Benjamin Langer
English Literature
Option #3
Doctor Frankenstein Essay Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was written in the early 19 th century, where scientific progressivism was widespread. The idea of technological advancement for the sake of advancement was very common at the time, and her novel can be seen as a form of dialogue on the subject. In this way, Frankenstein can be seen as a cautionary tale, which which warns of the dangers of unhindered, un-morally un-morally restrained restrained “progress.” As an extension of this, Victor Frankenstein, the cause of all immediate events which occur in the novel can be seen as a representation of not only society, but society, but of Shelley’s views of humanity’s beliefs, flaws, flaws, and moral standing. As society of her time was boldly progressing progressing with technology, so does Frankenstein boldly make breakthroughs in scientific fields, and as much of the technology created in the time period of Shelley was harmful to people involved with it (factor machines, etc.), so was Frankenstein’s creation creation harmful to many people around it. The social awareness and reprehensibility of the people of o f Shelley’s age is mirrored Victor Frankenstein.
Dr. Frankenstein acts as an accurate portrayal of Shelley’s view of humanity in that Shelley takes extreme care to not absolve him of his mistakes by way of any traumatic experiences, irregular psychology, or societal manipulation which would make him an “exception” or “anomaly.” She demonstrates within his own words, that he believes that he was raised within a stable family unit, and that he was neither abused nor neglected by his parents. He in fact states how he thought himself to have had an excellent childhood: “ My parents were possessed by the very spirit of kindness and indulgence. (…)When I mingled with other families I distinctly discerned how peculiarly fortunate my lot was, and gratitude assisted the development of filial love.” (Chapter 2) As such, Frankenstein cannot be be excused for his behavior as a result of an unfair childhood, childhood, or negative disposition. He has been given the foundation upon which the “average” and perhaps “representative” “representative” human moral and social behavior is created. Frankenstein Frankens tein himself states how he was “indulged” as a child, and continued to have his desires met throughout college. college. He was never restricted from his curiosities (“The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine," Chapter Two). He and his two brothers were encouraged to learn about and take control of their own lives through the empowerment of scientific scientific knowledge. As such, he can be used as a model for what Shelley believes humanity truly is when it isn’t constrained by sociall y engineered morals, morals, for he was never told “no” in his maturation. maturation . The ideas which he holds important important were developed by himself, for himself. himself. He acts as a singular “unit” of humanity.
After we accept these axioms that the author provides, we begin to see what Shelley thinks this “unbounded human truly is. Shelley does not write Frankenstein as an evil character. He does not create the monster with the purpose purpose of creating a being which is confused and isolated, isolated, and he does not faint after the monster’ s creation to the aim of making the monster feel estranged, and eventually angry after it comes to grips that it is unwanted. The wrongs that the Doctor commits are not out of bad intent, but rather misguided intent. Frankenstein’s involvement into “dark sciences,” if his experimentation with humans could be called that, on an ethical level, was was not inspired by malice but by curiosity. Victor Frankenstein was always encouraged to better himself through science, so he does so by satiating his desires and curiosities. curiosities. His curiosity, is not inherently inherently evil, however. however. Captain Walton, the writer who Frankenstein is trying to teach within the framing of the novel, is obviously of a similar substance to the the Doctor, in that he has a desire for knowledge to which he will literally go to the ends of the Earth. However, the difference to be noted between the two is that where Frankenstein Frankenstein does not foresee the consequences of his actions, the Captain ultimately decides to restrain his own curiosities (Akin to Franke nstein’s revival of the monster) in favor of doing what the rest of the boat’s crew desires (Akin to the “general will and morals” of the the human population, for Frankenstein’s case). The Captain is willing to let the values of others around him influence h is own desires, and the Doctor’s inability to do this is what Shelley condemns him for. Frankenstein did not foresee nor accommodate the events which occurred after after the monster’s creation. He did not predict that the monster would be anything other than a pinnacle of human values. He placed his own
priorities over those of others, such as the being which he was creating. As such, he held the monster as disgusting when he realized that it was clumsily made, poorly patched, yellow, and crude. Later, when he realized that the monster had killed killed his brother, he did not decide to tell the greater community because he did not think that they would believe him. He valued his own acceptance in the community as a respectable person over the greater safety of the people who were near him, yet another example of self-prioritization which Shelley condemns. Perhaps the final expression of Frankenstein’s selfishness is when he encourages the Captain to continue continue moving northward despite the crew’s disapproval. While he While he is not placing himself before the opinions of others, what he is doing is seeing Captain Walton Walton as an extension of himself, and by validating Walton’s selfish feelings, he is one again establishing himself as more important than the people around him.
Frankenstein, in Shelley’s eyes, was no doubt what she saw in humanity at the time. She saw greedy greedy people who were not necessarily necessarily evil, but were desirous, desirous, and harmed others by way of their accumulation of resources. resources. She likewise saw the expansion of industry, and the oppression of factory workers, and she saw that no evil masterminds were at work behind these moral injustices, but rather progressive individuals who were unable to see the consequences of their actions. actions. It is this expression of ignorant harm which which Frankenstein epitomizes. It is inarguable that he caused harm through his decisions decisions within the novel, but it is also inarguable that he never meant harm to any individuals impacted throughout the novel.
Is Frankenstein a hero? No. In no way were his actions actions ever heroic, heroic, be it socially or morally. That being said, there is no reason to call him a villain. villain. He is a product of his own nature, as a man of curiosity. If anything, he is an Aesop all in himself. himself. He acts as a warning to the nurturing of personalities similar similar to his own. He cannot be blamed for wanting to find find new scientific discoveries, but he can be perhaps blamed for his execution of those desires. As stated previously, however, these desires were all inherently misguided misguided actions. While Frankenstein is perhaps responsible for the actions of the monster, he cannot be said to be at moral fault for the entirety of the situation.
Frankenstein, while a faulty character, character, is not necessarily an evil one. He is Shelley’s view of man’s desires, and man’s unstoppable curiosities, which may inherently be harmful, though not necessarily cruel. He is a man who was not scarred, and was not unfairly unfairly setback by a biased society. Rather, he was a privileged man who due to to the privilege which he had, never had to justify his desires or curiosities. curiosities. As such, when a time came during which it would be important to access the possible possible impacts of his actions, he did not. As a result of this, he committed actions which can be seen as atrocious, dangerous, and massively impactful, but not necessarily “evil.”
