How Does Mary Shelley Create Monstrosity In Frankenstein

1078 Words3 Pages

Over time, the name “Frankenstein” has become a reference to the green-skinned, lumbering monster in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, rather than his creator Victor Frankenstein. However, this is not necessarily a careless mistake. Infact, if one were to define monstrosity as the voluntary separation of oneself from humanity through unnaturally evil behaviors, then the true monster of Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, would be Victor Frankenstein. Victor best fits this definition because, not only does he engage in malevolent behavior such as attempting to control nature, but the comparisons between him and his creation emphasize that he allowed his obsessions to strip him of his humanity. Also, Frankenstein and his creation had distinctly …show more content…

For example, after murdering William Frankenstein, the creature’s response is not that of “disgust or regret but fascination and even obsession” (Evans, “Elements of the Grotesque in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”). The obsession which causes the monster to “gaze on [his] victim” with delight is the same obsession which had once caused Victor’s eyeballs to “[stare] from their sockets” at the evil work he was doing (Shelley 39, 123). However, although Victor and the creature are similarly obsessive, their obsession did not arise from the same source. It is easy to understand why the creature would become obsessed with inflicting pain on humankind: as humankind inflicted pain on him. However Victor never experienced the level of trauma that his creation did, so his obsession for intruding on universal knowledge could not have been fueled by an urge for revenge or a feeling of hopelessness. By process of elimination, the only possible source of Frankenstein’s monstrous tendencies is the monstrosity within …show more content…

According to Mary Ellen Snodgrass, a mad scientist is someone with “evil curiosity, inhumanity, and dabblings in fearful concoctions” who “[intrudes] on universal knowledge” (“Mad Scientists in Gothic Literature”). Frankenstein definitely fits this criterion, since he “tortured the living animal” and “pursued nature to her hiding-places” (Shelley 39). However, M.G.H. Bishop claims that Frankenstein is so evil, he does not even deserve to be associated with the word “scientist.” According to Bishop, the medical profession is driven by a “love of whole humanity” This makes it “a world away” from Frankenstein, who “placed a human mind within a grotesque and ghastly cage” without even a “spurious” excuse (Bishop, "Victor Frankenstein Is Shelley's True Immortal Monster"). M.G.H. Bishop makes a valid argument because Frankenstein was clearly not motivated by a “love of whole humanity.” He was arguably bestowed with the perfect family; yet he voluntarily excluded them from his life. Ultimately, if Frankenstein did not have the will to love the best of humanity, there is no hope that he would have had honorable intentions such as the desire to help others. Frankenstein clearly fell victim to the “primary sin of the mad doctor,” which according to Mary Ellen Snodgrass is the “horror of hubris,” and this is what causes him to be

Open Document