[Frankenstein ⚗️] DiscussionS (1 week, 1 topic): Is Mary Shelley's book feminist?

[[deleted user]]

Good morning, afternoon and even evening!

So many of the books on this list sounded fascinating, even for those of us who are big scaredy cats and we hope to hear more discussion on any of these books on the list from our members.

Message understood Helen, I take you at your words (hopefully I am using this expression correctly 😄) and create a thread to discuss about Frankenstein. Indeed, this book being top 2 I have the feeling that people want to talk about this story.

I propose to use this thread to approach one topic per week not only to not overflow the Miscellaneous Section with thread concerning Mary Shelley's book but also because there is so much to discuss in that book! 😮

First topic:

When the announcement of the poll was posted I noticed that some people argued that Frankenstein was not a feminist book while other vigoursly defend the opposite point of view. Therefore I think it could be interesting to discuss wether Frankenstein is a feminist book or not. Here, I am talking about the story itself not Mary Shelley herself that could be perceived as a feminist.

Here is the question:
Is Frankenstein a feminist book? 🤔 What are your thoughts? 😃

Please do not forget to mark spoilers 😉

[Gerd]

I never read Frankenstein as being feminist.
I see it mainly as concerned with the ability to enact creation and the responsibility arising from such power.
Or, in Frankenstein's case cowardly shunning it.

However, some see the story as being heavily informed by Shelley's loss of her child, which I guess could make it feminist themed in a round about way?

[Doris]

I didn't read it as feminist; if anything, it skews more anti-feminist.

In particular, in Frankenstein's creature, Shelley has given us what may be literature's first incel!

(view spoiler)[
Consider the creature's justification for killing William (? Victor's young brother) and framing the maid Justine for the crime: "Here, I thought, is one of those whose smiles are bestowed on all but me; she shall not escape: thanks to the lessons of Felix, and the sanguinary laws of man, I have learned how to work mischief."

I was also greatly disturbed when the creature demanded that Victor create for him a woman: 'I am alone, and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me.' WTF: women have no free agency? And Victor, though initially inclined to concede the merits of this demand, changed his mind only upon reflecting that a female so created might be even more heartless and evil. (I don't at all understand how that's supposed to follow.)

Maybe we as readers are supposed to pick up these flaws in reasoning, but Shelley doesn't seem aware of them.
(hide spoiler)]

Incidentally, if anyone is looking for an edition of Frankenstein, I highly recommend Frankenstein: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds.

[Spencer]

< spoiler> I think one of the main points about Frankenstein being a feminist novel can be seen in the following quote, “She who, in all probability, was to become a thinking and reasoning animal, might refuse to comply with a compact made before her creation...She also might turn with disgust from him to the superior beauty of man; she might quit him, and he be again alone, exasperated by the fresh provocation by being deserted by one of his own species.” This reveals a worry in Victor that if he would finish the “Lady Monster” that she might have a certain autonomy and may pose as a certain threat. The idea of creation is something of a passion for Victor and if he were to finish his second creation, a companion for the Monster, there might be an idea of creation beyond Victor’s control, that the monsters together may bring a “daemon” into the world which also frightens him. This is just one idea brought to fruition by Professor Deborah Williams and offers an interesting concept in looking at the roles in society during Shelley’s writing of Frankenstein and the relationships between men and women, which can also be seen in the writings between Victor and Elizabeth. < /spoiler>

I look forward to hearing/reading others views on this topic!

[[deleted user]]

Hello Spencer to mark a spoiler you may want use < spoiler> your text < /spoiler> just remove the space in the brackets <> ;)

[Patricia]

The most feminists about Mary Shelley, was her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote The Vindication of Women.

[Spencer]

Florian wrote: "Hello Spencer to mark a spoiler you may want use your text just remove the space in the brackets ;)"

Ah, thank you!

[Narrative Muse]

I never read it as a feminist novel. There are almost no female characters, and they are all represented as a sort of typical 19th century "angel in the house." Elizabeth, for example. is “docile and good tempered” yet “gay and playful" and doesn't have much personality besides being caring and lovable and perfect wife material.

(view spoiler)[ Not only that, but two of the few female characters die, and one of the survivors is just the completely absent recipient of the ship captain's letters. (hide spoiler)]

I suppose we could argue that it's feminist in that it challenges social structures that give men so much power and allow so much male violence, and condemns certain male character traits... But beyond that, I don't see it as feminist.

[[deleted user]]

Spencer wrote: "Florian wrote: "Hello Spencer to mark a spoiler you may want use your text just remove the space in the brackets ;)"

Ah, thank you!"

Ha... My apologies I think my words were not crystal clear, if you look at your post you have a space just after each < remove the space 😉

[Melanie]

What about allowing the monster to be vulnerable and have emotions that are traditionally frowned upon even today? He is sensitive and kind despite what has happened... for a while anyway.

However, there is the whole “disposable women” narrative as well, and the male protagonist is obsessed with creating life, giving birth.

Would a female protagonist/scientist have been received well even in the company she was writing in, or would it have distracted from the ideas Shelly was exploring?

[Kelli]

I have taught Frankenstein and studied Mary Shelley extensively, and in my opinion, the book itself is not feminist; however, the publishing of the book is feminist. Mary Shelley herself could be considered a feminist for having written and published a novel during her lifetime, anonymously and through great difficulty and much rejection, but the book could be read through a feminist lens if one were to see the monster as a representation of Mary Shelley's otherness. Mary Shelley's life was a difficult one with a husband who cheated on her, and did not support her through multiple still births. Some would argue that she manifested her loneliness, betrayal, and otherness into Frankenstein's monster, and therefore, Frankenstein could be perceived as feminist because of how the monster is treated by his creator. The monster seeks acceptance in a society that cannot get past his looks, and when he requests a mate from his creator is vehemently denied even that crumb of recompense. If one were to personify Mary Shelley as her monster, then one could suppose Frankenstein to be a feminist text. But without this perception, it is not.

[Gerd]

Kelli wrote: "The monster seeks acceptance in a society that cannot get past his looks, and when he requests a mate from his creator is vehemently denied even that crumb of recompense.
..."

That makes the monster sound like the original Incel. :D

I think especially this part, demanding a female, gives us a troublesome final view into the monsters true nature - and Victor's no less, for contemplating it and then refusing out of all the false reasons.

[Kelli]

In terms of literary criticism, any text can be analyzed through a feminist lens; it's an approach to criticism unto itself, so this question is a little silly to begin with.

[Kelli]

Gerd wrote: "Kelli wrote: "The monster seeks acceptance in a society that cannot get past his looks, and when he requests a mate from his creator is vehemently denied even that crumb of recompense.
..."

That m..."

Demanding a partner from his creator could be seen as troublesome, since in our society, many males believe that they have a right to a woman: see the conception of the institution of marriage and it's rendering of female ownership.

However, in Frankenstein, this isn't the case. The monster is asking for a companion because he is so lonely. He has seen others who are coupled, who have families, who have children that they love and care for, and simply wants what any other human would want. He requests a companion from his creator because his creator made him, and would likewise then be able to make a similar other. The request is denied, and the monster is condemned to wander the Earth forever alone. Insert forever alone meme here.

[Gerd]

It is not the request of a creature feeling the burden of loneliness, in my eyes.

(view spoiler)[As I remember it the monster, after going through lengths to convince his creator that he has feelings like any other human, explicitly states that he wants "one as hideous as myself" - i.e. one who could turn nowhere else.

That's a pretty gruesome moment in the novel, when you think about it. The monster first convinces Victor of its suffering and then demands of him to make another which he wishes that same suffering upon.

This whole "I suffer but should I not suffer alone I'd be content" speech is, in its implications, in its view of the relative value of companionship to him, terrifying. (hide spoiler)]

[Kelli]

Gerd wrote: "It is not the request of a creature feeling the burden of loneliness, in my eyes.

As I remember it the monster, after going through lengths to convince his creator that he has feelings like any ot..."

This is a direct quote from the text, with the speaker being Frankenstein's monster:

“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

Here is another from the creature who is discussing is isolation and loneliness:

"what chiefly struck me was the gentle manners of these people, and I longed to join them, but dared not. I remembered too well the treatment I had suffered the night before from the barbarous villagers, and resolved, whatever course of conduct I might hereafter think it right to pursue, that for the present I would remain quietly in my hovel, watching and endeavoring to discover the motives which influenced their actions" (Shelley 105).

And yet another from the creature:

""Increase of knowledge only discovered to me more clearly what a wretched outcast I was. I cherished hope, it is true, but it vanished when I beheld my person reflected in water or my shadow in the moonshine, even as that frail image and that inconstant shade" (Shelley 125).

[Kelli]

I see your point that his request for a person who would solely exist for himself is un-admirable; however, are we not all deserving of love? (familial, platonic, or otherwise). The monster has been denied all affection and positive treatment based solely on his treatment. His desire for a companion stems from love.

[Gerd]

I prefer to believe in love as a selfless emotion, and as such, all the monster could gain from his wish is only a deeper suffering from the inevitable sorrow he'd be bound to feel for her if he really fell in love.
So, in the least I'd still have to accuse him of not having thought his wish through, for that.

If he's seeking love, then he doesn't really understand what it is he's asking for.

[Tehreem]

this discussion is so interesting to read and just made me think about this point that i never thought about before.

if this was a feminist novel, why wouldn't the the lead be a women of knowledge or a person who decides to make her mark in science. since it is a fiction novel the writer could have written a plot around the idea where a women goes to college or make her mark in any area if not in science.

although people do have amazing point of views but i would say that this is not a feminist novel the lead and the monster both are male and the female characters are not around that much in the story. i could be wrong because i read it 4 yrs back but for me as a women of science, i would like to see a super smart lead who happens to be a women and decides to make her mark in the world.

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm... Well if we consider the context, at that periode I presume that lead women were extremely rare. I guess that whatever our good intentions are we are still impacted by the society where we were born, in 1818 women in science was not a thing at all (there may be some exceptions). What I am going to say is not be taken as face value but if Mary Shelley had the purpose to write messages in her book(s) she had to play smart She had to use the structural system she was born in. This book was an aweful book for people and when people learnt a woman wrote it, I think it got worst. Probably some people supported her (a few I believe). The story of Frankenstein was already a "break through" and maybe she believed that having a woman scientist would not serve her messages well.
Frankenstein was perceived as a mad man, imagine if it was a woman. People could have thought "we are not surprised... You know women..." So it could have reinforce the sexism already too much anchored. Mary Shelley was already compared as crazy as Frankenstein and as evil as the Creature :s

(view spoiler)[But what if we consider the story of Safie and Felix, it is one or two chapter lenght but it definitely shows how Safie was used as a reward or a tool and that she did not have any choice. Of course for those who read the book you know how it went. Don't you think this part is feminist?

To build on the discussion of Gerd and Kelli and the comment of Doris, the creature requires from Frankenstein to create a female partner. Frankenstein refuses because he realizes the impact of what he has done and do not want to make it worst. However can't we see another message? Some of you pointed out contemporary marriage institutions (well presently it may not be much better in some societies). Do you think Mary Shelley subtly wrote another message "women are not born to be wives, they are not products who serve men."? (hide spoiler)]

I know it is quite difficult to guess what was in her mind and we won't know :)

Personnaly, I would not say the book is either feminist or not feminist. I would say that some points approached in those pages are feminists, then was it on purpose? I don't know, maybe?

[Pam]

Totally Team Frankie is Feminist

- Shelly was raised in a household that stated women are equal to men. She grew up living this, and only when she left her home she saw this isn't the norm.
- A known womanizer, Lord Bryon, scoffed at this idea, even challenging her to write a ghost story, thinking that no woman could ever come up with something that would scare a true man's man. (I totally picture Gaston in my head). So she wrote Frankenstein. Also, Byron was 30, published, respected, and her husband's good friend. Mary was 20.
- Pulling from her own mother's death from childbirth and her own experience with still births, Mary Shelly looked into creation and life, something which was only a woman's domain. One could say it was her inability to do the one thing allotted to her gender, that made this particularly gruesome. But she showed man's folly and the unnaturalness of when man attempts to create life without women.
- More so, by removing women from the equation all together, by keeping the parts small you don't have the monster experience a mother's touch. Again, given the timing, father's of this era weren't supposed to interact much with children. That was the wives/ female nanny's time. Shelly took this to the extreme and showed that when devoid of female nuturing, left adrift with only a father's stern temperament, the child (aka the monster) doesn't have the social grace's to be an heir, they are not human. That women should not be regulated to a sideline, but are central to the preservation of civilization.

In essence Mary Shelly is screaming that without women, men and their offspring would be monstrous and unnatural. ( One big old F-you to Byron)

- oh and then the whole mate to the monster .. "she might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate, and delight for it's own sake in murder and wretchedness." " A race of devils would be propagated upon the Earth who might make the very existance of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror" I.e
Man cannot contain his own creation, how would he be able to control a creation that can create, too?

-Ok. And then! And then this feminist who wrote a pretty darn good book, then had the audacity to print it and make it known to the world. And the world laughed at her. Telling her that again...a woman couldn't have done this. It as to be her husband's work. Or they refused to print a woman's piece. Like.... She was married to a known and romantic writer. They had money. Connections into the publishing world. AND still the world denied her. She could have bribed them, could have leveraged her husband's name, etc. And that didn't work because she was a woman.

-So what did this feminist do? Knowing in her heart of hearts that her mother's teaching, that the genders were equal, and that the imagination isn't granted to men only, she. published her work anyways under a fake name. Can you imagine? Mary Shelley isn't good enough but Marty Shelly is just fine? What a bitter pill to swallow for a feminist of her day.

Like fuck yeah. She might have come from privledge, and yeah she had money, but none of that helped her in this moment. None of that helped her when she lost another baby. She might not be the feminist of today's standards, but we only have those standards because she kept pushing to show women could write. And because she kept showing that women are essential to life and living.

[[deleted user]]

I totally agree that Mary Shelley was a feminist at that time. It is just we have different perception. Maybe in 200 years people will say that Emma Watson was not a feminist. What I try to mean is that our perception depend on the context we are living in :)

[Pam]

Florian wrote: "I totally agree that Mary Shelley was a feminist at that time. It is just we have different perception. Maybe in 200 years people will say that Emma Watson was not a feminist. What I try to mean is..."

Context is everything. For all those "I don't need feminism because..." Believers there is the truth that without those who came before you wouldn't have a basis for what is "normal"

[[deleted user]]

Yeah we tend to forget what we have now is because of the blood drawn many years ago. Sometime we are ignorant and ungrateful... Until we open our eyes :)

[Anastasia]

What I think hasn't been said yet is that from a literary perspective Frankenstein is a good book. It is very well written and is easily read even in the twenty-first century.
For those interested in a biography there is Romantic Outlaws : The Extraordinary Lives Of Mary Wollonstoncraft And Mary Shelley by Charlotte Gordon. Mother and daughter lived pretty dreadful lives full of immorality and destruction resulting in multiple suicides around them.

[Sarah]

Yes- Romantic Outlaws is a phenomenal biography of Wollstoncraft and Shelley! I highly recommend it to everyone.
We should all take a moment to try and remember not to paste modern feminist language and ideas onto a book published 200 years ago, and then when it doesn't line up perfectly, claim the book is not feminist.

[[deleted user]]

Ok, I propose you to move on a 2nd topic (I have a few topics in mind). I'll post it tonight, I'll add it to the first post of this thread and I'll change the title :)

Of course, if someone wants to talk about a specific topic related to Frankenstein feel free to propose it ;)

[Kelli]

This just makes me want to reread Frankenstein again, for the umpteenth wonderful time! :)

[Pam]

Florian wrote: "Ok, I propose you to move on a 2nd topic (I have a few topics in mind). I'll post it tonight, I'll add it to the first post of this thread and I'll change the title :)

Of course, if someone wants ..."

Oh. Could you not? That might confuse people new to the thread. I highly recommend either continuing the conversation here with a new post on this topic or creating a new topicall together.

[[deleted user]]

Hmmm...you are right... People may be confused... I'm going to think about it before doing anything. Thanks for your feedback! :)

[[deleted user]]

Hello everyone!

One of the most important point approached in this book is responsabilities for your creation. Here, I am using the word creation with broad meaning. I see in Shelley's book many type of responsabilities or duties, it goes from your work in science to raising a child.

Yes, I said child because the creature is definitly Frankenstein's child and one of the keystone of the story is "How a rejected child become bad or good?" but also "Hate comes from fear that comes from ignorance." (I know no one is totally good or bad).

What do you think about the responsabilies of Frankenstein for his work? And what about the child he abandoned?

Some of you may think I am overthinking and I'm seeing messages in thoses pages while there were no such messages... maybe you are right! :p

[Kelli]

Florian wrote: "Hello everyone!

One of the most important points approached in this book is responsabilities for your creation. Here, I am using the word creation with broad meaning. I see in Shelley's book many ..."

It is definitely Frankenstein's child and is representative of Mary Shelley's many children who died either in childbirth or later in sickness. When a mother loses a child not once, but many times, it can make them feel like a failure. It is one of the main purposes of our bodies, and she probably felt that she was not intended to have children, since she had failed so many times before. Probably felt like there was something wrong with her, when really it boiled down to poor health care.

But Frankenstein's creation is also an extended metaphor for the things we create, which we must take ownership of and responsibility for; for example, social media: it has become this monster that was created to bring us closer, but has become a tool for sending false information and cyberbullying one another.

As for Frankenstein's responsibilities, I personally believe that he was 100% responsible for his creation. He brought the monster into the world; therefore, to abandon him was wrong, especially since he abandoned him solely for the monster's looks, not personality.

His creation is brilliant and very self-aware. He reads Paradise Lost, The Sorrows of Young Werther, and Plutarch's Lives. Through literature and experience watching humans interact with one another, he recognizes that he is treated differently and that this difference is because of his hideousness alone and his creator's hatred of him.

The monster likens himself to Christ and his creation of man, seeing his creator as Christ and himself as Adam: "I remembered Adam's supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him" (Shelley 15.11). His creator's refusal to make him a mate is where the parallelism to Adam and Eve ends for the monster, and thus his hatred for his creator builds. His anger is fueled by his betrayal and abandonment by his creator. Ergo, one could argue that he would not have murdered anyone or been so vehement had not his creator abandoned him in the first place and had taken ownership of his creation instead, like a father to a son.

[[deleted user]]

I was wondering if someone would relate the story to Mary Shelley's child :)

To focus on the child of Frankenstein, I personally see a new born experimenting emotion without being taught (by his parent) how to recognize them and to deal with them. When the creature explain his story to his father, the latter rejects him again. The creature kept being rejected because of his appearance and do not know what to do with his feelings. His lack of education (I mean a parent who is absent) left him alone facing his emotions and after several tough situation he absorbed the hate that was given to him and spread it.

I have the feeling that this message is still true today. The creature was abandoned and not allow to express his feeling safely.

The more I think about it the more I feel this book is feminist :)

[Kelli]

It definitely is. Just look at the portrayal of the female characters: Safie, Elizabeth, Justine, Margaret and Agatha. They are very passive and seldom have speaking roles. I believe this a representation of society during Mary Shelley's time and is a subtle critique of the status quo, which she herself lived against in real life.

Interestingly enough, all virtues the monster learns are learned from female characters. A not so subtle nod to the role of mothers.

[Gerd]

A bit off-topic, but thought I leave it here for those interested:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/feature...

[Kelli]

Nice! If you want to learn more about Mary Shelley's life, I highly recommend this beautifully rendered graphic novel:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34...

[[deleted user]]

The first part of the book approaches several points including dedication to work. Some of you have already mentioned that in that case it was obsession.

What do you think about Victor Frankenstein's hard work? Was it an obsession? What was his purpose? Fame or progress of Science? Did it blind him?

Sorry for being late.

[Cami]

Mary Shelly and her mother, Mary Wollstencraft were feminist. I don't think of Frankenstein as a work with feminist themes however.