Frankenstein by Mary Shelley: themes and analysis

Frankenstein

"You, who call Frankenstein your friend, seem to have a knowledge of my crimes and his misfortunes. But in the detail which he gave you of them he could not sum up the hours and months of misery which I endured wasting in impotent passions. For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires," (Shelley, Frankenstein, Chapter 24)

Frankenstein's monster remains one of the most misunderstood characters in English literature. Part of the problem can be traced to the commercialization of the book and its adaptation for cinema. As Mary Shelley's work has been appropriated by the horror genre, the monster has taken on a new form as an evil and fearsome creature rather than being the tragic and lonely figure that he actually is in the novel. Film versions of Frankenstein have stripped away from the monster some of the core components of his ironic humanity: including his emotional sensitivity, his eloquence, and his ultimate persuasiveness in warning readers about the pitfalls of egotistical power. Part of the reason that filmmakers have transformed the monster into something mute and inarticulate has been to simplify the moral messages in Shelley's book. Shelley's novel is morally complex, but Hollywood has tended to veer from moral ambiguity to portray a (often literally) black-and-white version of the story on the silver screen. Another reason why filmmakers have distorted the story of Frankenstein and his monster is to attempt to squeeze a dystopian novel into a horror genre. A close reading and revisiting of Shelley's original text, coupled with an analysis of literary criticism, reveals that the reader is encouraged to sympathize fully with the creature even while simultaneously feeling compassion for his creator.

The title of Shelley's novel is Frankenstein, drawing the reader's attention immediately to the doctor. Thus, the monster has become linked to the name of his "father," and in popular culture the monster is called Frankenstein erroneously. Focusing on the doctor, the tale of Frankenstein becomes less about the monster's plight as a lonely being in a hostile world, and becomes more about the sudden shock of "what have I done?" The inability or unwillingness of the doctor to properly take responsibility for his creation then becomes the central moral question of Frankenstein. More than being about the pitfalls of science, Frankenstein is about people who should not become parents or about the modern tendency toward self-centeredness and narcissism. As Johnson puts it, Frankenstein is about the "monstrousness of selfhood," (3).

Perhaps Dr. Frankenstein's fear of his creation is repressed homoeroticism-turned-homophobia. As Laplace-Sinatra points out, the sexual politics of Frankenstein are difficult to ignore, as the tension between the creator and created becomes a pained and qualitatively Romantic homoerotic journey. "Yes, he had followed me in my travels; he had loitered in forests, hid himself in caves, or taken refuge in wide and desert heaths; and he now came to mark my progress and claim the fulfilment of my promise," (Chapter 20). Using a gendered analysis of Frankenstein, it is easy to sympathize with the monster as being a symbol for the spurned lover returning to claim his love. This is especially true in light of the monster's inability to tolerate Victor's marriage. It also becomes possible to view the creature as being perennially motherless, something that presents the monster with a unique set of psychological baggage. "The creature's nonbirth, occluding an unavoidably female act, has dominated feminist interpretations of Frankenstein," (Yousef 197). Elements of motherhood, gender, sexuality, and personal identity are central to the human experience, which is why the creature becomes increasingly sympathetic the more Shelley explores these themes.

Because the monster takes over the second half of the narrative, it is his eloquence and persuasiveness that leave the most indelible impression on the reader. The book ceases to be about Frankenstein the creator, and becomes about Frankenstein's creation: the nameless, motherless creature who wanders the cold and desolate planet on its own. Only a visually impaired old man has the ability to perceive and treat the monster as human. When the old man calls him "human," the monster does not protest. Instead, he explodes with love and gratitude, at one of the only moments of his narrative in which he seems to be genuinely happy: "You raise me from the dust by this kindness; and I trust that, by your aid, I shall not be driven from the society and sympathy of your fellow creatures," (Chapter 15). The feeling is sadly short-lived, for the others perceive the physical appearance of the creature. Shelley thus comments on the shallowness of judgment, and the emphasis on physical beauty more than internal character. In this sense, the monster becomes a symbol for exploring themes extant especially in Shelley's time: including colonization and racism. The monster is the savage beast that becomes, in Kipling's terms, the white man's burden.

Because of the conditions of the creature's birth, it is impossible to avoid questions of the ethics of gene manipulation and the implications for scientific exploration. "Shelley's novel is characterized and punctuated by a subtle and sophisticated appreciation of the vital role of social relations in determining the nature, direction, products and consequences of science and technology," (Hammond 181). The subtitle of Shelley's novel is "the Modern Prometheus," clearly signaling a tale of human beings desiring to capitalize on the seemingly godly power of science. One of the clearest markers of the relevance of Shelley's exploration to the post-modern world is in the area of genetically modified foods, which have been dubbed "Frankenfoods" as an allusion to the novel. "The story of Frankenstein is often interpreted and mobilized as a powerful and popular symbol of concerns over the risks and dangers of science, progressive modernity and its ensuing technological creations," (Hammond 181). The debate of Frankenfoods is often presented in a one-sided way, from both sides of the political spectrum. The blurring of grey areas and the erasure of intelligent debate thus parallels the portrayal of the monster in Hollywood as something that is fully evil, rather than something that is morally ambiguous.