Critical analysis
Frankenstein’s creation is often presented as the monster rather than the victim of Frankenstein’s inability to come to terms with his creation. Frankenstein is unable to appreciate the great achievement he has made because he chooses to fixate on the outward appearance rather than the great fete of bringing something to life. Although Frankenstein’s creation is described by many as a monster, a deeper analysis of the events described in the story reveal a misunderstood creature with the desire to be human.
One of the various misconceptions about Frankenstein’s creation is evident in the critique by the Literary Panorama and National Register (1) based on the authors belief of people’s inability to fully understand how human beings’ function and not just with one another, but also the relationship between the body, heart and other elements that arise from human interaction with the environment and each other. The author tries to criticize the entire story by trying to point out the irregularities that exist from the text. A good example is the case where the author points out the irregularities that exist from the moment the inanimate creation is brought to life to the point where the creature learns to read (LPNR 1). According to the critique, Frankenstein is shocked with horror and disbelief the moment he sees the creature he has brought to life.
Although the critique by the Literary Panorama and National Register (1) does give a good description of the events that transpire, it fails to show clearly how Mary’s Frankenstein has contradicting human qualities. The critique comments on Frankenstein’s dissatisfaction with the final results of his creation. The author further points out how seeing the creation’s hideous form leaves Frankenstein rooted and too shocked to even stop the creature from running away. The first reaction from seeing the creature is thus, according to the critique, Frankenstein’s inability to give his creation human qualities such as appearance, a conscience and even the ability to read or speak. The critique is further unable to properly use information from Mary’s Frankenstein despite trying to site various examples in support of his arguments. The arguments made are often based on misinformed information or the critiques inability to understand the full concept of the process from the time the inanimate object is given life to the time it learns to read and write.
Contrary to the critique’s argument, the creation’s physical appearance is in no way a hinderance to its development as it learns to read and write on its own. The critiques argument that Frankenstein’s inability to endow the creature with morals, habits and other human traits is a contradiction since the creature is seen reading a year later further shows the critique’s lack of understanding on the concept of human development presented by Mary. Despite being presented as a hideous monster from the minute Frankenstein brings the inanimate being to life, the creature is seen to possess basic human properties and behaviors that further go against the critiques argument that Frankenstein failed at creation.
Despite its outer appearance, Frankenstein’s creation is not a monster but rather a confused creature going through the various stages of human development. This is especially evident in Naomi Hetherington’s review of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In Hetherington’s critique, the creation is presented more as the victim rather than a monster. Whatever evils that exist in the creature’s life are as a result of the events that occur after Frankenstein breathes life into the creature.
When the creature runs out on the night it is created, it is more as a result of its creators’ rejection rather than because it is a monster. Despite having accomplished a near impossible task, Frankenstein focuses more on the hideous nature of the creature rather than on his accomplishment. The creature is therefore a victim of rejection and does the humane thing in such a situation, run (Hetherington 4). The creature however continues in its stage of development. It chooses a home similar to where it was created. The shed in the woods offers solitude and away from human interaction, similar to Frankenstein’s castle. The decision to run is therefore as a result of rejection, resulting from a human emotion, which disputes the argument made by Literary Panorama and National Register (1).
Hetherington’s argument that Frankenstein’s creation is just a victim of circumstance is backed by detailed research not only on the events that take place in the story but also from outside sources that cite religion as having an impact on the way events transpire. Frankenstein for instance is portrayed as playing God and the outcome of his experiment are a punishment for trying to surpass human abilities (Edinberg magazine 1). The creation is therefore not at fault and, despite having to live in hiding, the real monster is Frankenstein. The critique goes on to support the creature’s desire to be human by pointing out how it lived in a shed in the woods near a family (Hetherington 3). Despite being presented as a monster, Frankenstein’s creation craves human contact and chooses to live closer to humans. It even goes to the extent of learning how to read and this is a further step in its stages of development.
Both critiques offer compelling arguments to support their opinion regarding the role that Frankenstein’s creation played in the story. Oft the two however, Hetherington’s argument was more convincing as it was backed by cited examples, ideas that were well broken down and presented in such a way that the reader could understand. The author further used outside sources to provide more evidence to support the ideas presented and this added authenticity to the entire critique.
Work cited
Hetherington N, “Creator and Created in Mary Shelle’s Frankenstein” 2019, retrieved from, https://s3.amazonaws.com/StraighterLine/ENG102/Topic+4%3A+Evaluation/Hetheri ngton%2C+_Creator+and+Created+in+Frankenstein_.pdf
The Edinberg Magazine and Literary Miscellany; A new series of The Scots Magazine 2 (March 1818): 249-53, retrieved from, https://s3.amazonaws.com/StraighterLine/ENG102/Topic+4%3A+Evaluation/_Edinb urgh+Magazine_+Review+of+_Frankenstein_%2C+March+1818.pdf
The Literary Panorama and National Register, N.S., 8 (1 June 1818): 411-414, retrieved from, https://s3.amazonaws.com/StraighterLine/ENG102/Topic+4%3A+Evaluation/_Literar y+Panorama_+Review+of+_Frankenstein_%2C+1+June+1818.pdf
