Monstrosity and Anti-Enlightenment in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
This essay examines monstrosity in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein through an anti-Enlightenment lens, arguing that the novel presents two distinct monsters shaped by nature and nurture respectively. Victor Frankenstein's monstrosity stems from his unrestrained pursuit of knowledge, his God-like ambition to create life, and his abandonment of his Creature. The Creature, by contrast, becomes monstrous through environmental neglect rather than innate evil. Drawing on Immanuel Kant's concept of Enlightenment self-governance and Shelley's literary treatment of creation, the paper connects these themes to enduring anxieties about scientific overreach — including modern concerns about cloning and embryonic stem cell research.
- Introduction: Shelley's Anti-Enlightenment Vision: Shelley's novel as anti-Enlightenment critique of science
- Victor Frankenstein as Monster: Education and Ambition: Frankenstein's unsupervised education fuels monstrous ambition
- Kant's Enlightenment and Frankenstein's Unchecked Reason: Kant's self-governance principle applied to Frankenstein's downfall
- Nature vs. Nurture: Two Monsters Compared: Frankenstein's innate nature versus the Creature's neglect
- The Creature as Victim of Environment: Creature's monstrosity caused by abandonment and isolation
- Creation, Reproduction, and Playing God: Frankenstein refuses a mate, fearing unnatural reproduction
- Conclusion: Science, Knowledge, and Enduring Dangers: Novel's warnings resonate with modern scientific ethics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its literary analysis in a clear theoretical framework — Kant's concept of Enlightenment self-governance — giving the argument intellectual grounding beyond plot summary.
- It develops a productive binary (nature vs. nurture) that allows both Victor Frankenstein and the Creature to be analyzed as "monsters" while distinguishing the origins of each character's behavior.
- The essay connects the novel's eighteenth-century concerns to contemporary debates about cloning and stem cell research, demonstrating the enduring relevance of Shelley's warnings.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models how to use a primary philosophical text (Kant's Was ist Aufklärung?) as a contextual lens for literary analysis. Rather than treating the novel in isolation, the writer places it in dialogue with Enlightenment thought, using Kant's own words to illuminate Frankenstein's motivation before turning that framework against him — showing how the very freedom Kant celebrated becomes destructive when reason is "clouded."
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with biographical and historical context for Shelley's anti-Enlightenment stance, then moves to Victor Frankenstein as the first "monster," supported by textual evidence and Kantian philosophy. It pivots to the Creature as a contrasting monster shaped by nurture rather than nature. The middle sections explore the nature/nurture binary in depth before concluding with Frankenstein's refusal to create a mate and a final turn to modern scientific anxieties. The structure is broadly thematic with a clear argumentative arc from cause (education and ambition) to consequence (destruction and ethical danger).
Introduction: Shelley's Anti-Enlightenment Vision
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus, considered by many to be one of the first science-fiction novels ever written, is full of anti-Enlightenment sentiments, many of which remain present in society today. Shelley's novel, published first in 1818 and then revised and republished in 1831, examines the conflicts between science and religion. Through this examination, Shelley provides insight into the dangers of playing God and taking the forces of nature into one's own hands. Seeing as Mary Shelley was the daughter of two well-known Enlightenment intellectual figures, it can be posited that she understood the arguments and beliefs of the movement and could construct a well-considered argument against it. Shelley's anti-Enlightenment stance explores the dangers that may arise through unsupervised educational pursuits — including the unrestrained exploration of science and the denunciation or tampering of religious beliefs — and how these dangers may impact individual perspectives and rationale.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.