Butterfly Effect In Frankenstein

Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, raises some questions about the nature of life and of society as a whole; the issue of whether or not a decision, small or otherwise, affects the outcome of one’s life as a whole is one to draw upon. Another way to put this is if there is a way to take all of the events of the story and file them down to the character decisions, and trace where a series of events begin with a decision a character made. Why this is relevant to the context of the story? It is relevant because it shows how even the smallest of character moments could lead to catastrophic events such as those in this novel. This is important to people, especially in our generation, to think about our decisions and how they affect our lives and those

This proof is called the “Butterfly Effect.” The Butterfly Effect was formed during the calculations of weather patterns; one tiny variable was changed within the calculations and it completely changed the result. The man responsible for this was a man by the name of Edward Lorenz who discovered this phenomenon (Dizikes). This made scientists want to study this phenomenon further. They applied it to many situations including those that involved decision making. For instance, Edward met a man named Emanuel in the White Mountains in New Hampshire. Lorenz attempted to awaken a pack of coyotes, but was unsuccessful; a friend of Emanuel’s who worked there, used a call and woke them up (Dizikes). This is a prime example of the Butterfly Effect in action, as one factor was changed in the situation and brought forth a different outcome. Now, the problem with this is that the Butterfly Effect is not exactly perfect and cannot be completely applicable to things such as this story. Even in science, before the Butterfly Effect, Determinism was done with predictions on short-term while after the effect they could predict in the long-term (Dizikes). However, even if a scene is not well explained or even written, “coincidences” such as Frankenstein’s monster finding the cloak and the chest of books could be explained in a reasonable manner (Shelly 100 & 118-119). All these “plot holes” need is a little context; unfortunately, the story does not have said context, so generalizations must be made about what happened based on the text that has been given. The cloak was left close to where the fire was, so whoever left it must have been running from something or forgot it there. That same person or rather someone else could have dropped books on their way to a local town. This seems a bit out of place but when a little thought is placed, it is easy to comprehend. This point