Frankenstein gives us a powerful impression of the delight and pleasures to be gained from science

How far do you agree?

Frankenstein shows us the delight of going into the unknown areas of science, in reanimating a dead body, Frankenstein becames a pioneer. He broke the boundaries of conventional science of his age, he describes the intensity as, “Anxiety that almost amounted to agony,” Frankenstein shows us the emotions experienced before completing an experiment. In the build up to the experiment Frankenstein describes to the reader the emotions and thrill that he experienced, he was doing something that no one else had ever done before, so he had no idea what would happen, that is the key to his feelings, what would happen next he couldn’t predict.

The way in which Frankenstein learns about science is another way in which Frankenstein shows the pleasures to be gained from science. He shows the interest in the gaining of knowledge from books, he says, “The feeling changed to enthusiasm,” on the matter of learning about science. When he goes to university he goes off in search of answers to the world. When learning about science he describes it as “genius” Frankenstein shows us the pleasure of science is the gaining of knowledge and the search of answers.

Frankenstein shows a desire to learn about everything around him, he becomes fascinated with the lightening strike that hits a tree near his house when he is a child, this fuels his passion for science which results in him going to great lengths to acquire knowledge. Frankenstein show us that pleasure of science can fuel dedication to finding answers, he spends years preparing for the creation for a creature, as well as that he goes about stealing body parts.

On the other hand the pleasures of science also creates an ignorance to the emotions of himself and of others close ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

On the other hand the pleasures of science also creates an ignorance to the emotions of himself and of others close to him, he doesn’t see his family for several years and only makes contact with his father through letters which he sparsely mentions. The focus on science also dulls his emotions, he doesn’t understand and realise the fact the members of his family might actually miss him. He is too caught up in his work to contact them properly. He doesn’t express love to them or any desire to see them throughout his experiment which takes priority in his life, even over his life.

The way in which the dedication to science takes over him his comparative to an addiction, he doesn’t leave is lab for long periods of time, he shuns contact with living people, most contact with people are the dead ones who’s parts he steals. He cannot leave his work but for limited periods, he is addicted to science and cannot see it, he goes six years without seeing his family. He says, “I shunned my fellow creatures,” he realises that he has isolated himself but cannot understand why. He also experiences “Cold turkey” in the way he collapses after his experiment fails , he has withdrawal symptoms from science, for which he has been dedicated to for the last few years, and then it fails him. This is proof he had an addiction to science.

Frankenstein shows how dangerous and destructive science can be, the way in which a science experiment can claim lives but was believed to be for the greater good is comparable to the nucleur bomb. A monster is created because of his addiction to science, because of his science many of his dearly and beloved die. Innocent people die because of his addiction to science, Frankenstein shows science in a new light, as dangerous not just to the creator, but to people nearby.

Frankenstein also gives a powerful impression of morals, what is right? What is wrong? In showing science as dangerous, Shelley also raises the question of the role of morals in science. Victor never shows any regret for stealing body parts to be used to experiment on, this is reminiscent of the body snatcher generation which I think Shelley uses to questioning the mutilation of the dead. Which I think she believes is disrespectful. She shows Frankenstein as disrespectful to the dead, as well as that he creates an abomination, there are questions such as, should it be allowed to live? Frankenstein says, “As if I had been guilty of a crime,” Frankenstein is hugely naïve, which is also representative of her view on scientist, that they have relatively little understanding of anything other than science, which is why Victor is cast as an isolationist. Shelley uses Victor to raise points that question the science community in the way it acts.

Victor begins the novel with relative naivety regarding science, he finds great joy and expresses great passion for science, but in the end it is this love that becomes an addiction which destroys him and everything around him. Also for all the good things that Victor got out of science the end result was mainly misery and little pleasures was gained from science.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

groat

13th of Apr 2012

Quality of writing

The essay has a poor structure, as there is no overarching argument to this essay. It just seems a collection of ideas which are related to science. I would've liked to have seen a strong introduction looking at the significance of science in Frankenstein, posing a strong argument in response to the question "How far do you agree?". There is no conclusion evident here, which is a great opportunity to offer a final insight and justified judgement to your argument. Without a solid structure, you will be penalised as this is always an assessment objective in English Literature mark schemes. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are fine.

Level of analysis

The analysis here is okay, but I feel there needs to be more focus on techniques. When looking at the impression science has, I would want to explore Shelley's use of language, form and structure to present the significance of science. This essay has a tendency to narrate rather than analyse quotes. For example "Frankenstein shows a desire to learn about everything around him" adds little to the argument, and doesn't show the examiner any analytical skills. Some of the comments here are good such as "Shelley also raises the question of the role of morals in science" but I feel without the foundation of analysis, these become assertions and so aren't convincing to the examiner. A more in-depth focus on analysis of techniques and the effect on the reader would naturally lend itself to forming a more coherent argument. I have a query with the way this essay writes about the novel. I would always advise writing as if the novel is Shelley's construction, not by stating things simply happen. A good example of this is when the essay starts a paragraph "Frankenstein shows us the delight of going into the unknown areas of science". It is much better to write something along the lines of "Shelley has Frankenstein display the delight in forming his creature to show the delight of science". This would then set you up for analysis which is always focused on the question.

Response to question

This is an interesting task at GCSE level, exploring the novel's context of reception by focusing on science. The essay here engages well in the way it looks at science as a main theme, however there is plenty of room for improvement. The question explicitly talks about science giving the reader an impression, and I don't feel this is explored much here. If I were writing this essay, I would be looking at how a contemporary reader would respond to science being so prominent in a gothic horror. It is not good enough at GCSE to simply state that themes exist - you need to explore why they have been used and what effect on the reader they have. There isn't a clear argument formed here, and although the focus is science, the essay doesn't engage with the keywords in the question.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn