The Role Of Authorial Intent In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has been a timeless classic, firmly entrenched in popular culture as evidenced through derivative films, video games, plays, and other works. Logically, there must be some universal theme or ideology that transcends the boundaries of time periods in order to appeal to an ever-dynamic and diverse audience for over a century. Therefore, it is important to ask what Mary Shelley's intentions were in creating Frankenstein. Was it to explore an action-consequence relationship? Perhaps, potential implications of future scientific advancement? While it is impossible to find a definitive answer, the idea of authorial intent has gripped almost every influential piece of literature. If Shelley's intent in creating Frankenstein was highly

subjective, perhaps as an expression of the hardships experienced in her personal life, yet others believed a broader interpretation of Frankenstein in that it reflects the idea of accepting diversity or change in society, does Shelley's intent hold higher authority than the others' interpretations?

Essentially, should the reader take an active or passive role in attempting to understand, synthesize, and apply works of literature to his or her own disposition? Therein lies the predicament.

Yet, an essential component of understanding the predicament is contemplating its relative significance. Does differentiating between authorial intent and interpretation truly affect society? Quite clearly, the answer is a resounding yes. Literature has the outstanding ability to shape human interactions, highlight deeply sentimental feelings, and contemplate worldly conditions. As author C.S. Lewis noted, “Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become.” Lord of the Flies delineated the disparity between savagery and civilization; Island of the Blue Dolphins conveyed the ineffable sentiments of forgiveness, trust, forlornness, and companionship; Brave New World investigated the growth of a detrimental consumer society. But, as with all works of literature, these examples are

multifaceted in their significations. Lord of the Flies also formulated a deep-seated sympathy for the death of Simon, the beacon of human goodness, as well as a gloomy interpretation of the innately nefarious nature of humans; Island of the Blue Dolphins further depicted a classic struggle between man and nature in the most primitive conditions as well as the effects of environmental conditions on moral development; Brave New World moreover surveyed the restrictive nature of an all-powerful state on the degradation of humanistic ideals in its populace as well as a profound connection to John the “Savage” as an extension of normal human tendencies in a dystopian society. Concretely, both classic and modern works of literature have affected leading figures in fields as diverse as music and technology. The Alchemist affected both Madonna and Pharell Williams while The Aeneid influenced Mark Zuckerberg. Comprehending the significance of literature on almost every aspect of society elucidates the large extent to which interpretation and authorial intent thereby affect society and its functions. In this sense, literature, with its protean and ever-evolving nature, continually requires and provides novel outlooks in its incalculable influence on society.
As with any controversial argument, there are two opposing arguments: one that wholeheartedly supports authorial intent as the “correct” way of viewing the thematic elements of a piece of literature and one that discounts authorial intent in favor of open and equal interpretation. While both sides have their merits, it is the conflation of these two arguments that create the most well-rounded and circumspect argument. Interpretation rooted in the fundamental intent of the author provides the most substance in fully extracting and implementing information gained from literature. By utilizing an intermediary approach, such an argument avoids the shortcomings of the more extreme, partisan nature of each argument.
Simply wholeheartedly supporting authorial intent detracts from the active role of the reader in interpreting and formulating his or her own conclusions from the work. Instead, the reader is “fed” an explanation passively without truly building and reflecting upon the work at hand. It is very similar to a class in which the professor drones endlessly without engaging his or her students. Clearly, such circumstances are not the ideal environment for a student to excel in comprehending and analyzing any texts. Furthermore, while the author may seem to be the ultimate authority since he or she wrote the work, no human being is omnipotent. In essence, the text itself may eclipse the rather subjective intent of the author. For example, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, regarded as one of the most emblematic examples of “slasher” horror films, was supposedly intended by Hitchcock to be a dark comedy as “the content was, I felt, rather amusing and it was a big joke.” Nonetheless, the thematic elements of Psycho itself do not suggest any comedic or jocular value. Attempting to interpret Psycho as a comedy simply based on the “absurdity” of the situation simply denotes the highly subjective nature of intent and interpretation. Quite clearly, Hitchcock's sense of humor differed greatly from the average viewer's based solely on the fact that Psycho bolstered the horror film genre rather than the “dark comedy” genre. In this regard, sole consideration of authorial intent stymies creative and critical thinking as well as presents insular and logically fallible perspectives.
On the other hand, complete open and equal interpretation has two major downfalls. First off, from a highly logical standpoint, openly interpreting a work of literature without at least some deliberation to the original author's intentions detracts from the strength and coherence of the text as many, if not all, aspects of a text will be formulated to specifically focus and center on the author's intent. A notable example from popular culture, James Bond is depicted as a highly charismatic and suave Secret Service agent through the media, film adaptations, and several story collections. However, Ian Fleming “wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened.” This helps to explain Fleming's emphatic juxtaposition between Bond's portrayal as a neutral figure and the exotic and alluring occurrences in his rather unconventional occupation. Second off, leaving literature open to complete interpretation can create outlandish and bizarre interpretations that can have possibly inimical repercussions. Infamously, Mark David Chapman's unique outlook on Holden Caufield in The Catcher in the Rye led to the death of music legend, John Lennon. Allegedly, Chapman sought to preserve Lennon's innocence in death despite Holden Caufield's eventual realization that innocence could never truly be preserved. In such extreme circumstances, the usage of authorial intent as a baseline for critical analysis can provide for a balanced and rational conclusion from a work of literature.
In consideration of the shortcomings of each argument, open interpretation established in the integral intent of the author consolidates the strong facets of each argument while disregarding the feeble components. In terms of full-fledged authorial intent, such an argument takes into account the relevance of certain thematic elements in structuring the author's intent while also omitting complete obedience to authorial intent in blinding creative and contemplative musings. In terms of outright open and equal interpretation, such an argument explores the merits of advancing thought provoking and analytical perceptions in critical thinking while also overlooking the loss of major themes due to negligence for authorial intent.