after failing to become a poet, seeks his claim over nature by sailing to the North Pole.  Like Frankenstein, Walton desires to reveal the unknown, for "what may not be expected in a country of eternal light?" (7).  He half expects a paradise beyond the ice, and once again, like Frankenstein, his double interest in the fantastical or supernatural and the scientific is dangerous.  He essentially is Frankenstein pre-monster reanimation, and Frankenstein's story serves to act as a warning for Walton.  

Frankenstein's notice or disinterest in the sublime proves useful in understanding his relationship with nature, for although he is often set against the scenery, Frankenstein finds the sublime in nature's most tempestuous throws.  Much of his interest in science can be traced back to childhood events, such as the thunderstorm he witnessed at age fifteen.  After "watching its progress with curiosity and delight," the storm violently hits a tree near Frankenstein's house, and he recalls how he "never beheld any thing so utterly destroyed" (23).  This is the first time Frankenstein witnesses nature produce something terrible, something outside of man's control.  He finds it sublime only because it excites his curiosity, and his animation of the creature is an attempt at recreating these feelings within him.  He becomes obsessed not only with "infusing life into an inanimate body," (35) but with creating a man-made sublime.  For two years his "eyes were insensible to the charms of nature," (34) and he recalls how when the creature came to life, "the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart" (36).  Although Frankenstein finds disgust in his work, his power in overcoming the boundaries of life and death instills in him a God-complex that lingers throughout the rest of the novel.

The creature that Frankenstein creates appears more connected with nature than either Walton or Frankenstein.  He finds sanctuary in the North Pole, one of the last places untouched by mankind, and is able to gracefully navigate through mountainous terrain and inclement weather.  Frankenstein's "monster" is the embodied form of nature itself; he is terrible and ugly only because the passions which led Frankenstein to create the creature are terrible and ugly.  

There are a ton of Frankenstein adaptations out there, but here's a well-known scene from the 1931 film with Colin Clive and Boris Karloff.  Surprisingly, this is the fourth film adaptation made.

Discussion Questions

1.  How does Shelley use Frankenstein's relationship with nature and the sublime to characterize him and show his development throughout the novel? 

2. What prevents Frankenstein from establishing a creator-creation relationship with his monster? How does this affect the creature's decisions as time goes on?