Analysis of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein - Essay Example

College Essay Sub number Frankenstein a Fable of Revolution Each literary work normally is a reflection of the circumstance in its surrounding, comprising social, historical as well as economic circumstance (Rivkin 644).Due to that, it is therefore important, before proceeding with any text analysis to scrutinize the surrounding context. Every writer usually makes use of a different perspective or idea to illustrate what message s/he wants passed to the readers. Frankenstein, a romantic novel written by Mary Shelley was published in 1816, for the first time came to the scene when the world was undergoing dramatic changes as well as new progress. Thus, Frankenstein quickly turned out to be a symbol of several aspects of the radical spirit of that era. It became also a hot issue as far as literary criticism was concerned and a much sought-after material for majority of current literary theories. For instance, Frankenstein in feminist theory is a story about fear of maternity. It is also a reflection of the French Revolution in cultural or historicist studies. In addition, the novel makes a representation of Mary Shelly herself in Psychoanalytic theory, since there are several resemblances between her own life and those of the characters. I would like to examine the French Revolution symbol in this novel; which has been a subject studied by numerous critics. I am hopeful that I will add an illustration and further study the role of revolutionary images in the book mostly in terms of its narrative arrangement. Secondly this paper would also examine the Marxism theory in the novel since the conflict between classes in this novel is the key purpose that monster rebels against upper class. Nevertheless, in a less positive way, the monster can also be viewed as an agent of a treacherous force. Mary Shelley for all her enthusiasm for reform together with her loathing of the despotic England’s Tory elite, like several other middle-class authors, was concerned about the likelihood of radical mob violence. It was claimed that, the moment individuals start acting communally in this manner, individual differences as well as moral conscience vanished and the crowd was most likely to commit mayhem that few of its members would put up with as individuals. From now onwards the monster is a symbol of treacherous, unmanageable and voracious force at loose in community. French Revolution It is common language that French Revolution has a big impact on romantic poets and writers such as Percy Bysshe Shelley and David Duff .Mary Shelley also got her inspiration from the French Revolution ,since her both parents were radical philosophy writers; William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft and not necessarily because of Percey Shelley. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft was one of the pioneer women feminist authors. Mr. William Godwin, Shelley’s father penned several political articles as well as advocated several ground-breaking ideas. Shelley was self-educated as well as by her father’s intellectual circle, learning from both her parents and their friends’ works several times and even alluding to them after composing Frankenstein .At only the age of 16,Mary eloped with Percy Shelley to Switzerland and married him in 1816.It was during that same year that Mary was challenged by Lord Byron to write a ghost story, and consequently she started writing Frankenstein in the Summer of 1816.Mary’s novel about monsters was on the basis of her own widespread “reading on French Revolution”(Strrenburg 143). In deed there were 2 revolutions that were continuing at this time; The Haitian Revolution and the French Revolution. Nevertheless ,French Revolution was the key historical occurrence during the 1790s whose main objective was establishment of a social order on the basis of justice and reason. This idealistic revolution had several supporters including Britain with Shelley’s parents being amongst the supporters. Shelley’s father even wrote some work in support of the revolution, which ultimately would be suppressed after the declaration of war in 1793 against France by the British government .The sympathizers of French revolutionaries would later be prosecuted in the same year by British government(Smith 8).It therefore makes sense that Shelley would talk about the English revolution instead of the French revolution in order to evade suppression by her eliciting of compassion for an oppressed monster in her novel. On the other hand, 1790s saw the Haitian Revolution take place. The Haitian independence revolution started as a revolt and the moment Napoleon’s army was defeated by the slaves in Haiti, forming the first ever Black republic (Reinhardt 246).Thus, ideally, the novel is set at this period, as oppressed slaves battled for their freedom from their oppressors. Logically, Shelley would naturally sympathize with these slaves since both of her parents were abolitionists. Shelley’s mother was a well-known feminist, with her writings frequently depicting women as slaves to men. In addition, Shelley’s mother also explicitly criticized slavery in her analysis of Olaudah Esquiano’s Interesting Narrative (Bugg 655). Clearly then as reflected in its historical context, oppression is a significant subject in the text. Shelley’s story is set in a period of social upheaval. While slaves are fighting for their freedom, oppressed citizens are battling for their rights on the other side of the world. In Shelley’s story, a well learned scientist makes a monster that cannot be controlled. The novel capitalizes on the fear that society has of monsters that are uncontrollable and build revolutions once they are created. At that period, the meaning of monster was different as we know it now. At that time, during French Revolution a “monster”, symbolized “ingratitude” and “revolution” .Chris Baldick in his In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth with Monstrosity and the 19th C writing examines the monstrous image history in relation to the social disorders in the subsequent manner; In a universe made by a reasonable God, the lunatic or freak should have a purpose; to visibly reveal the effects of the folly, unreason and voice, as a warning (Latin Monere: to warn) to erring humanity (48). The monstrous image depicted above of unreason, folly and vice was expanded and turned out to be the French Revolution. Reviewing Edmund Burks’s reflection on the France Revolution, Baldick goes on to argue that the revolution in French was a “ a monstrous jumble of elephants, out of nature, producing a constitution”(55).During that period, books concerning French Revolution frequently adopted monsters not only literally but also visually so as to symbolize Rebellious Citizens(Baldick 55).Thus radicals such as Wollstonecraft and Godwin were at times in that sense labeled “monsters” by their colleagues. Wollstonecraft and Godwin “were made monstrous” and their admirers “were described as ‘spawn of the monster’” (Botting 142).All over the nation, monsters were assaulted “with a vigor, intensified by the patriotic fleeing attendant upon war with revolutionary France” (Botting 142). In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the monster can readily be described as a metaphor of the social disorder arising due to the revolution. The analogy relating Mary Shelley’s monster in addition to the social disorder can easily be explained by its enormous size.”The miniature”, according to Susan Stewart can be traced “at the origin of private individual history” whereas “the gigantic” “at the origin of the public and nature history “Frankenstein (71). Thus the moment we focus on the size of the monster, we discover that the importance of the novel must lie in its “public and nature” instead of “private and individual” natural. Acknowledging that Mary Shelley symbolizes a historical fact, in this case French Revolution, what else signifies “revolution” in Frankenstein? Godwin is of the opinion that “revolutions are the product of passion, not of sober and tranquil reason”. This notion of “passion “as an unmanageable power of guiding “Revolution and Destruction” is visibly portrayed in Shelley’s novel. Consequently it is not an overstatement to claim that passion breeds narrative in Shelley’s novel. The following paragraph is going to explore the outstanding work of passion in Frankenstein. The entire novel consists of 3 key episodes; Walton’s voyage, Frankenstein’s Creation and the Monster’s journey. Thus it is rather significant that all of the episodes are dictated by “passion”. For instance the story starts with Walton’s passion; he is seen setting out to the sea with his heart “glowing with enthusiasm” Frankenstein (14).Walton’s passion is “something at work in his soul which he does not understand “Frankenstein (20).Consequent to Walton’s episode, Frankenstein owns up that he made the monster since he was “the slave of passion” Frankenstein(26).Additionally, the monster harms people and chases Frankenstein due to his “evil passions”(143).It is in this manner that the 3 key plots of the novel starts with every character’s passion. What role then does “passion” serve in Frankenstein? As much as all the 3 characters devastate or are about to devastate in the end, “passion” in Mary’s story represents some wicked power that eventually leads the characters to devastation .Passion cause the characters to be unmanageable even for themselves and may be seen as the writer’s rarefaction of negative perspective on passion. Remembering Godwin’s words above as well as the fact that the crowds were claimed to be unified by passion during the French Revolution, the writer’s negative role of passion in Frankenstein informs us that, “Mary Shelly can imagine a positive to radical hopes of reform, yet she also sees their degeneration into carnage and disaster”(Strrenburg 171). There are other elements besides passion that connect the novel to the French Revolution. For instance geographical connection is pointed out by Ronald Paulson between the two as follows; Victor Frankenstein attends Ingolstadt College, which (Shelley was aware of it from Historie du Jacobinism) was the where Adam Weisaupt) and symbolic arch demon of radical thinking formed, in 1776, the Bavarian illuminati; a secret society where the French Revolution supposedly grew from. Clearly then, Mary deliberately chose “the place in which the monster called Jacobin was originally conceived” (Strrenburg 157) as the location in where Frankenstein would create his monster. In addition to the points above; a sequence of revolts in the novel also are reminiscent of the French Revolution. There are several examples of Rebellion against order, father as well as past stability in Frankenstein. Walton, having broken his uncle’s prohibition and father’s “injunction” leaves for the sea so as to look for “the secret of the magnet” (14).Frankenstein, who “a creature” (32) turns out to be an “author” (88) and “boldly” defies “the principle of life” (49) in his making of the monster. By virtue of abandoning the maker, the monster looks to avenge on his “nature lord and king” Frankenstein (96).Walton is made to go back to England by half a dozen of the sailor on the threshold of the “mutiny”(207).The love of Walton’s ship’s master is turned down by a lady, who as a result also rebels against her “father”(19). Thus, Safie not only betrays her “father” but also steals his property as well. We are reminded of the fundamental notion of the French Revolution, that is, the uprising against the king (a father figure) by this sequence of revolts against the power exercised by father figures. As earlier on mentioned, monster represents “ingratitude” both during and after the French Revolution. As long as Frankenstein characters revolt against “father”, then they can all be termed as “monsters”. Mary Shelley, by demonstrating the monstrosity of the characters, she also depicts “monster” as a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, Frankenstein, together with other human beings recognize the monster as “a monster”. However, on the other hand, from the monster’s viewpoint, Frankenstein and the rest of other human beings are repulsive monsters betraying his gratefulness. Mary Shelley, thus views “monstrosity” and “revolution” from a double perception and reveals that monstrosity is determined by perspective. Mary wrote her story from multi-perspective since she understood the perils of a stable as well as single perception that simply randomly creates monstrosity, the monster and Frankenstein. It is difficult to figure out whose narrative is domineering since they are crossing. Mary Shelley’s intent to shun a single perception and solitary authority may be revealed by the narrative structure of her novel which declines any authoritative voice. Fred Botting puts forth the following argument regarding this complex narrative of the novel; “As a set of broken frames, the narrative encloses the monster’s story within Frankenstein’s, the latter’s being surrounded to his sister on the edges of the text; the reader is at once moved inward to a presumed center, the monster’s account of the De Lacey family, and outwards, to the absent addressee on the margins. But the story at the center fragments, dispersed by the rage of the monster, whereas the monster, neither wholly inside nor contained by the structure, neither completely outside nor excluded from it, appears at the end to confront Walton directly. Inside and outside center and margin, have distinctions subverted by a novel in which the different speakers and writers also occupy the positions of readers and listeners” (Reflection of Revolution (35). In comparison to other contemporary novels, particularly other Gothic novel, it is a distinctive feature of Frankenstein that the narrative structure rejects authoritative, dominant overview; when we consider wholly the cultural conditions in which Mary composed the novel, we can appreciate positively the meaning of the novel’s confusing perceptions; somehow the French Revolution taught her the perils of singular stable perception that leads to monstrosity. Up to this point in time, I have proposed aspects which link the novel to the French Revolution. These aspects bear negative connotations, destruction and rebellion ingratitude; hence critics label Mary Shelley as a conservative despite her radical husband and parents. Strrenburg claims that “her gravitation toward conservation was more overt and explicit later in her” (143).The following argument may be supported by a scene where Frankenstein visualizes the peace that would result after a definitive confrontation with monster; “A deadly struggle would then assuredly take place in which if he were victorious I should be at peace. And his power over me at an end if he were vanquished I should be a free man. Alas! What freedom? Such as the peasant enjoys when his family has been massacred before his eyes, his cottage burnt, his lands laid waste, and he is turned adrift, homeless, penniless and alone but free (183). This is why Frankenstein believes that after “the deadly struggle”, triumph and defeat stand for the same thing. The freed poor “peasant” take us back to the “mob” in the French Revolution, or rather the Romantic poets after they happened to be disappointed with revolution .Furthermore, this scene portrays an instance of Marty Shelley’s negative perception of the revolution. The phrase “Revolution” is only used once in Frankenstein, this is after the death of Clerval. Frankenstein is thin king about the past ,is feeling hopeless about his future and declares, “I often sat for hours motionless and speechless, wishing for some mighty revolution that might bury me and my destroyer in its ruins”(177).By this time, Frankenstein ,who is so fed up by the fight with the monster ,desires “revolution” to wipe out not only the monster but himself as well. In this case “revolution” symbolizes destructive power capable of extinguishing. There are several such images of extinctions in the novel and it is not overstressing to claim that every incident in the novel is a story that the characters extinguish somebody they believe they had once. Mary Shelley, in other words, writes about “existence, in the past and the process of its “extinction” in the entire novel. Next we shall examine as sequence of existence as well as extinction in her story. No sooner had Walton gained a friend(Frankenstein) than he “lost friend” and “hopes of utility and glory”(209).In addition, Frankenstein is acknowledging that “no human being could have passed a happier childhood than himself”(36),mourns the extinction of his happiness and family. Apparently, the monster with nothing ,save for his hideous body together with “ burning miseries” gets “lost in darkness and distance,” to make his “ burning miseries be extinct”(216). In addition, the digressive incidents in Mary Shelly’s book are a sequence of existence as well as extinction. For instance, we see the shipmaster losing not only his money but also love, Caroline loses her father, Caroline’s father loses his wealth, Elizabeth’s parents also lose her wealth, Elizabeth loses her parents, and the De Lacey family loses their fortune also, as well as Justine who loses her father. Eventually all characters are eliminated from the novel. It is evident therefore that all incidents in the novel are involving the issue of changing existence into extinction. Similarity amongst the characters can further explain the purpose of extinction in the novel. Just as illustrated by the above example, the novel is made up of similar figures and incidents. The first similarity is seen with the “orphans”. The death of Caroline’s father leaves her as a beggar and an orphan (31) and is saved later by Frankenstein. Another orphan is Elizabeth and is also saved by Frankenstein. The third orphan is Josephine who after losing her beloved father and mother (360) gets saved by Frankenstein as well. This similarity robs them of their identity and originality. Were Elizabeth, Josephine and Caroline to be in one place, they would be so alike to the extent that their distinctiveness would become unclear. Thus it is only through the extinction of others that they are able to achieve their own identity. Through Caroline’s extinction, Elizabeth is able to achieve her distinctiveness as a surrogated mother in the family of Frankenstein. Likewise, Josephine who “imitates Caroline’s phraseology and manners” and whose appearances “continually reminds Elizabeth of her dear Caroline” should be eliminated for Elizabeth’s identity(63).In a nutshell then, the existence of Caroline is secured by the extinction of Josephine and Caroline. The other similarity related to extinction is seen in the 3 autodidacts in the novel. This can be seen with the confession of Walton that he is, “self-educated” through reading books (67).Remembering his childhood, Frankenstein says that he was “to a greater degree, self-taught” from book even during his school days in Geneva (88).The monster also claims that he “continually studied and exercised” his mind by reading “some books”(173).Thus, the 3 of them acquire their knowledge via “self-education” by reading texts of the past with great passion. As a result, because of their self-education, they carry “passion” which finally results in their destruction. The monster, Walton and Frankenstein therefore exhibits similarity in terms of “education and passion” .Thus it is rather exciting that these 3 similar characters “seek others’ extinction” (216).Frankenstein attempts to eliminate the monster. The monster asking for identity, “What was I?” (118) can only “consummate the series of his being” by Frankenstein’s as well as his own elimination (215).Thus, Walton, “didst seek extinction” till the time the monster will be extinct (216). From the above illustrations, extinction is essential in the novel so as to establish the existence of the character and acquire his/her identity. We also discover parallels between the narrative of the novel as well as the structure of the French Revolution; whereby the low class individuals could acquire identity by extinguishing the upper class ones. At the end, the image of survival therefore becomes predominantly profound and thus governs the discourse of the novel as compared to identity and extinction. As earlier on mentioned, the novel’s revolutionary images, particularly the family ties, symbolizes loss and extinction, instead of growth in addition to connection. This obsession for missing family tie refers to Mary Shelley’s own life. The obsession may also stand for age obsession since by murdering the king (a father figure) as well as cutting the past link; the French Revolution offers citizens fears of losing their distinctiveness especially in terms of their origin. Even though the citizens were forced to cut all their links with the past so as to achieve their identity, likewise the monster and Frankenstein must also severe their hideous “ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of them” (96), the citizens therefore had to look for a way of finding a new root of their existence after severing the link with the father figure as well as the past. The search for identity by the monster is Frankenstein’s portrayal of the trauma of the age. It is here that Mary Shelley reveals not “the link” but also, “the missing link” of the family as well as human being. Marxist Reading It is evident that Dr. Frankenstein is a representation of the ruling class in this novel. As explained by Marx in his Communist Manifesto, there are only 2 classes that exist; the owners of the means of production(the bourgeoisie) and the working class(the proletariat)(Marx “manifesto”220).Thus it is crucial to consider then, that Dr. Frankenstein is himself an educated individual hailing from a well to do business background; My family is one of the most distinguished of (Geneva).My ancestors had been for many years counselors and syndics; and my father had filled several public situations with honor and reputation. He was respected by all who knew him, for his integrity and indefatigable attention to public business”(Shelley 40).Moreover, a doctor or creator ,owns means of production by the virtue of him/her owning the means to create, for just as the proletariat is created by the bourgeoisie, this doctor makes a monster that almost kills him. The doctors experiment gets out of control just as the oppressed people rebel; “Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the n ether world whom he has called up by his spells” (Marx “Manifesto” 225).Thus, Dr. Frankenstein is clearly symbolizes an oppressive society. In the same way, the monster symbolizes oppressed people.The monster is the proletariat that rebels against the bourgeoisie in the struggle of classes. Firstly, his simple composition mirrors that of the proletariat. He is, for instance, a creation of the bourgeoisie as well as various different portions at that; he is made up of bones from charnel-houses, some portions from dissecting rooms as well as pieces taken form slaughter-houses (Shelley 58-9).Similarly, the proletariat is “recruited from all classes of the population” (Marx “manifesto”228).Just like the proletariat, the monster is mixture of various segments from different parts. Additionally, the monster is bigger than his maker. Dr. Frankenstein remembers, “ As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my firs intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionately large”(Shelley 58).Consequently, the gargantuan stature of the monster reflects the incredible population of the working class, which by far outnumbers the few aristocrats. Moreover he is tougher compared to doctor and just like the proletariat is stronger than the bourgeoisie; he takes his creator back, “thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine; my joints more supple”(93).The simple lifestyle of the monster reflects that of the workers and needs no aristocrat’s luxury ,but, just a small quantity nutritious food to feed on together with a simple bed. Therefore his very constitution is representative of the laborers who were made up of several various kinds of people, big in numbers, physically stronger as well as less dependent on luxury compared to the upper class. On the same vein, it is crucial to ponder that the monster draws sympathy, further demonstrating Shelley’s criticism of capitalism. Though the creature starts his life with good purpose, nevertheless, after frequently experiencing cruel treatment from people, justifiably becomes violent. The turn of events from innocence to evil mirrors the manner in which the working class started the French Revolution, pregnant with good hopes together with beneficent intents but all the same finished the revolution with the reign terror, horrendous violence as well as many guillotine slaughters. Thus he started his life having good intents, just like the working class, in their endeavors to turn over capitalism. He frequently starts revolution hopeful that he may end poverty; “Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity, but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me”(94).Afterwards, just as the French Revolution became sour, the monster elucidates his temperament change in response to his being shot at by a man after helping save a drowning child; “The feelings of kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind”(125). Hated for his measly look ,the monster explains that he also needs sympathy ,with his fury towards mankind only builds up simply due to his abuse; just like the working class undergoes through phases of development; the proletariat undergoes different phases of development. Initially the fight is exercised by individual laborers ;then afterwards by factory workers ,followed by operatives of a similar trade ,in the same location, against a particular bourgeois who explicitly take advantage of them”(Max “Manifesto”228).Therefore, the monster is scarcely to blame for his flare-ups, just as the working class are scarcely to be blamed for turning to revolution hoping to enhance their living standards. Mary’s novel therefore is as much as refusal of society’s crippling exploitation and oppression as it is an interesting read. Frankenstein not only refuses capitalism but also the notion supporting it. Shelley’s monster is a reminder that oppression makes monsters as well as a danger to itself. Above anything else, Frankenstein reminds us that “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx Manifesto”233).Every society that oppresses and exploits results in rivals who can overthrow it. Precisely then, it is this fear that is so well played in Shelley’s horror story. While studying Frankenstein as a novel, with French Revolution discourses, it becomes obvious that the story shows the connection between the 2.The French Revolution influences upon the novel has been studied broadly, and as argued earlier on in the paper, it is not enough to evaluate the novel purely in connection to French Revolution. Frankenstein thus reflects French Revolution by tackling with the issue of past rejection, monstrosity, passion as well as extinction. Thus if we are reminded that the French Revolution was one comprehensive reconsideration, together with being a radical action and solution to the problems of identity and human existence, as well as revolution of a concept by human beings, we can arrive at the conclusion that Frankenstein exposes one more literary perception of the nature and origin of human species. Frankenstein surely mirrors on human situation in the romantic age, hiding well behind the mask of a well-liked Gothic novel. Nevertheless, Mary Shelley’s perspective is on the basis of her contemporary of missing linkage especially with the past, divulges rather hopeless and pessimistic outlook of the world. Most probably then, Frankenstein, is a quite a short novel behind the shadows of other romantic giants. References Botting, Fred. Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1991. Print. Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein’s Shadow .Myth Monstroosity, And Nineteenth-century Writing.Oxford:Clarendon ,1987. Bugg, John. ““Master of Their Language”: Education and Exile in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’” The Huntington Library Quarterly. 68.4 (2005). 6 May 2009. 655-666. JSTOR. Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. 643-646. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Classics, 2002. Montag, Warren. “The “Workshop of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein.” Frankenstein.2nd ed. Ed. Johanna M. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2000. 384-395. Reinhardt, Thomas. “200 Years of Forgetting: Hushing up the Haitian Revolution.” Journal of Black Studies.35.4 (2005). 6 May 2009 246-261. JSTOR. Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan.“Starting with Zero.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. 643-646. Shelley. Mary. Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus. Hereford: Hay Classics, 1994 Sterrenburg, Lee. “ Mary Shelleys Monster: Politics and Psyche in Frankenstein”In The Endurance of "Frankenstein": Essays on Mary Shelleys Novel, ed. George Levine and U. C. Knoepflmacher (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: Univ. of California Press, 1979), pp. 143-71. Read More