Eric’s comment > Likes and Comments

As someone writing a novel about the "Bride of Frankenstein," I've done a TON of research on Shelley and the original novel, so conversation about this is RIGHT up my alley!

I've always felt that it's a bit of a "trashbin diagnosis" to assert that Frankenstein is a parable about science gone bad, especially considering the sensibilities and proclivities of Mary and her family. The Wollstonecrafts were on the forefront of all aspects of philosophy and thought and had a significant proclivity to embrace the new rather than fear it. Her mother, also named Mary, wrote one of the very first treatises on feminism. There is certainly an apprehension about where technology will take us, but her real issue isn't with the technology, as evidenced by the fact that the technology isn't ever at the forefront (we don't even know really how Frankenstein achieves the resurrection--the lab and his processes are only really referenced with extremely minimal description). Her fear is of the monstrosity within US and is more about what happens when we loose our own creations upon the world (our children and our art in particular). You imply the greater ideas, but then fall away from them, though I think they were really the core of her perspective.

In her introduction to a later edition, she speaks mostly to the fear of creation itself and the life it will have when let loose upon the world. She says, "Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos...His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handiwork, horror-stricken." She fears her own creative self. She fears her art. She fears success. Her closing paragraph really evidences this fear: "And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny to go forth and prosper." The monster, or the work itself?

Mary is also evidencing extreme fears of becoming a parent, considering the fact that her mother died due to complications of giving birth to Mary. The role of mother and wife were terrifying prospects to Mary, because she was surrounded by mothers and wives who were defined only by what they did, not who they were. She feared people would see "wife" or "mother" and not "Mary"--just like the Monster, who is defined not as a human being, but for his intrinsic link to Frankenstein. He, like Mary, is bound to a man and struggling to escape from that man's shadow, and the monster's "bad" actions are all essentially reactive--they're a response to an abuse or rejection from Frankenstein.

So many people completely ignore the idea that this could easily be a feminist novel (and one of the first, in fact). The Monster is a woman. As the ultimate Other, the Monster occupies this unique peripheral land; he's male, but marginalized like a female, especially by Frankenstein himself. He's desperate to be seen as a real person, independent of the Doctor, but the Doctor won't give him that independence. Frankenstein fears and hates that which he's created, and refuses to see the monster as a real person, but instead as a liability, from even the time before the monster drew breath.

Well, I look forward to reading your book, Sara. Though I agree with much of what you've said, you could rationalize any marginalized person as having a feminist bent. I don't have a problem with that, it's just more philosophy to ponder. Like you, however, I wrote, and have just published, Back from the Dead: the true sequel to Frankenstein. Within those pages, I entertain every comment discussed on this thread. I don't try to decipher Shelley's reasons or intent for writing Frankenstein. But I do pick up from where she left off in her story and follow it to another conclusion. Like many who have already suggested, the creature is neither good nor evil, but both, as any person born by woman is. My story is about seeking truth, searching for redemption, and acknowledging complicity.

Mary Shelley's book is a classic because she dealt with contemporary issues in a wholly unique way, saw a future not yet dreamed of, foresaw strains of modern psychology, sociology, and science, and blended it all together into a damn fine thriller. Yes, her characterization could have been helped had she had the benefit of attending a lecture of of one of the leading writing gurus abundant today. But all-in-all, not bad for a nineteen year old woman to have her book survive 200 years and still be physically on a bookshelf in libraries and bookstores around the world.

"There is a poignancy to the final scene of Frankenstein. The monster runs across the white Alpine landscape chasing his father, beseeching his love and guidance. He is after all just another child trying to figure out what why he is here.

But there is also something abject and awful about the monster running amok in the pristine mountains. He is the first Model T off the assembly line, the prototype of uncontrollable man-manufactured life let loose upon the world."
- That's my favourite part of the story.