Taking inspiration from Byron’s suggestion of writing ghost stories, Mary Shelley explores an area which relates to all scientists dreams: the achievement of artificial life. This is the overriding purpose of the efforts of her main hero whose name gives the title to the novel. In his childhood Victor Frankenstein had been amazed by electricity. He had seen its effect on a “beautiful oak” struck by a dazzling stroke of lightning. Later the young doctor shares this experience with his friend – Arctic explorer Robert Walton. It is clear that the new phenomenon deeply excites the inventive imagination of the experimenter, just like Mary Shelley herself endures before the science.
Obviously both competition in her circle of friends and her growing interest in the unveiling of nature’s secrets have fired the imagination of the talented woman. She has been aware of the contemporary physician Dr Erasmus Darwin’s and the chemist Sir Humphry Davy’s researches, and probably has been excited by feelings similar to those we have today when cloning or Genetic Modification of food is argued about. If we think over the threatening cost of breaking the food chain, a series of dangerous pictures can form in front of our eyes. Unfortunately, under the cover of caring for humans and creating more food we are stepping into the unknown where there may be lurking serious and unpredictable risks.
The writer comes to the idea for the development of an extraordinary character in order to show where arrogant medical and biological approaches could lead. In her vision for the future she is very close to the plots used in films about military projects. The spreading of diseases from hidden hospital laboratories is akin to the escaping of the monster from Frankenstein’s workshop. The contemporary world is even under greater threat from the production and storage of nuclear weapons. Experimentation with them, and even their very existence, reminds us of Shelley’s warning of what could happen in case of failure. The artificial hero, to whom she gives intelligence, is probably the first in the search for similar images in world literature. In the modern times her example is repeated in the construction of electronic humanlike machines. All languages are enriched by the word “robot” introduced by Karel Capek in his “RUR” play. The abbreviation for Rosumove Universalne Roboty could be translated as “sensible universal work”. For the last word Capek uses an old lexeme which is not in contemporary Czech but exists in other Slavonic languages. The writer includes its meaning of “drudgery” in the expression for his artificially created heroes because they are designed to do appallingly undesirable work. His aim to warn the readers about the consequences of unaccountability for our inventions is just a variant of the message conveyed in Mary Shelley’s novel. Will reality have a more acceptable solution than those given by either writer!? It is never certain that the experimenter will be able to keep control over his product and that the prophecy of Nostradamus will not come true! Luckily Capek’s robots lose their energy and the miserable wretch from Shelley’s book decides to destroy himself in the Arctic: “Polluted by crimes, and torn by the bitterest remorse, where can I find rest, but in death?” Such fictional decisions should not tranquillize us, however, and we must be alert to the actions of people given enormous powers by the masses. We should not endure the experience of Dr Frankenstein based on his failure to assume responsibility for his own creation. We may connect the worst in his character with the hypocrisy we see in politicians when they hide the truth. The details of the experience are not shared even with the close friend. Walton writes to his sister Margaret: “Sometimes I endeavour to gain from Frankenstein the particulars of his creature’s formation: but on this point he was impenetrable.”
A related example from recent years is connected with the announcement of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 - actually with not spreading the warning information about it - just like Dr Frankenstein’s cowardly position. Who gives him or the authorities the right to sacrifice his close relatives and friends or large parts of the population?! The ambivalent Frankenstein’s assessment of his deed in his monologue before he dies shows his only aim, which has become a deep obsession, is to kill the monster. To the last moment of his life he nurtures a consuming hatred for the creature, and wants to end the duel with him. Like a politician concerned only with winning a war, regardless of the risk to others, he asks his friend the brave Walton “to endure the hardship I have undergone”.
In these final words as in the subtitle of the book, Mary Shelley suggests that Frankenstein's misfortune did not arise from his Promethean ambition of creating life, but in the mistreatment of his creature. The doctor lists the evil conduct of the monster, but ignores the fact that this ferocious behavior is the consequence of the way he treats him. It is only the beginning of a miserable existence for the new life. It is not his fault to be “born” but not wanted after this act. Is not Frankenstein like a father who never bothers to care about his own abandoned child? What are the consequences for children in a similar position in our society today? They grow up torn by the question: “Who are their real parents?” This lack of clarity affects negatively all their emotional life just like the monster who ponders about “his accursed origins”. Such children are deeply insulted by irresponsible parents ignoring their interests just as Frankenstein does. He never respects the monster’s needs – to have a wife, friends and family. We come close to his suffering throughout the whole storyline which finishes with his conversation with Walton aboard his ship. The monster expresses overwhelming regret for his frightful catalogue of misdeeds, the deaths of William, Clerval, Elizabeth, and the doctor. In contrast with him the creature shows a high sense of responsibility informing the explorer that he is determined to finish with himself in the frozen north, and “sprung from the cabin window upon the ice cold raft which lay close to the vessel”.
We become witnesses to all the misery to which he may have been subjected during his short life. He wins our sympathy despite his ugly and scary appearance. We can imagine the disappointment of a disabled child for whom all prospects for the future appear denied. Only with feelings of support from all institutions on which his dreams depend could he/she persevere in the right direction. Otherwise comes disillusion and anger. Someone could say: “This issue does not have anything in common with Shelley’s hero, it is positively solved without any influence from her book!”. It seems easier today but any Disability Act did not exist in the beginning of XIX century. The people’s opinion about rights is gradually formed on just such a base of publications similar to Shelley’s. We understand where the real reason for the monster’s tragedy is. Society does not tolerate anyone who is different and does not meet the accepted norms. In the character of the monster Mary Shelley conveys the other serious message of her novel – the alienation including the whole spectrum of its different faces: the refusal to understand and consider the misfortune of refugees’, those who are destitute etc.
Close to the topic of isolation is the problem of crime and guilt. Nearly 50 years before the famous Russian writer Dostoyevsky she put into literature an issue which has proved topical for all time. We feel her support for the downtrodden, her efforts to defend them from injustice and attacks. Any theories searching for specific negative features in appointed groups of people cannot be accepted. It seems that Mary Shelley anticipates the Italian researcher Cesare Lambroso’s view published in “The delinquent man”, 1876 and tries to overthrow it in advance. The society, the way of treatment - this is what could turn everyone into a criminal. Shelley’s advocacy is based on developing her rejected hero’s character. At the beginning he displays the attitude of a diligent adolescent who would like to learn everything about the core topics and people’s relationships. His assiduity deserves respect. He is driven to the murders and suffers the consequences. The delicate woman from the epoch of George the third raises her strong voice in defence of humiliated individuals.
It is amazing how far in time and how close to our reality is Mary Shelley with her significant “Frankenstein”. The worldwide impact of her book could give us a good lesson. It is an impressive legacy and a warning to generations to come. Every year on 11/11 British war veterans say with open sorrow: “Why do we never learn!”. Unfortunately those who we have entrusted with authority do not heed these historic and topical warnings. There is no excuse for violation hidden under any form against the planet Earth. This is the message sent to us down the years by Mary Shelley which we stubbornly ignore at our peril but should remember forever.
