Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: What Made The Monster

British writer and psychologist, Ronald Britton, in his paper titled Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: what made the Monster monstrous, analyzes a specific part of Mary Shelley’s life and explains how it greatly influenced her writing of the novel. He supports this claim by pulling different examples from Shelley’s other literary works, then by connecting these to different events in Shelley’s personal life, and finally by constructing a logical argument about how many of these stories are a reflection of Shelley’s deeper emotions that stemmed from traumatic experiences, a pattern of which Frankenstein is no exception. His purpose is to use this combination of past works and personal experiences to delve deeper into the character and motivations

As a person trained in this field, he certainly qualified to delve deeper into the psychology of both the author and her characters. That being said, his training is reflected in how clear his logic is. With phrases such as "Godwin thought he had created a happy family; what Mary thought he created was a hell on earth", he maintains an academic tone while using extremely simple and understandable language (4). His overall approach of analyzing the events of her life to shed light on her writing makes sense because he, as both a writer and a psychologist, understands how the two are almost inseparable. Especially when using specific events and pairing them to specific stories, such as when Britton explains how a monster in her night terrors turned into the story Christabel (5), Britton is able to clearly communicate the connection between Shelley's emotions and experiences and her work. In terms of a more emotional approach, Britton remains more objective and scholarly, sacrificing emotional appeals for credibility while analyzing the emotions of another person. His objectivity is especially important, as emotions are naturally subjective, meaning that an even more subjective analysis could be interpreted as less credible. In sum, he had relatively little of an emotional presence. However, he more than made up for it as his credibility as a psychologist allows the audience to trust his analysis while his logical appeals through his use of specific examples reflects the caliber of his