Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Note: I occasionally accept review copies from the publisher. Posts written from review copies are labeled. All opinions are my own. Posts may contain affiliate links. I may receive compensation for any purchased items.

In Frankenstein (originally published January 1818), Mary Shelley questions what makes one human, ultimately questioning the meaning of life. When Dr. Victor Frankenstein imbues his cadaverous monster with life, he has become a God-like creator, and his monster, a gigantic being with the ability to feel all emotions and use all of his senses, is his Adam.

Like Adam, Frankenstein’s creation must learn right and wrong. He also desires a mate so he will not be lonely. Unlike Adam, the creation has no creator guiding him: Frankenstein, and all other humans who see the creation, consider him a monster, simply because he is ugly. I don’t blame them: he was eight-feet tall and was created from cadavers, butcher’s meat, and scavenged body parts. The monster wasn’t exactly someone you’d want to sit across from at dinner.

Frankenstein was nothing like I imagined. Both Frankenstein and his monster were complex characters with multiple facets to them. I believed it would be a superficial horror story, with a monster tormenting the world.1 Rather, Frankenstein is a complex novel that introduces questions of humanity, acceptance, and scientific inquiry. Nearly two hundred years after it’s original publication, it is still highly relevant.

Mary Shelly introduced her novel with an epigram from Milton’s Paradise Lost:

“Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me Man, did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?”

Paradise Lost, X, 743-45

This epigram seems to be a perfect frame for the questions she raises in her novel. Unlike the movies (which I have not seen but I’ve now heard a lot about), Frankenstein’s monster is an intelligent, sensitive being. Like a child, he had to learn how to use his senses (sight, hearing, taste, feeling). Like a child, he had to learn how to speak (he observed a peasant family through a hole for more than a year). But when we finally meet him in the novel2, he is already an incredibly eloquent being, able even to quote from Milton’s Paradise Lost (a book he found and learned to read again by observing the peasant family).

Yet, although the monster is a somewhat sympathetic character, he also is a monster, and this book does have elements of horror. The story follows a frame so common in classic novels: a certain sailor, Robert Walton, is writing a letter to his sister that contains the narration of a stranger (Victor Frankenstein), who at one point narrates the monster’s own words. This allows us, as the reader to see unfolding events from different perspectives, but it also builds the tension as Frankenstein’s words foreshadow the horrors he’s already seen and that we will yet see. For a good portion of his narration and therefore the book as a whole, the monster is out of sight. I felt the growing tension as I wondered just what made the monster so awful and as I pondered what would happen when he did appear.

The frame builds the suspense until we meet the monster, who, as I mentioned, is a somewhat sensitive, emotional character. But that is not to say that Frankenstein’s “Adam” is good. No. Rather, the monster is also a foil of Adam: he is a murderer. When he finds he doesn’t get what he wants, he kills the people before him.

There was some discussion in our book group last night about the inherent good and evil in the monster. Most believed he is a monster because of this character flaw, that is, his tendency to kill people and turn violent. Personally, I felt a little bad for this being that suddenly came into creation. As Adam says in the Paradise Lost quote used in the epigram, the monster didn’t choose to be given sensibilities, emotions, and the ability to feel lonely.

Further, he was dropped in to the world and abandoned by the frightened Frankenstein (his creator, remember) before he even knew how to adjust his eyes to recognize the world around him.  He was never taught. Being a religious person myself, I believe humans are guided by a “light” or a “spirit” of God (this is also called conscience) and that we receive spiritual guidance as we seek it. Our Creator is interested in what we do, and He provides ways in which to learn right from wrong, as well as means to right the mistakes we make. As creator, Frankenstein did none of those things.

Could humans, then, be just as “monstrous” as Frankenstein’s creation? I believe so. Consider the horrific leaders of the world and you can see man’s ability to choose gone bad. I found Shelley’s novel to be so interesting mostly because I found myself wondering throughout who was to blame. The ugly monster created and left to  live in the world without any guidance? Or the scientist who played “God” and bestowed life without the ability to nurture and teach as a God must in order to guide rational beings in the world?

On the other hand, maybe Shelley’s commentary is on the ridiculousness of God.3 Maybe she suggests that God doesn’t care about us in similar ways. We learn right from wrong from our parents, who nurture us from infancy. Maybe she thinks, then, that God is running away from us, shocked by the ugliness of our acts and unwilling to look beyond our failings.

At any rate, Frankenstein4 is astounding complex in it’s literary value and social commentary. In this post I’ve barely touched on the depth I found in the deceptively short book. No worries, I’ll surely revisit it again at some point. There is much to discover!

  1. Dare I compare Frankenstein to Dracula? “Silly” and “superficial” was my impression of the vampire story, although I’ll admit I’ve only read it once now.
  2. We meet him first through Frankenstein’s narration of meeting him for the first time.
  3. Was she atheist?
  4. I want to add that the novel is subtitled “The Modern Prometheus” to be named after the Titan who first created man in Greek mythology. This should have clued us in to the fact that Frankenstein is the creator and not the monster, but then, we’d have to be more well read to pick up on these things.
Reviewed on September 20, 2012

About the author 

Rebecca Reid

Rebecca Reid is a homeschooling, stay-at-home mother seeking to make the journey of life-long learning fun by reading lots of good books. Rebecca Reads provides reviews of children's literature she has enjoyed with her children; nonfiction that enhances understanding of educational philosophies, history and more; and classical literature that Rebecca enjoys reading.

  • Hi Rebecca! Missed you! It’s great to hear about the literary value of this book. Years ago, my sister bought a copy and read it and told me it wasn’t as scary as we thought and that it reads really well. I tried the first couple of pages and liked what I read. I don’t know why I didn’t continue. Probably was reading something else and decided to put it aside for the moment and forgot to come back to it. I must remember to read this some time.

  • It’s a philosophical article. Really I don’t know about the meaning of life, because i don’t know from where I’ve come and why? So, we believe in God and it’s the reality.

  • I read Frankenstein just a few years ago, I had really been avoiding it as I thought it wouldn’t be at all my thing but it turned out to be very different from what I had imagined. When the action turned to Edinburgh I was amazed and just had to visit St Bartholomew’s Well too.

  • I haven’t read the book, but I know how different my feelings were from my first introduction via my parents viewing the film (“horror story” they said, “don’t watch it”) to a BBC theatrical adaptation that introduced all of the humane qualities you describe. From what I saw and later read about the book, it is the creator who was the evil one as he left his creation to learn by himself. Yes, the monster was evil but he had no one for guidance. Regarding God, though, I’d say that’s different. He may leave us to our parents by the elders of society have experience and are willing to teach, so we don’t have to fend for ourselves, at least that’s the idea (if abandoned then of course it’s different).

    • Charlie » the theatrical adaptation sounds a lot like what the book was. There was lots in it. And I should reinforce the fact that I too believe in God, I was just contemplating what Ms Shelley was suggesting.

  • What a wonderful review Rebecca! It makes me want to reread this. I remember being surprised that it’s not a horror novel and that it’s so deep. It made me think about how we revile the monster, a freakish creation, yet doesn’t God probably think the same thing about us sometimes? Doesn’t He probably look down at us sometimes and wonder what kind of monster He created?

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}