There are both moral and philosophical issues raised in the story, which still occur today. I will use these ideas to help discuss the reality of the title. The inspiration for the story came from Dr. Lind, a man who Shelley’s husband greatly admired, who in a scientific experiment, sent electric waves through dead frog’s legs and they moved. This form of playing with life and death was a very controversial issue in the 19th century, when Frankenstein was written, as it is still controversial now. Creating life unnaturally was a very new idea when Frankenstein was written, so it shows how ahead of its time the novel was. This idea would have been considered to be impossible and rarely discussed. Today on the other hand, cloning and genetic engineering is occurring more often and discussed a whole lot more. Religion is less strict now, and the idea of playing God doesn’t seem to be so terrible. Where as at the time this book was written, Christianity was very important to many people. Christian’s believe that God brought Jesus back to life, and in the book Frankenstein tried to do much the same with his creature. Again, this is why Frankenstein was seen to have ‘played God’. Today, cloning is still a controversial issue. Problems with it include the fact that many mistakes are made before the correct result is achieved. Also cloned animals have often been born with terrible deformities and gaining premature illnesses. Creating life is the main moral issue in the book, but there is also the problem of people fitting in to society because of their looks. The creature was shunned aside and discriminated against because it was ugly, like many people are today through no fault of their own. This was an issue in the 19th century as much as it is today. Earlier, there would be ceremonial ‘witch’ burnings and drowning on mere suspicion, and today there are many world issues including racism, prejudice and discrimination. The shallowness of our society is appalling and we just need to learn to accept people for who they are. Although racial discrimination wasn’t such a problem in the 19th century, it is now, which again shows that Frankenstein as a novel was very ahead of it’s time.
Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, shows development of Victor Frankenstein’s character to help us discover whether he was actually regretting his actions. Shelley introduces the reader to Victor Frankenstein near the beginning of the novel, in his home in Geneva. He is portrayed as a happy man who cared strongly for his family and friends. He had lived a rich life, and belonged to a very well off family who were well respected in the area, he is proud of his heritage and we know this when he says ‘I am by birth Gevenese; and my family is one of the distinguished of the republic’. As he decides to create the monster, he has no idea that there could possibly be anything wrong with what he’s doing. The reader, living in a modern world where cloning is more acceptable, thinks that he should have been more responsible and thought about his action more before he creates the creature. However, the reader needs to think back to when the book was set and remember that Frankenstein had never experienced any examples of genetic engineering, as it wasn’t something that was done in the 19th century. He truly believed that his creation would love him as it’s creator, and that it would lead to major breakthroughs in the future of science, not realising that the outcome could be more terrible than he could imagine. He was so sure it was meant to be for him to create the monster, ‘destiny was too potent and her immutable laws had decreed my utter and terrible destruction’. But during the creation process, Frankenstein becomes obsessed with his work. So obsessed infact, that he forgets about his family and doesn’t write to them for two years. This could cause the audience to blame him for the creature’s sins, as what he did to create the monster was such a disgrace. He ignores his family and friends, and cut up dead bodies, ‘I shunned my fellow creatures as if I was guilty of a crime’. Frankenstein shows a certain amount of responsibility further on in the book when he follows the monster to the North Pole. His intention is to kill him, though he has nothing left that the monster could take away from him. This shows Frankenstein trying to correct his mistakes by killing the monster he should never have created. This is Frankenstein being morally reprehensive.
From chapter 11, we hear the creature’s side of the story. He tells Frankenstein of what happened after he left him, and in these chapters, Frankenstein is made to look morally reprehensible. Shelley makes the creature look like the humane character and makes Frankenstein look like the monster. Frankenstein is angry at the creature making him sound bad, and it is now that he realises that he is to blame for his terrible suffering. He realises that by not making the creature, no suffering would have been caused and therefore he is blaming himself for creating the creature. From chapter 11, Frankenstein shows a huge change of character, portraying him as cruel, cold hearted and not willing to listen or reason. He treats other characters badly, as he ‘shunned his fellow creatures’ as well as swearing at the creature and losing his temper, ‘abhorred monster, ‘wretched devil’ and ‘begone, vile insect’. This is a massive contrast to the happy gentle Frankenstein we met at the beginning of the novel.
The monster, while speaking of the events after Frankenstein left him, uses the most eloquent language to make the reader realise he is not the fiendish monster that Frankenstein made him out to be. Throughout his story, he uses vivid description and strong emotive language to make the reader feel sorry for him, and regret thinking of him as a vile monster. During the time in which the monster speaks, the reader realises that Frankenstein was very biased and that the creature is actually just a well-spoken, thoughtful character that was driven to despair after being shunned by the whole of society. He uses imagery to give examples for how he felt, like when he says ‘I crept from my kennel’ as though he was a disgraced dog, and treated like an animal. At this point, the reader may have changed their views about the creation, but Frankenstein certainly hasn’t. He knows about how well spoken the monster is and thinks of it as a trick, to lure people into keeping him company. He says to Robert Walton that the creature is ‘eloquent and persuasive, and once his words had a power over my heart; but trust him not’. Frankenstein still believes the creature is to blame. When Walton sees the creature for the first time, he believes what Frankenstein told him on his deathbed. He says ‘I beheld a vision so horrible as his face, of such loathsome yet appalling hideousness’. It shows the reader how the monster’s appearance somehow overshadows the beauty of its speech.
Finally, Shelley uses some archaic language to show the historical context of the book. She uses the word ‘deamon’ when Frankenstein refers to the monster and this spelling of the word is no longer used. Shelley chose this word to describe the creature because it has connotations of the devil and evil ways. This links in with Shelley’s society and religion because everyone was religious and using the word ‘deamon’ would show just how much hate Frankenstein had for his monster. Frankenstein, by using this particular word for the creature, shows how he feels that he is the innocent one. When the monster speaks, his language is very fluent, smooth and flowing which links in well with the Romantic Movement, which was very much around at the time, the book was written.
The structure of the book is very interesting as it starts at the end, then goes back in time to explain the story. This gives the reader a chance to hear Frankenstein’s side of the story as he tells it to Robert Walton. The first part of the book is written as epistolary. This means it is written as a form of letters put together into a story. First, there are letters from Robert Walton to his sister Margaret. These letters make it clear that he has an obsession, much like Frankenstein’s, about reaching the North Pole. He then mentions that he has met a stranger, and goes on to inform Margaret of Frankenstein’s story. We hear Frankenstein’s story, right up to where he reaches Walton’s ship, and then it continues in the form of epistolary. The structure is very interesting, because Walton writes about his own story to Margaret and his story includes Frankenstein’s story which also includes the creature’s story. So Walton who is writing to his sister (and the audience) communicates all three stories in his letters. The narrative structure is very clever, because I think the same end would have happened to Walton if Frankenstein hadn’t have come along and informed him of the dangers of obsessions, it would have ruined his life, as the creation of the monster ruined Frankenstein’s. It was obviously morally wrong of Frankenstein to devote his life to his obsession, where his life was perfect before this fixation with natural philosophy. He ‘shunned’ his friends, and if he had not done this to create the monster, they would not have all been killed. There are many points where the reader does not know whether he was morally wrong or not, and the best example of this is when he decides to make the creature. It would have been morally wrong to unnaturally create life in the 19th century, but there is more leeway today as there are so many different views on genetic engineering.
Taken as a whole, I think that Victor Frankenstein was morally reprehensible. Even in the 21st century, where the creation of life is more frequent, I think it was morally wrong to take body parts from dead people. I think he should have realised the terrible consequences of his actions before he went ahead with the creation. He did so much research into natural philosophy and he should have realised from his study that he needed to learn from other people’s experiences. His obsession with being the first got in the way of him thinking straight. I think Frankenstein leaving the monster to fend for himself was also morally wrong. All human beings are cared for once they are born, so leaving the monster alone is suggesting that he isn’t human and doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. As the creature was often out in the open, this gave him a chance to be shunned and discriminated against by society which introduced the feelings of hatred and aggression which were used later on to destroy Frankenstein’s happiness. Frankenstein is really responsible, because if he were not so obsessed with natural philosophy and the death of his mother, he would never have developed a passion for saving life and would never have discovered that creating life was possible. He only had himself to blame for the destruction caused by the creature; not only to himself but to those he loved. Frankenstein never really admitted the responsibility, he said that God gave him the power, ‘I found such astonishing power placed upon my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it’ and though he did take a long time to think about what to do, he reached never realised the full outcome of his decision. Although he realised his mistake at the end, and tried to put someone off making the same one, he never admitted the responsibility out loud. So, in conclusion to the title, I’d say that Victor Frankenstein is a very morally reprehensible character.
