The first essay that we wrote for ERH 421WX- One Text: Frankenstein was a Critical Review of “Frankenstein”. My essay consisted of the major themes that I recognized in the Novel. These essays were the necessity of developing what you create, and the necessity of being responsible not only for what is yours, but also for all other beings. These messages are seen throughout “Frankenstein”, particularly by Victor Frankenstein’s lack of responsibility for the creature turning the creature into a monster that only knows hate and vengeance. I applied these concepts to the modern world, stating that while scientific advancement is a good thing, we must be cautious and constantly make sure that modern advancements are regulated and controlled so as to not get out of hand.
“The Gentleman’s Magazine”. 88: 334-335. April, 2018. http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/gentlemansmag
“The British Crititc”. N.S. 9:432-48. April, 1818.
https://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bcrev.html
Nicholas Schweers
LTC Ticen
10/5/18
Critical Review: Frankenstein
When you drive through rural Ohio, you see signs, painted barns, banners still standing in memorial of the Bicentennial celebration of Ohio becoming a state. Many Ohionians are (or at least pretended to be) proud of their state. It is their heritage. It is a common bond that, to some extent, they all share. It is this same rural area in which we can, and should, review the ideas of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. This year, 2018, happens to be the Bicentennial of her publishing this most famous and timeless work of art. The lessons that she taught us in her work are not to be diminished. Two of the main messages from “Frankenstein” are particularly relevant in these small rural communities in Ohio, around the United States of America, even around the world. These lessons are that men need to be responsible and careful with their creations and their studies.
In the first few years of its publication, “Frankenstein” received many different critical responses. Some reviews were positive. In “The Gentleman’s Magazine”, one or two authors wrote of their appreciation of Shelley’s writings. They greatly praised the beautiful descriptions of scenery, and several other facets of her writing in which she excels, going as far as to praise Victor as “a Noble Poet”. Many other reviews were… not so positive, to put it lightly. “The British Critic (TBC)” wrote one of the more brutal reviews of “Frankenstein”. This article, as well as others, found the first fault in the darkness of the story. They said that it was too dark and twisted for there to be any real profit to reading the book. The other issue that most critics had with Shelley’s work is that Mary was a woman. “Frankenstein” was written when women had little to no rites. TBC said, “The writer of it (Frankenstein) is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel… and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment”. Thankfully, many of the concepts which Shelley portrayed in “Frankenstein” are still relevant, and two hundred years removed, we can view the book objectively. By not shutting the book down for disagreeing with the patriarchy or with strict religious restrictions, there is much to learn from the story.
The “Frankenstein” story takes place in the late 1700’s. This is a turbulent time, with the French Revolution taking place before and around it, women’s suffrage starting, and racism still being relevant throughout the world. But this is also a time of great discovery and the re-invigoration of the sciences. All of these factors lead to Victor Frankenstein’s infatuation with the art of animating life through the use of new technologies such as conducting electricity. Through his countless hours and nights without sleep, Victor finally reached the climax of his research. He created a perfect being out of many corpses. With his research, he bought this mix and matched creature to life. As soon as the creature was animated, Victor was terrified, and fled the poor man. This man, without a parent to teach him how to function, relies on pure instinct, becoming more of a creature than a man. Because the creature had no guidance in life, he grew to cause great harm and strife for Victor and his entire family. Which is where the story comes to relevance in the modern era.
Many people view scientific advances as a positive thing, and in many cases they are. Regardless of how positive or revolutionary the immediate effect of the new research is, there should always be constraints or precautions when passing through unchartered territory. When Victor did not prepare for the effect of the creature coming to life, he turned the creature into a monster. Without proper guidance, the creature became a murderer. Modern research and technology can and should be seen the same way. For example, smart phones are a magnificent technology, but there have been countless of personal security breaches every year resulting from the lack of preparedness of phone making companies. Another example is GMOs. Those countless corn fields in Ohio, while beautiful and necessary, are quite a creature of their own. There is not enough data on the effects of their genetic mutation on those who eat it. The public does not know much about the restrictions put on companies that change the very makeup of what we eat. This technology could easily get out of hand, and even abused, in order to effect the people that it is feeding. There are countless example of this, more coming to light each day. Victor’s mistake that lead to his great suffering is the perfect example of the necessity of precaution, development, and care.
As you can (hopefully) see, this book remains entirely relevant over two hundred years after it was published. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” hits on many contingent issues, which were just as valid back then as they are now. We live in a time where scientists are working on creating life from nothing. In order to understand what kind of effect this would have, it should be a necessity for all scientists working on that project to read “Frankenstein”. In fact everyone should. Not only could “Frankenstein” potentially cause someone to make a decision that will save lives (instead of recklessly experimenting), but it is also a very enjoyable book. As “The Gentleman’s Magazine” wrote, it is a very beautifully written, descriptive, and exciting book to read. Unless you are a sexist, or easily scared and or offended, I would highly recommend reading “Frankenstein” (all the way through) to anyone. I believe that if someone puts in the effort to read this book, it will grasp them, entertain them, and help them think about the dangers of acting without preparing, and inspire them to take better care of others. Those skeptics or people just wondering whether they should read “Frankenstein”, I highly encourage you to do so. As you can see, there is much that can be learned from a beautiful, enjoyable, and well done book such as this.