More handpicked essays just for you.
Frankenstein critical analysis
The birth of frankenstein's monster analysis
The birth of frankenstein's monster analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mary Shelley’s Tragic Hero
Tragedy shows no discrimination and often strikes down on those undeserving of such turmoil. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a creature more repulsive than one can imagine is brought to life by a young scientist. Although this creature is horrifying in sight, he is gentle by nature. Unfortunately, the softer side of the creature is repeatedly overlooked and the so called “monster” is driven to a breaking point. Even though the Creature committed many crimes, Mary Shelley’s Creature was the tragic hero of this story because of his efforts rescue the life of a young girl and helping destitute cottagers.
A monster can be characterized by an extreme deviation from the normal standards of society including an internal or external wickedness. In the case of Mary Shelley’s Creature, his appearance overwhelms those who lay eyes upon him. A mere glance can send a villager running for the hills. It was not until the Creature caught a glance of his own reflection that he understood why villagers were so afraid of him. The realization of his ghastly appearance began the monster’s journey into hopelessness. In Peter Brooks’ article he writes, “Self recognition as the ‘filthy type’ completes the mirror stage of the Monsters development.” (Brooks 377). Seeing oneself as ugly and slovenly can cast shadows on even the most compassionate of hearts.
In the beginning the Creature is born with a kind heart. While traveling through the forest the creature comes up on a small child playing on the side of a river. When the child misses a step and the Creature springs into action to save a stranger. In her story Shelley writes, “’I rushed from my hiding place, and, with extreme labour from the force of the current, saved...
... middle of paper ...
...Nineteenth-Century Responses. Modern Criticism. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: 2012. 368-390. Print.
Browerbank, Sylvia. The Social Order VS The Wretch: Mary Shelley's Contradictory-
Mindedness in Frankenstein. ELH, Vol. 46. (1979), pp. 418-431. JSTOR. Web. 24 April 2014.
Oates, Joyce Carol. Frankenstein's Fallen Angel. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 10. (1984), pp. 543-554.
The University of Chicago Press. JSTOR. Web. 20 April 2014.
O'Rourke, James. "Nothing More Unnatural": Mary Shelley's Revision of Rousseau ELH. Vol.
56, No. 3 (1989), pp. 543-569. The Johns Hopkins University Press. JSTOR. Web. 24 April 2014.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1996.
Turner Sharp, Michele. If It Be a Monster Birth: Reading and Literary Property in Mary
Shelley's "Frankenstein". South Atlantic Review, Vol. 66. (2001).
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Edited with an Introduction and notes by Maurice Hindle. Penguin books, 1992
Like all works that have been taught in English classes, Frankenstein has been explicated and analyzed by students and teachers alike for much of the twentieth and all of the twenty-first century. Academia is correct for doing so because Frankenstein can appeal to the interests of students. Students, teachers and experts in the areas of medicine, psychology, and sociology can relevantly analyze Frankenstein in their respective fields. However, Peter Brooks explains in “Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein” that Shelly had presented the problem of “Monsterism” through her language. According to Brooks, Monsterism is explicitly and implicitly addressed in Shelly’s language. While this may be correct, Brooks does it in such a way that requires vast knowledge of subjects that many readers may not be knowledgeable in. After summarizing and analyzing the positive and negative qualities of Brooks’ work, I will explain how the connection of many different fields of study in literature creates a better work.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. The Mary Shelley Reader. Ed. Betty T. Bennet & Charles E. Robinson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition. ed. J. Paul Hunter. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Edited with an Introduction and notes by Maurice Hindle. Penguin books, 1992
Mike Carey once summarized something very profound in one of his novels: “We make our own monsters, then fear them for what they show us about ourselves”. This idea, that perhaps one’s biggest fears are simply reflections of themselves, could be applicable to all aspects of life - more specifically, a certain gothic horror novel that was written years ago. The idea of being reflections of one’s own monsters perhaps was first put into words in Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein. Since the widely-adapted story was written in 1818, there have been constant debates and questions raised about who is protagonist and who is the antagonist in the story, a question Mary Shelley herself may have not been able to answer. Why? The well-educated, put-together scientist Victor Frankenstein and his creature, whose “yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath… (and whose) hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing” are truly mirror images of each other in many instances (Shelley 43). Despite what first impressions may suggest, Frankenstein and his creature are far from polar opposites on the spectrum, and Frankenstein is hardly the usual story of good and evil. Frankenstein and his creature are just as much monsters as one another, and the two share a surprising list of similarities.
What is a monster, really? Is it really a Creature that has three eyes instead of two, with pus seeping out of every crevice in his face and an abnormally large form? Or is it someone with a mind so corrupt it rivals that of Satan? Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a story within a story that centers on the tale of a man with an immense thirst of knowledge and a fetish to imitate the Creator. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a lot like the Greek mythological tale of the Greek God, Prometheus, and his brother, Epimetheus, who were assigned the task of creating man. The story captivates the theme of monstrosity. Mary Shelley wrote the novel in a form so the reader’s opinions never stray far from sympathy for the monster and apathy for Victor Frankenstein. The novel looks at “Monstrosity” and “Humanity” in a deeply analytical way.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
Who is the real monster within the boundaries of society? In the classic novel written by Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, the monster was characterized as an evil antagonist who has the murderous tendencies to annihilate the precious beings of mankind. However, the readers have yet to understand the victim underneath the distorted flesh and inhumane features since “the monster” was under the clutches of injustice because of the unreasonable ostracization, deplorable reason of creation, and unbearable misery.
His “alienation from human social relations begins at the moment of his birth” (Petsche 98), as Victor rejects him just after he has been made. This leaves the monster to fend for himself. When he awakes, he finds himself“half frightened...instinctively,” because of his “desolate” surroundings (Shelley 91). The monster has only just awoken, and yet he has fear of being alone. Shelley demonstrates the necessity of the company of others, and “suggests that the presence of others may be as natural and pressing a need for a newborn as food and warmth” (Yousef 197). Though the monster has no preconception of being in the company of others, he recognizes the loneliness of his position. Shelley presents the idea that we always need other people around us. Unfortunately for him, the monster’s alienation continues, and becomes worse. He gets rejected by everyone he comes across because of his grotesque looks. The monster becomes “irrevocably excluded,” and because of this he loses his “benevolent and happy”(87) demeanor. After the family of cottagers that he’d been admiring from afar reject him, the monster becomes hardened and angry. He realizes that“none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist” him, and thus he decides that he should not “feel kindness towards [his] enemies”(125). Eventually this anger leads to the death of William and Henry and Elizabeth. Perhaps if the
At the beginning of his life, the creature does not seek to harm the human race, instead wishing to join them. The creature demonstrates his desires when he reveals to Frankenstein that, “I longed to join them, but dared not. I remembered to well the treatment I had suffered the night before” (Shelly pg76). Regardless of his previously interactions with violent humans, he continues to desire the feeling of belonging to a group or family. Like Ourika, once the creature realizes that society will not accept him, he wishes for an interpersonal relationship with a significant other. The creature reveals to Frankenstein that, “I demand a creature of another sex, but as hideous as myself: the gratification is small, but it is all I can receive, and it shall content me” (Shelly pg102). The creature understands that the love he will receive from a female creature will not completely fill the gap of belonging; nonetheless he comprehends that some small feeling of attachment and love is enough to make him happy. Although the creature begins as kind-hearted character desiring companionship, the creature ultimately desires revenge against Frankenstein throughout volume three. The psyche of the creature evolves from one of innocent child looking at the world for the first time, to a vile human wishing to act upon his anger. Importantly, the
Mary Shelley’s Gothic novel Frankenstein dives into a gloomy atmosphere to explore the effects of mistaken judgment. Her titular character, Victor Frankenstein, is a college student exploring the science of life at the opening of the novel; he sets out to assemble and animate a creature from human body parts, but he is shocked and horrified when he sees what he has created. The being he brings to life is a monster whose appearance terrifies Victor, and the young scientist flees and abandons the innocent creature to what will ultimately be a tragic life. The monster leaves his creator’s laboratory and wanders alone, shunned by those he meets because of his appearances only, and he becomes a murderer because of how he is treated. This concept
However repugnant he was on the outside, when Frankenstein’s creature begins to tell his tale of sorrow and rejection the creature does not seem to be monstrous. Although rejected multiple times by the humans around him when he finds a family in poverty and “suffering the pangs ...
When the Victor Frankenstein flees, the monster is forced to discern life on his own, eventually learning that he is not only loathed by his creator, but also by everyone else. He tries to obtain food from a local village, but before he can even step foot into a hut “children shrieked, and one of the women fainted. The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, until, grievously bruised by stones…I escaped…” (74). Both his creator and society reject him. He seeks comfort in watching a family from afar. He enjoys watching the family, Agatha and Felix, eventually regarding them as “superior beings” (81). He admired their “grace, beauty, and delicate complexions, but how was I terrified” when he saw his own reflection in a pool (80). With no knowledge of how he was born or how to live life, the monster was forced to learn how to survive on his own. With constant rejection, he eventually understands that he is inferior, especially to Agatha and Felix, because of his appearance. Had people, especially Victor, exercised tolerance and acceptance, perhaps the monster could have learned something different. Mary Shelley gives her audience the “other’s”, in this case the monster’s, perspective when he tells his journey to his creator. With Frankenstein, Shelley provides the “others” of the world with a