Life Lessons in Shelley\'s Frankenstein

Life Lessons in Shelley's Frankenstein

Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, may seem like a horror tale but the reason it has remained popular over the years is because it is a tale about humanity and the dangers man faces when he decides to do something that he is not completely equipped to do. The novel remains a classic in literature because it explores universal themes such as the thirst for knowledge, responsibility, and nature vs. nurture. These topics are not easily approached and they become more complicated when man decides to do something that he is not wired to do, such as Victor does. Victor is blinded by his thirst for knowledge, which is his first mistake. His second mistake is abandoning the creature he so desperately wanted to make. In deserting the creature, he is shirking his responsibilities as a "father" and the creature, out of desperation, resorts to destruction when he cannot find the caring and attention he needs. The novel illustrates how we must take responsibility for our actions, regardless how they might turn out. Through compelling characterization, Shelley demonstrates the importance we should place on our vain pursuits, including the thirst for knowledge. In addition, she explores issues of responsibility and nature vs. nurture in regard to the creature and his existence.

The search for knowledge is one that drives people to do many things, just as it drives Victor. His desire includes the mystery of life and creating it from inanimate matter. The notion was one in which Shelley and her community took interest. Martin Garrett asserts that Shelley was interested in "the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered or communicated . . . perhaps a corpse would be reanimated with the aid of electricity, or perhaps the components of parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endued with vital warmth" (Garrett 33). The air of Shelley's day was filled with notions like galvanism, alchemy and the mysteries of life. All of this talk proved to be a source on which she could rely as she created Victor, a man driven with the desire to know more. His problem was that he was only concerned with what his dream would do for him and not what it might do others. His is lead by his desire and he delves into science thinking he might one day be considered god-like with his discovery. We know he has gone over the edge of reason when he begins to think he has been endowed with some sort of special knowledge. He even tells Walton, "I was surprised that among so many men of genius . . . that I alone should be reserved to discover so astonishing a secret" (Shelley 37). This statement is evidence of a man that has allowed himself to be seduced by the lure of knowledge. He wants to be great and he can only see the success attached to that dream, not the negative consequences.

Victor's longing for knowledge brings us to the next theme that Shelley explored in the novel, which is responsibility. After Victor accomplishes his dream, he is suddenly faced with the reality of it, which is not pretty. Instead of owning up to his responsibility, he abandons the creature. He never stops to consider that something bad actually come from his endeavors until he comes face-to-face with the "dull yellow eye of the creature" (Shelley 42). Victor's dream of greatness is destroyed when he realizes that his creation is ugly and he simply cannot deal with that information. He says that the "beauty of the dream had vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart" (42). His pride and anticipation are squashed at the sight of the creature and, along with his dreams, Victor's sense of responsibility disappears. Dorothy Hoobler asserts, "Ironically, at the culmination of his research, the moment of his triumph, all Victor's pleasure in life ends" (Hoobler 159). It is awful enough that he leaves the creature to fend for himself but he also leaves him to form his own judgments about the world and the people in it.

Victor's selfish behavior brings us to the theme of nature vs. nurture in the story. The creature, left to his own devices must establish a code of behavior that is unique to him and his circumstances, since he has not teacher or parent to guide him. As the creature's desires to find a place in society, his hopes are elevated when he encounters the De Lacey family. He musters up enough courage to approach them only to have them react negatively. This shatters his dreams of connecting with others and fills him with a growing rage. It seems at every turn, the creature faces hatred and animosity even though he has done nothing wrong. Since he has taken the time to educate himself, he knows that he is despicable to look upon and he also knows that Victor is to blame. Virginia Brackett suggests that the creature "possesses a quick intellect and a natural warmth and goodness that is corrupted only by his exposure to humans remains an indictment of shallow social values and a rigid class structure" (Brackett). In short, not one human being has been nice to him. Stephen Gould claims that the creature becomes a "monster because he is cruelly ensnared by one of the deepest predispositions of our biological inheritance -- our aversion toward seriously malformed individuals" (Gould). The monster becomes a clear-cut case in favor of nurture in the ongoing debate over nature and nurture. Walter Scott maintains, "The result is, this monster, who was at first, according to his own account, but a harmless monster, becomes ferocious and malignant, in consequence of finding all his approaches to human society repelled with injurious violence and offensive marks of disgust" (Scott). The monster needs to be nurtured in the way a child does and when this does not happen, he becomes vengeful. While he knows that evil is wrong, he feels as though he no other resort. Gould claims that the creature feels defeated and "finally acknowledges his inability to overcome visceral fear at his ugliness; his resulting despair and loneliness drive him to evil deeds" (Gould). The creature comes to accept the fact that he is a "wretched outcast" (Shelley 115) and decides that his desire to live a good life is worthless so he decides to live a bad life. Laura Berry claims that knowledge leads to destruction in that the more the creature knows, the "more ardent his desire for vengeance" (Berry 24). His vengeance can only be directed toward Victor. Peter Otto claims that the monster is real but his "monstrosity emerges only when Victor refuses to nurture and protect his creation" (Otto 379). The product of Victor's dream "becomes his murderous double, destroying those who constitute his family" (Otto 379). Virginia Brackett contends that the creature was not '"born' hating others; his hate was taught him by people who refused to see beyond his external appearance to the brilliant warm nature existing just below its surface" (Brackett). The creature became the monster but he still paled in comparison to his maker.