Book Review: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
To my surprise, the name Frankenstein is not actually the name of the monster, but the name of the creator. Also to my surprise, the Creature is anything but a monster in essence. The Creature is a monster only because Frankenstein insists on calling his creation a monster.
Shelley's work is a subtle criticism of several things. Firstly, human beings are not as great as we would like to believe. The quick execution of the innocent Justine is an example of how we think we know the truth but in reality we haven't got a clue. Secondly, human beings are hypocrites. We talk of being generous, being accepting, being virtuous - the Creature falls in for that, and is instead instantly repelled. The Creature never gained acceptance, even if he has all the heart of a human being. We all fall too easily into prejudice. Thirdly, Shelley criticizes this idea of infinite progress in rational thought. Science must have its limits; human beings playing God (or Prometheus for Shelley) are fated for destruction. The essence of civilization is not in the scientific or the technological, but it is in history, poetry and music (art in general, as we see just how the Creature is amazed by books and folk music). Finally, and I think most importantly, Shelley points out what David Hume said, that Reason is the Slave of Passion. In the novel, Frankenstein thinks that he's reasoned his way to not make a female partner for the Creature; but very clearly, his reasoning is under the influence of his own prejudice against his creation. After he has finished the Creature, out of no where he talks of the "horrid" monster. There is no ground for that apart from his terrible physical appearance. But two years later the monster is as (if not more) eloquent in speech as Frankenstein himself. The Creature also has all the human passions and virtues. There is no reason to continue to call him a monster. As to the Creature's murders, it is no monsterous act - the Creature is angry, and considering his own situation, I do not believe that his act is THAT bad; tons of human beings did much worst in history, and both Frankenstein and the Creature know that. Frankenstein cannot get himself out of the sway of emotions.
The narrative technique of Frankenstein is simple enough; but what is remarkable about this novel is its infinite wealth. The four points I've mentioned above are but a few interpretation of the text. Here, as concluding remark, I will say that I can also do a post-colonial reading of the text, by assuming the Creature to be the unfortunate colonized; or a Nietzschean-existential reading, by assuming the Creature to be a Nietzschean hero and Frankenstein himself to be the antithesis.
Shelley's work is a subtle criticism of several things. Firstly, human beings are not as great as we would like to believe. The quick execution of the innocent Justine is an example of how we think we know the truth but in reality we haven't got a clue. Secondly, human beings are hypocrites. We talk of being generous, being accepting, being virtuous - the Creature falls in for that, and is instead instantly repelled. The Creature never gained acceptance, even if he has all the heart of a human being. We all fall too easily into prejudice. Thirdly, Shelley criticizes this idea of infinite progress in rational thought. Science must have its limits; human beings playing God (or Prometheus for Shelley) are fated for destruction. The essence of civilization is not in the scientific or the technological, but it is in history, poetry and music (art in general, as we see just how the Creature is amazed by books and folk music). Finally, and I think most importantly, Shelley points out what David Hume said, that Reason is the Slave of Passion. In the novel, Frankenstein thinks that he's reasoned his way to not make a female partner for the Creature; but very clearly, his reasoning is under the influence of his own prejudice against his creation. After he has finished the Creature, out of no where he talks of the "horrid" monster. There is no ground for that apart from his terrible physical appearance. But two years later the monster is as (if not more) eloquent in speech as Frankenstein himself. The Creature also has all the human passions and virtues. There is no reason to continue to call him a monster. As to the Creature's murders, it is no monsterous act - the Creature is angry, and considering his own situation, I do not believe that his act is THAT bad; tons of human beings did much worst in history, and both Frankenstein and the Creature know that. Frankenstein cannot get himself out of the sway of emotions.
The narrative technique of Frankenstein is simple enough; but what is remarkable about this novel is its infinite wealth. The four points I've mentioned above are but a few interpretation of the text. Here, as concluding remark, I will say that I can also do a post-colonial reading of the text, by assuming the Creature to be the unfortunate colonized; or a Nietzschean-existential reading, by assuming the Creature to be a Nietzschean hero and Frankenstein himself to be the antithesis.
posted by Tristan at 9:49 a.m.
2 Comments:
you could even say Dr. Victor Frankenstein's Creation was more 'human' than Dr. Frankenstein and his fellow men....
Frankenstein, I believe, WAS Shelley's first literary creation... She made it up as a campfire story to scare her friends one night, and then later put it down in writing.
Post a Comment
<< Home