Frankenstein by Mary Shelley - Essay Example

?Critical Essay: Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley: the monster as ecological disaster? The story of Frankenstein, which was written by Mary Shelley whenshe was only 19 years of age, has gripped the imagination of readers ever since, and has sparked a whole industry of literary criticism. For such a short novel it has had quite a significant and long-lasting influence, leading to modern film and stage versions, along with further waves of criticism discussing how the story fits our modern age just as much as it fitted the early nineteenth century context. The genre of the work is quite clearly Gothic horror, with its dramatic twists of plot and ghoulish descriptions, but besides this superficial narrative style there are depths of meaning which can be explored using many different analytical approaches. From perspectives of feminism, race, psychoanalysis, religion, science and any number of other ideologies there is much to be found in the enigmatic story of the creature made out of random human body parts and hideously brought to life by the eccentric Doctor Frankenstein. This paper looks at one particularly modern critical approach, that of ecological or “Green” consciousness, and critiques a particular article by Bill Phillips (2006) entitled ‘Frankenstein and Mary Shelly’s “Wet, ungenial summer”.’ It highlights the perennial temptation to update the classics of literature with modern interpretations and illustrates some of the pitfalls that modern scholars can fall into when they give in to this temptation. The article by Phillips starts out with an unashamed defence of the universal applicability of “ecocriticism”: “Ecocriticism reminds us of the importance of nature in our understanding of literary and cultural texts, and this is never more appropriate than in an analysis of Frankenstein.” (Phillips, 2006, p. 59) The main premise of the article, is that Mary Shelley and her companions were confined indoors by the disappointingly dull and wet weather of the summer of 1815, and that the significance of the wet weather for the deep meaning of the story is much greater than has hitherto been realized. Historians now know that at this very time there had been a cataclysmic volcano eruption in Indonesia, causing 80,000 deaths in the immediate area, and further widespread climatic changes across the world. Weather in Europe was wet and windy, causing harvests to fail, and economic hardship to spread over wide areas. Basing his theory on the work of British ecocritic (sic) John Bates (2000) , Phillips links the wet summer in Switzerland with the creation of the figure of Frankenstein, and incidentally also works by Byron and Keats on “Darkness” and “Autumn” respectively. As evidence for this assertion, Phillips cites Mary Shelley herself, in autobiographical writings from around this period in her life. There is indeed a mention in the Preface of the 1818 edition of the novel, that the summer season in Geneva was “cold and rainy” and that this inclement weather was the pretext for the literary friends to gather round the fire and compose stories with supernatural themes. Phillips links this scene-setting motif with descriptions from Mary Shelley’s diary of a day in May 1816, when her party encountered “a violent storm of wind and rain” (Shelley, quoted in Phillips, 2006, p. 62) on the journey from France to Switzerland and that as they journeyed from the low lands of France into the mountainous region of Switzerland, the weather grew colder, and there were thick flakes of snow. Mary Shelley’s mention in letters and diary notes of ferries sinking in the lake at Geneva, torrents of rain and plans for outings cancelled because of bad weather are listed also, to show that indeed the summer of 1816 was wet, and that it was noted by the British party on their travels to Switzerland. While there is no denying that these references to the weather exist, it is questionable whether they should be regarded as having much significance. A glance at any of the hundreds of travel journals in existence from the nineteenth century, depicting journeys through Europe, will show that commentary on the weather is essential for the diary genre. One need only think of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales to see that in fictional writings also, the motif of a party sheltering from the weather and resorting to storytelling is a convenient topos for the opening scene. The point about the inclement weather, in Shelley’s preface at least, is simply to mark a suspension of usual activities, and a drawing inwards to the reflection that takes place in front of a warm fire. Far from being a focus on the weather, or the world outside even, it marks a withdrawal from the distracting effects of the physical world, into the world of the mind, in which friends gather to explore imaginary scenes. Phillips is keen to point out that there were spectacular storms over Lake Geneva which impressed the young Mary Shelley, and that these same images appear in the novel with particular reference to the birth and childhood of the monster: “In a way the film versions of Frankenstein are right: the weather, with its frequent electrical storms, which kept all indoors at the Villa Diodati in June 1816, led directly to the monster’s genesis.” (Phillips, 2006, p. 63) There is atmospheric use of lightning in the novel, but it is not directly linked to his creation. In fact Dr Frankenstein is extremely coy about the method by which he brought animation to the dead body part that he so carefully put together. Mary Shelley is leaves out the detail, and the link with lighting is left for later generations to make through the magic of Hollywood special effects. The point where lightning is specifically linked with the monster actually occurs when Victor catches a glimpse of him, and the monster is silhouetted against a flash of lighting (Shelley, chapter VII). Far from being a part of the monster’s being, the role of the lightning in this passage is to create the Romantic backdrop for a depiction of the heroic character of Victor. He exclaims “This noble war in the sky elevated my spirits.” (Shelley, chapter VII) The creature is marked by an absence of Sturm und Drang: “The figure passed me quickly and I lost it in the gloom… The thunder ceased, but the rain still continued and the scene was enveloped in an impenetrable darkness.” (Shelley, Chapter VII). Phillips builds an argument around Mary Shelley’s supposed love of the countryside, and her reading of a chemistry textbook, suggesting that there is an early awareness of the terrible power that science will one day bring to the rural idyll of pre-industrial Europe. The question is posed that perhaps the monster represents the destructive power of the weather, implying that he represents the power of the earth fighting back against the wrongful application of scientific progress which destroys the countryside. The monster’s affinity with the mountains, and with the cold, wilderness landscapes of the far north is interpreted as an indication of his eco-credentials: “The monster’s behaviour, together with his ability to withstand hardship and deprivation, clearly sets him apart from humanity. His indifference towards his victims, at least until the final chapter, is the indifference of a force of nature, capable neither of remorse, nor of rational justification; a monstrous volcano of destruction, spreading darkness and despair wherever he passes, like an angel of death.” (Phillips, 2006, p. 67) This is a very strange reading of the monster’s character, since for most critics the key feature that makes him such a fascinating figure is precisely his capacity for emotion, and in particular for suffering. The creature’s violence can be read as the frustration and grief of a being that had every right to regard himself as worthy of a creator’s love. The creature is also, in the scene on the mountain top with Victor, evidently highly rational and capable of carrying on a sophisticated discussion. In fact this scene in Chapter ten shows Victor as the one who resorts to calling the monster names like “daimon”, “devil”, “abhorred monster” and “vile insect.” The monster refers to Frankenstein by his name, or as “my creator.” He claims to have had human qualities: “I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone?” (Shelley, chapter X). The monster explains himself calmly and eloquently, offering to make a bargain with his creator: “Do your duty towards me , and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind.” (Chapter 10) The threat of violence only comes as a reaction to Victor’s rejection and indeed the monster manages to convince Victor to listen to his case and appreciate “what the duties of a creator towards his creature were” (Shelley, Chapter X). There are other aspects of the story which argue against an understanding of the monster as some cold, unfeeling force of nature, out to destroy the world. He appears to have acquired an education, and an understanding of religion and morals. The monster refers to himself in Biblical terms “I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed … misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.” (Shelley, Chapter 10). This passage suggests that the monster has a moral compass, or conscience, and that his actions are influenced by human factors. He is well aware that killing people is wrong, and expressly says that he would rather not behave like this, and if given the companionship that he, as a social being, craves, he would not have any reason to resort to violence. Other critics have drawn out of the story some of the very human messages that the created monster brings to the fore. In Bette London’s interpretation of the story there are very obvious references to Christian iconography in the suffering of both the monster and Victor, and indeed in paintings and sculptures relating to the relationship between Mary and her husband, suggesting that there could be religious, or perhaps anti-religious messages in the parallels that are drawn between the monster and the suffering Christ figure. The monster possesses features that make him a masculine object of fascination, exercising his will on the world as upper class men in this period tended to do. He plays his part along with the other males, Frankenstein and Walton, to show how the sins of the fathers are worked out in the lives of their unfortunate offspring. Each man reflects the sufferings of the other, passing on a collective narrative of heroism and ultimate martyrdom for the benefit of others. A different approach is taken by Andrew Green (2000) who detects intellectual journeys in the descriptions of nature that occur in the novel. The race to the Arctic is likened to a search for the boundaries of human knowledge, and the passion of this search is likened to the torrent of a river running down a mountain. The depiction of different landscapes in the novel helps the reader to see Victor in particular in different guises, and playing out different aspects of the creator role. His memories of youth are in a warm and sunny environment, while his encounters with the monster take place in increasingly remote locations. This analysis illuminates the Romantic sensibility of this period particularly in German speaking areas. Writers and painters valued the extreme in nature, and depended on extended metaphors of mountains, forests and rivers, for example to mirror the inner turmoil that was happening in each character. Human beings are dwarfed by nature, but this is not because they are being crushed. They are in awe of it, and see the greatness of man reflected in its tremendous power. References to temperature, or weather, or some natural feature in Frankenstein should therefore be read as indicators of the pathetic fallacy at work: in other words, the natural descriptions are clues as to what the respective character is feeling at that moment in time. In chapter V, for example, an exhausted Victor remembers: “It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils.” In Chapter XII the monster recalls happier times, before he grew aware of his ultimate fate, and his joy is expressed through description of nature: “The birds sang in more cheerful notes, and the leaves began to bud forth on the trees. Happy, happy earth! Fit habitation for gods, which, so short a time before, was bleak, damp and unwholesome.” Shelley here is using nature as an indicator of human emotions, in a way that is typical of writing influenced by Romanticism. Any attempt to overlay these emotional and descriptive passages with ecological awareness, or theories about the future impact of science on the purity of the natural world is quite simply wrong, and anachronistic. The ending of the novel makes it clear that the messages of the story are moral and spiritual rather than anything to do with the material world. The monster contrives a dramatic exit by jumping into the sea and declaring his intent to dissolve in a funeral pyre and leaving his wretched physical life behind. The point of this ending is to depict his remorse, and the eternal nature of his spirit, showing that he was, after all a moral being, and that the story of his creation and rejection was a human tragedy. The backdrop of snow and ice reflects his frozen heart, and evokes pity for him in the reader. This disproves Phillips’ theory that the monster represents the destructive force of nature, such as is displayed in the Indonesian volcano and underline’s Shelley’s actual preoccupation with the causes and effects of human suffering. [2280 words] References Bate, J. (2000) The Song of the Earth. London: Picador. Green, A. (2000) Location and the Journey in Frankenstein. The English Review 11 (2), pp. 21-23. Available at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.thorns/resources/Frankenstein/location_and_the_journey.pdf London, B. (1993) Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity. PMLA 108 (2), pp. 253-264. Phillips, B. (2006) Frankenstein and Mary Shelley’s “Wet, ungenial summer.” Atlantis 28 (2), pp. 59-68. Shelley, M. Frankenstein. 1818. Available online at: http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/ Read More