The Way That Two Different Gothic Fictions Represent Class - Essay Example

Discuss the way that two different Gothic fictions represent I. Introduction The gothic literature is distinct because it depicts the proto-psychological intricacies and the complex interiority of the middle class’ psychological and social well-being (Kehler 437). It enunciates the anxiety of the middle class in an industrial age as he or she struggles for her place in a society that does not yet fully understand the psychology of the self (Kehler 437). This anxiety of the self as it relates to the world produced a variety of stimuli that is often externalized in the form of gore and filth as what is depicted in the gothic novel of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. This struggle “using gothic devices such as overwrought rhetoric and proliferating representations of suffering, horrors, or injustice (Kehler 438) represent the Victorian sensitivity to class stratification which is the setting of both gothic fictions. In both novels, the Victorian man, Dr. Henry Jekyll of Stevenson’s “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”, and Victor of Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was haunted by sense of division, “being a rational and sensual being, as public and private man, as civilized and bestial creature, he found himself necessarily an actor, playing only that part of himself suitable to the occasion” (Saposnik 717). II. Ways that the two gothic represent class Frankenstein Coincidentally, both novels were situated in London during the Victorian era. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was dated around 1818 and Stevenson’s “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was written around 1886. England during Victorian era is one of the most powerful if not the most powerful country in the world. It was also incredibly wealthy due to its vast industrial base (Victorian era was also the time of the Industrial Revolution) and expanding trade. It also made considerable advances in technology and science but as a society, England was also oppressive and inequitable. The disparity between the rich and the poor was vast that the rich lives in comfort while the vast majority of the lower class has to eke their living in deep slums where they live in (Saposnik 718). This social inequity between classes has been the subject of Shelley’s subtle critique as contained in her gothic fiction “Frankenstein”. Victor, the creator of the monster, represented the upper class which lords over those below him. The monster, which he created was a product of inequity and bourgeois capriciousness whose articulation was full of pain and misery. The relationship between Victor and the monster figuratively displayed the distinct placement of power in society where the upper class exercises power over the poor which is represented by the monster. The monster (representing the poor) has to ask Victor for a female partner for him to regain his humanity. This act symbolizes Shelley’s social commentary of the Victorian class structure where the poor has to ask for pittance from those who have or those who control their means of living for them to have a sense of humanity or to be able live like a human being. In turn, Victor appropriately represented the tendency of the rich who would give lip service by initially assenting but will eventually betray his commitment towards those who have less. The reason for not keeping the commitment was also appropriate where Victor excuses himself from his commitment by the precaution that creating another monster might do greater harm (Shelley). In the same manner that the rich excuses themselves from giving decent wages to the poor excusing themselves from such responsibility that it would be dangerous for the business to give higher wages because it might get bankrupt or less profitable due to higher operational cost. Such, the social inequity continued and Victor’s monster continue to air his grievances and resentment with the world. The poor continues to live in such abject condition that what it has not a life but just the experience of existing or being created (Kessler 85). Shelley’s synthesis of her social prognosis that this unjust social set up will eventually explode and backfire to the rich was figuratively illustrated in Frankenstein when the monster killed Victor’s bride on the night of their wedding out of revenge. It is short of saying that the poor will eventually revolt against the upper class’ continued oppression. In summary, Shelley’s Frankenstein is a social commentary of the class struggle in industrial England. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde While Shelley’s Frankenstein represented the disparity of power between the social class in Victorian England, Stevenson’s “The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” represented the social expectation of each social class. The upper class was expected that “their manners are more refined and moral” (Stevenson) while the lower class was expected to be crude and clumsy. The expectation of each social class was a symbol of normative rigidity and “the men of the story are representative Victorian types, exemplars of a harsh life best seen in the somber context of their professional and social conduct” (Saposnik 719). This expectation was clearly defined in the early training of Dr. Jekyll when he was a child “received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control, . . . [and was] was so guided by a silken cord” (Stevenson). This expectation of propriety among Victorian men longed for an outlet of man’s darker side and as such, Mr. Hyde was created. Mr. Hyde represented the darker side of man which is more pronounced among the lower class and condescended as low. While Mr. Hyde did not look as monstrous as Shelley’s Frankenstein, Enfield still described him as “there is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something down-right detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point" (Stevenson).  This enunciation of Mr. Enfield only reflected how the Victorian society looks down on the less privileged class in society as being “deformed somewhere”. Dr. Jekyll’s transformation as Mr. Hyde also gave him the license to go wayward that includes murder which was otherwise not permitted by Victorian sense of propriety among London’s upper class during Stevenson’s time. This only illustrate that Victorian society is more permissive and has less expectation on the behavior of those who were in the lower class. III. Conclusion Both gothic fiction of Shelley and Stevenson represented the dynamics of the social class of Victorian London in the 18th century. Shelley’s Frankenstein represented on how power is distributed and exercised in each class with the underprivileged being under the mercy of the privileged as represented by the relationship of Victor to his monster. Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on the other hand depicts the behavioral expectation on each class where those who are in the upper class were expected to be prim and proper as epitomized by Dr. Jekyll. Mr. Hyde on the other hand represented the upper class’ outlet of his darker side and the “detestable” manner of the lower class. This was emphasized with figurative description of Mr. Hyde as being “shorter” which could mean “lower” standing in society. Works Cited Kehler, Grace. “Gothic Pedagogy and Victorian Reform Treatises”. Victorian Studies, 50.3 (2008): 437-456 Kessler, Jeremy. “Creating Frankenstein”. New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society Vol 25(2009):82-89. Robert Louis Stevenson 'The strange case of dr jekyll and mr hyde' -Penguin classics 2002  Saposnik, Irving S. “The Anatomy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 11.4 (1971): 715-731 Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein. The Pennsylvania State University Electronic Classic Series. 1818. “http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/fr~stein/frank~in.pdf>. January 10, 2011 Read More