In what ways does Mary Shelley challenge the reader’s perception of The Monster; in the novel Frankenstein?
Refer closely to the text; commenting on the reader’s changing sympathies.
Throughout the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley challenges the reader’s perception of The Monster. The book is narrated by three different people; Frankenstein, The Monster and Robert Walton. Different narrative voices are used by Shelley to convey the complex way in which the reader views The Monster. When Frankenstein or Robert Walton are narrating they talk about The Monster in a biased way. They both do not like The Monster because of what he looks like. The most accurate view of The Monster we get is when The Monster is narrating. It shows us what The Monster is like and how he feels. We also are told why The Monster changes throughout the book.
Frankenstein had a real love for science. He believed that another being could be created by joining other body parts. He spent years researching and creating this being known in the novel as The Monster. Frankenstein was very enthusiastic about his work, “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God!” He was proud of what he was creating. However when he brought The Monster to life he started to regret what he had created. “I beheld the wretch – the miserable monster whom I had created”. Frankenstein was disgusted at the being before him. He described The Monster as “ugly” and “a wretch”. The image created of the being from Frankenstein’s words is that of a stereotypical monster so when The Monster is abandoned the reader does not feel sorry for him and agrees with what Frankenstein is saying about The Monster. By creating The Monster Frankenstein is meddling with the natural world, he is playing God. Shelley uses the technique of science vs. religion because at the time people were in a period of confusion about how beings were created so this was an important part of the novel.
This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The essay has an okay structure. The introduction is punchy and introduces an argument, but the conclusion is way off the track and has little relevance to the question. Paragraphs are not well signposted, although this is partly due to the paragraphs not being focused on the question. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are fine. The essay flows well, and the style is okay, but there is no ability to craft an argument evident here and this needs to be worked upon.
Level of analysis
The analysis here is basic. As mentioned above, the introduction set the essay up for analysis of the different narrative positions and their respective styles that Shelley constructs, but there is nothing more than retelling the plot here. For example "Frankenstein agrees but later abandons the project when he sees The Monster" adds nothing to the essay or argument, only telling the examiner you know what happens. I would've liked to have seen some close analysis of how the different narrators define the monster, as the question prompts you to look at Shelley challenging the reader's perceptions. Unfortunately there is very little focus on the reader here. It is a common misinterpretation at GCSE to think that examiners are testing you for knowledge of the novel, whereas you must be building your argument around analysis. I was surprised to see so little analysis here, especially when the introduction was promising. Further to moving away from simply retelling the story, I would advise you reference the novel as Shelley's constructions. For example, say "Shelley has Frankenstein flee when he sees the monster to show his fear of him, making it clear to the reader how inhuman the monster is in image". By looking at how Shelley manipulates plot, and by doing that with techniques such as language, imagery, form and structure, you will be able to evaluate how this shapes meanings. This essay is very flat in the way it has no argument or no analysis.
Response to question
From the introduction, it would seem that this essay engages strongly to the question. Shelley's technique of using multiple narrators is key to this task, and this essay identifies this as the main discussion point. There is an awareness of bias and looks changing the reader's perception in the introduction, and this sets the essay up for looking at the different narrator's language and description of the monster. However, the rest of this essay seems to just narrate the plot, not linking back to the question or the introduction where techniques are referenced.
