Frankenstein: "Irony is what drives the plot." Discuss.

by gueerenbaegmailcom (student)

This is an unfair assessment as irony in the novel is used by Shelley to enhance the plot, and not as a driving force of the storyline. Irony is used in the novel to highlight how monstrosity is not defined by one’s outward appearance, but by one’s actions.

Irony does not drive the plot but rather enhances the plot development, as it essentially challenges our judgement of an individual’s appearance in relation to our perception of his intentions. For example, the creature’s interaction with the drowning girl, where he “saved” her and “dragged her to shore” paints a striking picture of the moment, where he risks his life to rescue the girl without hesitation. This portrays the creature’s apparent willingness to put aside his will for self-preservation to jump into the water to save the helpless girl. The monster’s selflessness and compassion for the humans around him is contrasted with his ragged physical appearance, where his “watery eyes”, “shrivelled complexion” and “straight black lips” serves as a reminder of the presence of death in his complexion. His existence thus is ironic as his gentle treatment of the girl is inconsistent and the opposite of his distorted, deathly physical appearance. The creature’s kindness and sacrifice are not acknowledged in lieu of his monstrous appearance, where the companion of the girl “aimed a gun” at the creature and “fired”. The vivid picture of the scene painted, where the girl’s companion shot down the creature without hesitation, illustrates how he judged the creature’s character as evil and perceived the creature’s heroic intention as an act of malice instinctively. Thus, the girl foregrounds a plot conflict within the novel that is enhanced by the irony of the creature’s appearance and his kind demeanour from the start of the novel.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

Moreover, irony highlights the contradiction of the creature’s docile nature with the violent, unthinking attitude of the humans. This is apparent from the encounter with the blind man who at first, without any knowledge of his physical appearance, accepts the creature wholeheartedly and offers to be “serviceable [towards] a human creature”. The old man’s tone of absolute hostility presents the acceptance of the old man towards the creature’s character. Still, once his family has seen the creature, they reacted to the creature with violence by repeatedly striking him “violently with a stick” due his deformity, as they saw difference in the creature as alien and thus a threat. The old man does not intervene in their assault of the creature, as he does not voice out his dissent or try to stop the assault despite hearing the commotion. Thus, this brings to light that while his “words have persuaded [the blind man] that he is sincere”, the creature’s appearance affects other’s ultimate perception of his intentions and character. Moreover, it portrays the ease in which humans contradict themselves and do not abide to their words. Hence, Shelley uses the blind man as a plot device to eliminate the physical factor of the definition of monstrosity, and attributed the creature’s inability to connect with people to his hideous countenance. The irony is once again brought up to juxtapose the humanity in the creature with the cruelty from the cottagers, to have refuted his sincere desire for friendship with violence. The ironic juxtaposition enhances the misunderstanding towards the creature and his pitiful state, thus enhancing the storyline and the readers’ emotions towards him.

Ultimately, the plot’s central focus then mirrors the Creature’s irony, first appearing to be a revelation of the Creature’s misdeeds and Frankenstein’s suffering before revealing that the Creature’s monstrosity and misdeeds are catalysed by inhumane treatment by the humans. The creature laments of his unfair treatment, asking Walton “Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me?” and brings up the wrongdoings of Felix who “drove his friend from the door with contumely” and the drowning girl’s companion who “sought to destroy the saviour of his child”. The use of the rhetorical question forces readers to ponder about the mistreatment of the creature by the humans he has encountered, and how this form of mistreatment applies only to the creature as people who committed similar crimes did not receive the same consequences. It also addresses the irony that revolves around the whole novel, where the monstrous acts by the humans are not taken into judgement, but the crimes of the creature is critically judged by humanity thus deeming him a monster. The hypocrisy of humanity labelling the creature of being a monster when the humans themselves possess monstrous doings enhances the revelation of the storyline through an impactful conclusion made by the “monster” himself. As such, the creature who ”murdered the lovely and the helpless”, “strangled the innocent as they slept” and “grasped to death his throat who never injured [him] or any other living thing” did so as a reflection of humanity’s actions, where time and time again the creature was met only with violence. Therefore, the creature reverting to violence as a means to obtain what he seeks is only a mirror of humanity’s inhumane treatment to the creature.