Victor is guilty not only of this crime of parental failure, but in the actual creation of the monster which is a blasphemous act in itself. The dualism Shelley created here, by the production of the monster is that of the struggle between passion and reasoning. Viktor is guilty in that by allowing his passion to overcome his reason, committed the ultimate crime, in that he overstepped into the boundaries forbidden to humanity in that he created life. In this procreation, he committed a terrible crime against humanity generally and God especially, in that he usurped the role of the divine creator. Essentially, Viktor unleashed upon society, a terrible and hideous monster, one which was, in actuality, the externalisation of the darker side of his own psyche. ‘A terrible wretch,’ ’fiend,’ a ‘demonical corpse’, an ‘abhorred monster’, This externalisation in turn proved capable of murdering the innocent, reeking havoc wherever it may tread. Such a horrific tale, such a demonstration of extreme blasphemy would perhaps be expected to result in some sort of sense of justice for the deaths of the innocent. It can be said that upon reading the novel, the reader would undoubtedly expect in the end to receive a sense of closure, and be presented unquestionably with a definite moral lesson. This would be expected particularly in the conservative society on the nineteenth century. Instead the reader is left uncertain as to Mary Shelley’s true message. Instead, Victor does not ever wholly recognise the dangers of unbound passion that one fails to see reason. Upon the crews request to return home in the face of possible death, while Walton, disheartened as he is, is still able to recognise their justification, Victor dismisses their argument entirely where he cannot comprehend the thought of turning back when they are so close to their captain’s goal. ‘Do not return to your families with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows.’ Even after everything he has experienced, Victor continues to live in his own dreams and refuses to face reality. Viktor cannot complete his ‘pilgrimage,’ what can be seen as his only sort of reverence, his only real sense peace of mind. He is tortured by guilt only for the deaths of his friends and family. ‘They were dead, and I lived, their murderer also lived, and to destroy him I must drag out my weary existence;’ This quote refers to Victor’s quest, whereby he is convinced that only through completion of this task of annihilating the monster can he avenge the deaths of the innocent and rectify his disastrous sin. However, Victor dies before he can fulfil the quest of destroying the monster which he ‘so thoughtlessly bestowed upon mankind.’ Victor does not ever avenge the deaths of the innocent, gain insight or peace of mind. In fact, Victor dies in complete ignorance and hostility. It is questionable as to Shelley’s purpose behind the tale of Victor in the first place. In his seemingly untimely death of ignorance, and ultimately the failure of his task, there is arguably, no sense of wholesome satisfaction offered to the reader from such a conclusion described. No sense of justice for the deaths of those innocent and good people who lost their lives at the hands of Viktor and his monster has been obtained.
The conclusion of Walton is yet again one of doubt, and the readers are left with a sense of uncertainty as to whether Walton has recognised the similarities between his own personality and that of Victors, and in doing so obtained a warning or a sense of insight. Walton’s situation is similar to that of Victors, one of passion overcoming reason. It is arguable that although Walton does return home, he does not do so because he has gained wisdom of the dangers of his single minded obsession, but because he simply has no choice. Shelley leaves Walton’s position in such a way in that it is difficult to discern whether Walton is sincerely interested in his crew’s safety or if he is simply afraid of a mutiny on the ship. Walton perceives the crew’s request to abort the voyage as unjust, blaming the crew for disappointing him. Although he recognises the validity to their argument and continues to see them as ‘brave’ and correct in their assessment of the dangerous of the situation, his words lead us to believe he sees the cowardice and indecisiveness of their actions. While they wish to return to England in the face of possible death, Walton maintains his Promethean tendencies, noting in one of his letters ‘I had rather die than return shamefully- my purpose unfulfilled.’ Walton also alarmingly maintains a sense of deep admiration for Victor until his dying moments, noting that he is ‘noble and godlike in ruin’ He has listened to Victor’s story, yet it does not enlighten him nor warn him of his character, and it is apparent that he has learned very little. The qualities which we have recognised within Walton which linked him inextricably to Victor in the opening letters continue to exist in the final letters. Significantly, the absence of Walton’s signature at the end of the last letter prohibits the novel from completing its Chinese box structure narrative. It leaves the ending open and forces the reader to accept the uncertainties created from this rejection of closure. By leaving out Walton’s signature from the last letter, Shelley leaves us pondering the possibility of the monster having the last say, and that the tale is not in fact complete. It is possible to suggest, that no sense of closure for the reader comes about from the conclusion of the Monster. The monster, upon his cruel desire to prolong and extend the sufferance of Viktor, ruthlessly leads him upon such a harsh and difficult journey, ‘Follow me, I seek the everlasting ices of the north. You will feel the misery of cold and frost to which I am impassive,’ and upon his unquenchable desire and even embracement of causing Viktor great pain and misery upon the murder of his family, however, during the journey, the monster, rather maternally, leaves provisions for Victor to assist his comfort and he persists to keep Victor alive. These actions are questionable and can lead us to consider the monster’s true intentions. This idea is maintained when viewing the death of Viktor, the monster is in fact moved and solemn, full of grief, horror and self reproach, demonstrating a definite sense of admiration and esteem for his creator. ‘what does it avail that I now ask thee to pardon me?’ Such solemnity at what should in fact be understood to be a joyous occasion for the Monster, so much so that he feels he cannot go on living and anticipates his own funeral pyre, creates yet more uncertainty for the reader, in that they are forced to question the creatures true nature and intentions throughout the novel. The sense of despair shown by the monster’s address completely contradicts the idea of his violent nature. It is even possible to feel a sense of pathos for the monster at this time, upon his repent, reverence and utter loneliness which therefore invites us to question our hostility towards him initially. It is therefore arguable that there is no sense of wholesome satisfaction obtainable from such a conclusion described. There is neither any sort of sense of justice or reprimand for the blasphemy of Viktor, nor for the deaths of those innocent and good people who lost their lives at the hands of Viktor and his monster. There is also no visible solution nor conclusion to the situation, the text ends with an extreme sense of despair, bleakness and misery and very much in uncertainty. In this way Mary Shelley fails to conform to expectations, and can be seen as pointedly refusing to pass judgement, or criticism, and in doing so, essentially denies her readers any lessons of morality from the text.
Many critics are in agreement with the view however, that Frankenstein does offer a powerful examination of, and challenge to what is good and evil in man and therefore society. I personally am in agreement with this opinion. They have recognised and have been able to obtain a number of moral lessons from the events explored in the novel. One original critic, as quoted in ‘The British Critic’, April 1818, admits that ‘we suspect, that the diseased and wandering imagination, which has stepped out of all legitimate bounds, to frame these disjointed combinations and unnatural adventures, might be disciplined into something better.’ More and more frequently, modern critics of the past 20 years have in fact recognised Frankenstein is a text which offers a moral exemplar and it has been suggested by one critic that the novel itself and particularly the creature, has in fact, become a ‘metaphor for our own cultural crisis’ as quoted in Levine, 1979. Although early critics greeted the novel disdain, contemporary critics especially over the past twenty years have increasingly, recognised the validity and more importantly, the moral of the grotesque events explored. Mary Shelley can be said to have presented her readers with numerous amounts of controversial, however very relevant subject matter, and through the progression of events, invites us to question the realms of our thinking and understanding of the novel; and to realise individually what conclusions and judgements Mary Shelley herself passes, and in doing so, what moralisation she desires for her readers to extract.
Though her novel, I am of the opinion that Mary Shelley deals with and addresses a number of very relevant concerns, social, cultural and humanitarian, relevant of her time. Such concerns that are, in fact, so universal, they continue to exist within society in the present day. Some critics have even gone so far to have said that the book itself has become a ‘crucial metaphor for our modern worl.,’ From my own understanding I can say that the novel deals in depth with the concern of conflict of good and evil and can be seen to explore and offer an opinion or condemnation of such conflicts that exist within society and human culture. Shelly has addressed the concerns of the corruptness of social institutions such as the justice system and the church, the dangers of science, the idea of child abuse and murder, the darker side of humanity, the tendency with which humans judge one another on appearances, the rejection of God…the list goes on. Through the exploration of such subject matter, I would be inclined to question the possibility of the way in which the novel can ultimately fail, in fact, to pass judgement or offer to society, a lesson of morality.
It is possible to see that Mary Shelley, through the exhibition of Viktor’s rejection of the creature and parental failure, is offering a critique and warning of those who turn away from their responsibilities. Discontent at the conclusion of the novel is apparent when Victor dies without ever realising his true crime, when he disregarded his years of study and passion as he turned from his creation in disgust when he beholds his appearance. ‘He might have spoken, but I did not hear, one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped, and rushed downstairs.’ Instead of embracing his new born child, Viktor egotistically becomes concerned for his own safety and abandons it. Readers, here are presented with an obvious sense denial of paternal compassion, reinforced by the seemingly innocent and child like qualities and gestures of the creature. They then go on to witness the miseries and horrors the creature faces and the transformation into a monster from the lack of parental guidance. It may be true that Victor doesn’t ever blatantly accept responsibilities for his actions and his treatment of the creature, however I am in fact inclined to say that it is actually, this rejection which makes it all the more obvious to the reader of the strengths of prejudices which exist within society, and therefore the stance Mary Shelley takes with regards to morality. Therefore such events explored would be more likely to have a lasting indentation upon the reader’s minds. I am of the opinion that it is through Victors apparent rejection of what is a seemingly obvious moral message, the fact that the novel ends tragically which will make a lasting impression and denote a stronger moral message.
While it is true also that the creature rather disappointingly never does succeed in finding that sense of acceptance we are inclined to say he deserves, Shelley’s apparent refusal to ensure a happy ending makes the novel all the more realistic. Those who face prejudice in life realistically do not easily gain acceptance, therefore in my opinion, however deserving the monster is of this acceptance, it would be wrong for Shelley to create this scenario in order to conclude events in a more ‘acceptable’ manner. The fact that the creature represents a victim of social prejudice and the fact that he does not gain acceptance or freedom which in reality it has taken many generations to achieve in the case of the Afro-Americans, makes the need for reform in society all the more realistic and therefore urgent. The closing of the novel ends significantly with the creature having the final word, bombarding us with a series of rhetorical questions relating to his sufferings ‘Still I desired love and friendship, I was spurned, was there no injustice in this?’ Such a method of narrative which has been adopted here has a definite affect as the final message of the novel leaves us considering our own stand we ourselves take upon reading the novel. Shelley, through the portrayal of the monster in this way allows us to leave the novel with a sense of compassion and pathos not for the sufferings of Victor, but for the creature who effectively pours out his soul and appeals to our human natures.
However possible it is to suggest that the novel concludes without a sense of the monster gaining ever acceptance into society whereby Victor remained blinded by his prejudices to the end, there is evidence to suggest that Walton, has in fact reached a state of spiritual recovery. Although this new state of mind is perhaps not blindingly obvious, Mary Shelley leaves us with a series of hints that in time, Victor’s tale will lead Walton to a sense of peace with himself. Walton’s recovery is symbolised by the movement from the sparsely populated, isolated and extreme of the harsh north, towards the temperate and civilised south. The perhaps most significant indication of this new state of recovery was the fact that he, unlike Victor was able to see past his prejudices and in doing so gained a small sense of realisation that his own introversion was not in fact beneficial. While it is true that he is guilty of judging the monsters appearance upon his encounter with him in the final chapter, it is true also that he does not respect Victor’s request of destroying the monster. Although not wholly conformed upon embracing of the creature’s plight, there is no doubt that we are given the indication that Walton is progressing. It is true that first and foremost he judges the creature upon his appearance, as has every other human ‘Never did I behold a vision so horrible as his face!’ Yet he takes time after his initial shock and does what no human has done for him before, in that he ‘Called for him to stay.’ He admits that whilst remembering the ‘duty of obeying the dying request of his friend’ he actually felt ‘curiosity’ and even ‘compassion.’ Not only that but he even ‘approached him.’ Even though these simple gestures are punctuated with references to his alarm at the appearance, these gestures are, none the less more accepting of the creature than any he has experienced previously from any other human being. This gives us the impression that Walton is far less judgemental of the creature and therefore offers a certain glimmer of hope for rejuvenation.
It is clear to me also from the text that Mary Shelley has provided her readers with an implicit example of social inequality and therefore through events, offered a condemnation for such injustices. Arguably, Mary Shelley is in fact offering a criticism of humanity’s eagerness to judge and condemn on appearances, therefore the theme of good and evil is sub-categorised into that of appearance and reality. Mary Shelley suggests that society is blinded by a sense of prejudice and desire to judge first and foremost on appearances above all else. The monster is undoubtedly hideous in appearance. His own creator upon first looking upon his being feels that ‘No mortal could support the horror of that countenance.’ However, upon first encountering the Monster in chapter 10, the conflict between appearance and reality comes into play. We to,o judging upon his monstrous form, expect little more than attempts of communication, perhaps a series of inarticulate grunts. Instead, we are shocked with the creature’s ability to express himself and of his calm, dignified and biblically alluded eloquence. ‘Remember, that I am thy creature. I ought to be thy Adam, but rather I am rather the fallen angel.’ This eloquence is heightened by the contrasting way in which Viktor is seen to expresses himself. He, surprisingly, is unable to do more than splutter broken insults, in comparison to the harmonious, flowing and balanced way in which the creature has the ability to articulate. While the creature has the ability to articulate his desires and maintain self control, Victor merely insults the creature, which stands out as cowardice. Even more of a surprise is that we soon come to the realisation that the creature is, despite his hideous appearance, the most eloquent character within the novel. Therefore we are asked to question or own pre-judgements when presented with such eloquence.
The Delacey family are portrayed to be compassionate and good human beings, they themselves being victims of prejudice. The creature admires them and grows to love them, describing them as ‘compassionate and good human beings’ It is ironic, that even the Delacey’s prove capable instigating the same type of prejudice towards the monster that they have faced themselves. Both have suffered at the hands of prejudice yet they cannot find a common ground because of the all too human failing to deal with what is alien in a society which is so focused on appearance. They reject the monster utterly, not by his actions, but judging upon his physical appearance. He is spurned upon his appearance in spite of his politeness, eloquence and good intentions. Indeed the monster recognises ‘a fatal prejudice clouds their eyes, and where they ought to see a feeling and kind friend, they behold only a detestable monster’ It is ironic that the only member of the family who has the ability to see clearly is the old man Delacey, who is physically blind. He reassures the monster‘I and my family have been condemned, although innocent; judge therefore, if I do not feel your misfortunes.’ Shelley therefore offers us the consideration that whilst eyes allow us sight they also alarmingly blind us to reality. Therefore the idea of sight and blindness becomes blurred and it is questionable what use sight is to us when we are so utterly blinded by our prejudices that we cannot see clearly. We, as readers cannot help but feel a sense of pathos towards the monster at this point. We know his intentions were pure yet he was denied a sense of acceptance based solely upon his physical appearance. This is obviously a critique of prejudice within society and we are forced to recognise alarmingly that it is a crime that we ourselves are guilty of. Therefore, through the monsters spurn and rejection there is definitely a sense of morality to be obtained.
This point is supported extensively by the further degradation of the monster through the progression of events. The novel relates the entire progression of how a pure creature can become corrupted by society. We gradually witness the monster falling further and further into a sense of resentment and bitterness as a direct result of the prejudices he has faced and the frustrations of his inability to fit in. He claims that ‘Evil thenceforth became my good.’ Whilst we detest and deplore his actions we witness we can recognise the reasoning behind the monsters evil. Through the monsters plight we are witnesses to the utter degeneration of what was once a ‘benevolent and compassionate being’ into what is essentially the ‘abhorred monster’ which Victor so often describes. We find ourselves identifying with his own universal and very human desire for acceptance which does not in fact render him ‘monstrous’ at all. There is a striking contradiction here between the verbal and the visual, a conflict between expectations and experiences. We are forced therefore to question our pre-set prejudices, our expectations and qualities assigned to the creature against the stereotypical monster figure we imagine. We come to realise that what we have defined as ‘Monstrous’ is our stereotypical analysis of anything which is essentially different from ourselves. We are shocked that we ourselves judge first and foremost on appearances. Mary Shelley has effectively provided us and therefore offered to us a critique of how society is blinded by prejudice.
The story of Safie is yet another critique and portrayal of prejudices which exist within society, to women in particular. Safie, in contrast to Elizabeth has been set up as a paragon of female virtue. She breaks away from the patriarchal society to what she belongs and rebels against the ‘tyrannical mandate’ of her father. Against all odds she succeeds upon her sheer determination and will not to fall under the imposing darkness that men can be seen to impose upon women of all societies through their oppression. Safie is a definite portrayal of what a woman could be, and a demonstration of what a woman singularly can achieve if she uses her initiative and independence. Safie, like Elizabeth is subject to prejudice from her culture, this prejudice being emblemised by her father. Yet she is set up in opposition to Elizabeth, who ironically lives in a westernised society, where perhaps more equality is available to women. Elizabeth however is passive in contrast to Safie who has a ‘fiery spirit’ Safie, unlike Elizabeth is not set up as a possession, she is independent, and not reliant upon men, and therefore it is arguable that Safie, that the few chapters she features in creates more of an impression upon the readers as to her character and virtues than passive and demure Elizabeth achieves throughout the novel. This is undoubtedly a criticism of a male dominated society, and it has been considered that through Shelley’s portrayal of Safie’s virtues and abilities, she was attempting to provoke a reaction amongst women in Britain, who did not yet have the vote. In chapter 17 the creature offers a warning to Victor of what will happen if he does not create for him a companion. The creature alarmingly is able to dominate, direct and initiate the action. He informs him that he will ‘revenge his injuries…if I cannot inspire love I shall cause fear…Have a care, I will work at your destruction , nor finish until I desolate your heart so that you shall curse the hour of your birth.’ The monster is a metaphor for all who are different and have faced prejudice within society such as slaves, racial minorities and even women. Due to the monsters evident superiority in terms of dominating we are presented with the image of the oppressed challenging the oppressor. Previously, the oppressed suffered at the hands of the oppressor yet here this situation has evidently been turned around with significant conviction and I feel that here, Shelley is offering to mankind a warning of the bubbling discontent felt by many of the social prejudices which exist within this era. The gothic era generally and the novel Frankenstein was born at a time of great social unrest in England and at a time of great changes in British society during the late 18th Century and early 19th Centuries. This was a period of Revolution, a time of great reform and challenges to ideas previously accepted, undoubtedly which was a time of great social and political upheaval. I feel that through the monster’s words, Shelley is alluding to the possibility of a social revolt, a warning to society of the extremity of the discontent bubbling below the surface, ready to explode in a revolt at any time if we do not alter our prejudices and seek to change our treatment of fellow man.
Critics argue that Mary Shelley, through Frankenstein, is providing a critique of the ideology represented by the Romantic Movement. Through the exhibition of Victor’s downfall, it can be said that Mary Shelley is providing a critique of those who essentially live within their own dreams and imaginations. While Frankenstein undoubtedly involves key Romantic concerns and in the past has been labelled a ‘Handbook of Romanticism,’ critics now frequently tend to look upon the novel as a critique as opposed to a celebration of Romanticism. One critic, Alicia Renfroe, from her works Prometheus Unplugged, in ‘the third annual national graduate student conference on Romanticism’ April, 1996 , argues that through Mary Shelley’s apparent characterisation, it is evident that many of her characters show and take typical Romantic tendencies to the extreme. Therefore, it is possible that through such a portrayal and essentially, through the failings of such obvious Romantic tendencies, that she is mocking the very ideology expressed by the Romantics.
Viktor, transfixed with changing the world through discovery in the same way the Romantic poets were determined to transform the world through their poetry, essentially became immersed in his own dream, isolated himself from society and lost his grip on reality. He focused upon his singular ambition that he became isolated and lost his sense of reality. The Romantic poets similarly felt isolated and alienated from society in their frustration of the slow rate of reform upon social progressive causes and their rejection of social morals. Mary Shelley suggests it is not beneficial to pour all you energies into one single task, and become so involved in pursuing one dream, that you lose a sense of reality. This point can be demonstrated by Shelley’s use of divine landscapes within the text. Victor takes great pleasure in such landscapes and often seeks consolation here, reclining into himself and isolating himself from the world. My interpretation is that the sublime landscapes represent magnificent dreams and ambitions and therefore Victors desire to isolate himself here so frequently signifies well his Romantic tendency of living in the illusory world of dreams. It is ironic that Victor’s dream world is always punctuated by the appearance of the monster and therefore Shelley suggests that is when we live in or dreams, that our own darker natures come forth. Shelley therefore is obviously providing a criticism of such romantic tendencies present at this time and is suggesting there is little hope for humanity in such egocentricity and introversion.
Shelley, it is possible to suggest, through her characterisation of Viktor, is providing a critique of society in general, in that the concealment of more controversial aspects of one’s character, essentially creates a monster. The juxtaposition of good and evil, and more specifically the light and dark which exists within ones character is presented whereby the monster that Viktor creates is an embodiment of the darker side of his nature. Goya’s painting, ‘The sleep of reason produces monsters’ 1797, can help explain the darker side of the human psyche. When we go to sleep our normally reasonable mind is not within our conscious control, and therefore nightmares can be seen as the product of our subconscious, in that through dreams, suppressed feelings and emotions are allowed to surface. This idea is embraced by Victor’s revealing dream whereby through the death of Elizabeth, his arguably true desires have been able to surface because they have occurred within his subconscious mind. In a conservative society such as this at this period, it was frowned upon to demonstrate true desires; instead, such desires must be suppressed. Viktor, when we observe how he composes himself whilst alone and around others, we realise what he says and does in these situations are contrastingly different. We realise that his family, and whoever else he can ‘edit’ his personality to satisfy, never really perceive the true personality of Viktor we as readers are able to witness. We, however have the insight into his true nature, his own darker side, which he can so easily conceal. The monster is portrayed as Viktor’s double throughout the novel, he refers to it as ‘My own spirit let loose from the grave…forced to destroy all that was dear to me.’ Viktor suggests clearly that the monster is acting out his own aggressions. The monster can be seen as Viktor’s method of pursuing the forbidden, examining the feelings and desires which must, in civilised society, never be acted upon. The novel can be considered as an attempt at the exploration of the unconscious world of the darkest desires and fears that society as a whole and the individual themselves, attempt to suppress and keep hidden under the façade they allow society to see.
It is therefore suggestible that Shelley is providing a criticism of those who become immersed in their forbidden passions and embrace the things which should in fact never be acted upon. Or, on the other hand that Shelley is criticising a society which seeks to conceal the natural passions and desires universal to humanity, and so are forcing people to turn to secrecy and introversion to explore their own subconscious. She is suggesting that peace of mind comes from embracement rather than rejection of what are often portrayed to be ‘darker’ emotions, and that such emotions would not be considered evil at all if society did not taboo them so heavily. Upon reading Frankenstein, it is evident to see that through Viktor’s scientific study and experiments which lead essentially to the discovery of how to infuse life into inanimate matter, Mary Shelley is voicing concerns with the issue of the significant technological and scientific discoveries and advances of her time. Such debates which exist within the novel were very relevant within society at this time, in that there was a dramatic shift in the traditional theological explorations behind the meaning of life towards more secular explorations of its very origins. Such debates no doubt have a direct link to the character of Victor Frankenstein, who undertook a similar task of restoring life to dead bodies, dreamed of, and essentially succeeded in unlocking the secret of life. It can be assumed therefore, that through her exploration of such issues through Viktor, Shelley is voicing a possible concern as to what good can ultimately come of such experiments when it is no longer God, but man who holds the secret of life. Victor succeeds, yes, in that through scientific research and experimentation, he is able to procreate, to ‘bestow animation upon lifeless matter,’ intentionally to help mankind in the cure of disease. However through the progression of events, Shelley suggests such scientific ability is not necessarily beneficial. By procreating, Victor oversteps the boundaries available to mankind, and by essentially usurping God’s divine authority as the sole keeper of the secret of life, releases upon society a ruthless and terrible monster. Instead of revelling in the glory of his discovery, Victor is destroyed and burned by what is proven to be, ultimately an irretraceable mistake. What we see as the novel progresses is a far cry from his initial aspirations, whereby ‘Life and death at first seemed to me, ideal bounds through which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into or dark world’ Through the discovery of how to procreate and through the creation of the monster, Victor ironically does not, in any way pour the light of knowledge into the dark world. Instead, he unwittingly releases a monster which ultimately leads to his own destruction.
The juxtaposition of the themes of light and dark within the text is also particularly relevant. One interpretation of this dualism is that knowledge is represented by light and ignorance by darkness. Mary Shelley is perhaps, voicing her concerns when humans take their pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge to the extreme. Through this presentation, she is perhaps suggesting that when man pursues knowledge and oversteps the boundaries, this may have unforeseen implications. The imagery is relevant for understanding this concept when we consider the nature of light itself. Pleasantly warm and beneficial at moderate levels, it ignites, and with its dangerous flames, potentially reeking destruction at higher levels. As light is always balanced by fire, the promise of discovery is juxtaposed with the ominous sense of the unpredictable. Mary Shelley’s use of the portrayal of the destruction of the oak tree by lightning portrays this conception well, in that light has a dangerous side capable of destruction ‘So soon as the dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stump.’ It is obvious to perceive the ‘blasted stump’ as a metaphor for Viktor, who has been burned and destroyed by the consequences of acquiring the ‘light’ of knowledge. In this analysis, it is possible to suggest that Shelley is providing a warning about such scientific advances. Through Viktor’s downfall she perhaps is condemning and voicing her own concerns, that these scientists, in trying to better the world, may in fact be unleashing their own irretraceable monsters upon society. She can be seen to be providing a criticism of the potentially negative consequences of the development of science and technology in the 19th Century.
The theme of social injustice is undoubtedly explored in the text. Shelley, through events has provided a relevant critique to the corruptness of the justice system, most significantly with the unjust execution of the innocent Justine where she was falsely accused the murder of William. As William metaphorically represents innocence, Justine is representative of the theme of justice and through her execution, Mary Shelley provides us with a definite portrayal of the murder of justice. The idea of Justine’s innocence is maintained through the repeated references to Viktor’s own guilt, ‘I, the true murderer…all was the work of my thrice accursed hands!’ In order to emphasise the ultimate unjustness of the situation, Justine is pure and good, and upon her death is alluded to Jesus who was also ‘unjustly condemned’, a sinless being destined to die in place of sin. Social injustice of the time has here, been directly criticised, and such a critique of probably is a product of Shelley’s awareness of the corruptness of social institutions of the time. Frankenstein was written during a period of revolution, when people began to question ideologies previously accepted which therefore led to the deaths of many in attempts to suppress various uprisings. Through the deaths of the innocent, Shelley is voicing her own anguish of the deaths of those innocent people who were condemned to death at the hands of the corrupt justice system of the time.
In conclusion, upon my assessment and understanding of the text and the ideas and issues explored, I can see that Frankenstein is a text which evidently deals with concerns about good and evil in man and society. The novel resonates with philosophical and moral ramifications: themes of, good versus evil, ambition versus social responsibility, blindness versus sight dominate readers' attention and provoke thoughtful consideration of the most sensitive issues of our time. By subtly exploring such large and relevant issues, very much so, does Frankenstein offer numerous lessons of morality. It is true, yes, that the tale ends in uncertainty, it is also true that the tale does not lay out in front of us a pre-ordained moral message, yet through the way in which Mary Shelley explores the themes discussed, and in failing to conform to expectations, Frankenstein invites us to question comfortable assumptions and to question accepted moral and social judgement; judgements about the nature of good and evil, of scientific research, the value of such social institutions such as the family, the church, the legal system. Frankenstein, instead of dictating to us what moral lessons we should extract, instead, invites us to question and realise for ourselves the true meaning of the issues, and our own interpretation of that meaning. Such a method has in fact, profound effectiveness. We are able to visualise individually what conclusions to obtain through our own understanding of the issues, and so this moral lesson is not so universal, it is personal to the reader, and so more likely to have more effect in our lives. Through her ‘Hideous Progeny’ Mary Shelley has created a subtle yet astonishingly relevant handbook of modern living, overflowing with lessons which are portrayed by example, and so all the more relevant. The way in which it is written, and through issues explored, it can be said to be universal, yet profoundly personal to each and every one of us. It is through Mary Shelley’s apparent refusal to pass judgement which renders the judgements we ourselves pass all the more strong, in that we have been forced to discover them for ourselves.
Bibliography
Websites
-
– Notes of the text of Frankenstein
-
–critical reviews of Frankenstein
-
encyclopaedia, facts about Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, Paradise Lost, Prometheus, the Romantic and Gothic era.
-
- encyclopaedia
-
search engine
Literary References
-
Bathard-Smith, Jane, ‘emagazine’ February 2004
-
Blamires, Harry. ‘The British Critic’, April 1818,
-
Byron, Glennis ‘York Notes Advanced’ York Press, 2004
-
Frost, Robert, ‘The English Review’ April 2004
-
Goya, Fransisco painting, ‘The sleep of reason produces monsters’ 1797,
-
Green, Andrew ‘Frankenstein’ ed. Phillip Allan Updates, October 2003
-
Green, Andrew, ‘The English Review’ ed. Library, September 2005
-
Levine, George, and U.C. Knoepflmacher, eds, ‘The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s novel, University of California Press, 1979
-
Mellor, Anne K. ‘The Female in Frankenstein Romanticism and Feminism,’ ed. Anne K. Mellor. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988
-
Mellor Moers, Ellen, ‘Female Gothic,’ Levine, 1979
-
Milton, John, ‘Paradise Lost’ Tonson, 1667
-
Review of Frankenstein. ‘Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine’ No.2, 1818
-
Review of Frankenstein. ‘Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine’ No.2, 1818
-
Review of Frankenstein. ‘British Critic’ No. 9,1818
-
Review of Frankenstein. ‘Quarterly Review’ No. 18,1818
-
Review of Frankenstein ‘The Scots Magazine’, March 1818
-
Renfroe, Alicia, ‘Prometheus Unplugged,’, the third annual national graduate student conference on Romanticism April, 1996
-
Rosseau, Jean Jaques ‘ Emile’ Everyman Publishers, 1762
-
Shelley, Mary ‘Frankenstein’ Wordsworth Classics, 1999
-
Smith, Johanna, ‘Mary Shelley:Frankenstein,’ Palgrave, 2000
-
Taylor-Coleridge, Samuel ‘The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner’, ed. Lyrical Ballads, 1798
