Science fiction author Mary Shelley wrote the book Frankenstein. It depicts the tale of Victor Frankenstein, a scientific student who created a monster that caused him problems during one of his experimental sessions (Mary, 122).Nature has always captivated Victor Frankenstein in this regard; he was a teen who attended a science college. His passion with simulating human existence began at this school. He further made an effort to make what he seen as being flawless and is goal was to develop a being that was powerful and clever, eternal, and beautiful. He believed that the ideal human being would be the tangible manifestation of the deity he perceived in himself. Instead, what he saw was repulsive, unattractive, and a far cry from the sacred brightness he had so anticipated. He was able to shape the monster into an image of himself, but he was perplexed by it’s entire incomprehensibly wickedness, refusing to believe that his soul was anything other than lovely. So he made his usual escape when trouble came. The monster is presented as a sentient being with feelings and emotions. Many of the traits Victor lacked were still present in the creature as well. It demonstrated that it was capable of tenderness, selflessness, compassion, and love while also demonstrating that it was also capable of horrific corruption. At one time, he thought that people scared and even despised him because of his monstrous appearance. He once wanted to save a girl even though he was afraid a man would murder him for being a monster because he never wanted to kill anyone (Mary, 102). When Victor’s brother noticed him, he yelled along with the child and, in an effort to calm him down, choked him. Because he wanted to stop all of these atrocities, the monster pleaded Victor to change him into a woman so he could leave that place with a partner and never to come back. Victor eventually obliged with this demand, but after understanding that creating a generation of female monsters would have adverse effects, he opted to eliminate that useless being. After that, the monster killed Victor’s wife in retribution (Mary, 122). Even though this book was well-liked and extensively read, some writers nonetheless had negative things to say about it. It is characterized as a horrible horror story in the majority of reviewers. Alienation, or the experience of not belonging to one’s own sense of self, is the most contentious problem in the story that has changed the reviewers’ opinions. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has drawn considerable criticism from Professor Sherry Gin. Even though it is based on credible scientific data, the book’s premise is nonetheless considered science fiction. The book makes predictions about everything that could be imaginable in the future as a result of fresh scientific findings. I support the thesis due to the fact that the book provides a humanistic consideration of either the essence of scientific investigation or particular technical developments. The novel “Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein” can be interpreted in a multitude of ways because it illuminates a lot of distinct topics. Birth and creation, parental duty and upbringing, and alienation are three of the novel’s central themes. Professor Sherry Gin comes to the conclusion that the book meets the criteria for science fiction after reading it using those traits. While it may not be as scientifically accurate as modern science fiction, Mary’s tale did create a new literary genre. As we read the book, we can observe how Mary Shelley critiques the widespread inequities in society. One glaring illustration is how the creature was treated. He searches for love and friendship and tries to find comfort, even when he sees Felix-Safie having a passionate moment. Professor Gin’s claim that the novel has an autobiographical quality is supported by the author’s portrayal of the need for a happy family and role of women globally. The narrative is autobiographical since the events on which it is base surrounds a child without mother, a father who abandons the child, a dejected mother who is mourning a the death of her kid and a university student carrying out bizarre experimentations. All these are derived from the author’s own life (Ginn, 84). It is not sure if Mary planned to hold her father responsible for how he treated her as a kid, despite the fact that she spoke out against problems like dysfunctional families and parents who ignore their duties.
University lecturer Naomi Hetherington wrote the second critique. She attended Cambridge’s Newnham College where she majored in theology and religion. She has spent the last five years working as a professor in the English and Humanities Department at the University of London. The crux of Naomi’s analysis is the symbolic significance of the book, which, in her opinion, was historically crafted in a way that Mary’s contemporaneous readers could understand (Hetherington, 88). According to Naomi, the novel is an example of the literary device known as an allegory. Compare this to the assertion that the work is mostly autobiographical expressed in the first critique (Hetherington, 65). According to Naomi, the poem is at its best when pagan elements, particularly references to the Prometheus and Zeus mythology, are combined with a Christian interpretation of the concept of creation and fall. I support the Naomi’s thesis claim that claims that the book tells the story of the current public argument over scientific greed and the Christian idea of an eternal soul. She thinks that the ghost story was created with a sarcastic tone to make Abernethy’s viewpoint clear.
Conclusion
The criticism appear to analyse topics that are handled in the novel in entirely different ways, the two reviewers have distinct points of view. While Naomi Hetherington, analysis by from the second critic, found out that Mary planned to employ fiction to explore how it feels and what it means to be human in this self-referential age, Professor Sherry Gin considers that Mary planned to foster the idea that this is fiction because it is grounded on unswerving scientific findings and that the book offers a humanistic critique of either the nature of scientific thinking or specific technological inventions.
Works Cited
Ginn, Sherry. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Science, science fiction, or autobiography.” Conference paper in proceeding. 2003 The 20th International Literature and Psychology Conference.[Online] http://www. clas. ufl. edu/ipsa/2003/ginn. html [2006, Nov 23], 2003.
Hetherington, Naomi. “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Keats-Shelley Review 11 (1997): 1-39.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein (Barnes & Noble Classics Series). Gillian Flynn.
write