frankenstein monstrosity essay

Search form

Research essay: a ‘monster’ and its humanity.

Professor of English Susan J. Wolfson is the editor of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: A Longman Cultural Edition and co-editor, with Ronald Levao, of The Annotated Frankenstein.  

Published in January 1818, Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus has never been out of print or out of cultural reference. “Facebook’s Frankenstein Moment: A Creature That Defies Technology’s Safeguards” was the headline on a New York Times business story Sept. 22 — 200 years on. The trope needed no footnote, although Kevin Roose’s gloss — “the scientist Victor Frankenstein realizes that his cobbled-together creature has gone rogue” — could use some adjustment: The Creature “goes rogue” only after having been abandoned and then abused by almost everyone, first and foremost that undergraduate scientist. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and CEO Sheryl Sandberg, attending to profits, did not anticipate the rogue consequences: a Frankenberg making. 

The original Frankenstein told a terrific tale, tapping the idealism in the new sciences of its own age, while registering the throb of misgivings and terrors. The 1818 novel appeared anonymously by a down-market press (Princeton owns one of only 500 copies). It was a 19-year-old’s debut in print. The novelist proudly signed herself “Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley” when it was reissued in 1823, in sync with a stage concoction at London’s Royal Opera House in August. That debut ran for nearly 40 nights; it was staged by the Princeton University Players in May 2017. 

In a seminar that I taught on Frankenstein in various contexts at Princeton in the fall of 2016 — just weeks after the 200th anniversary of its conception in a nightmare visited on (then) Mary Godwin in June 1816 — we had much to consider. One subject was the rogue uses and consequences of genomic science of the 21st century. Another was the election season — in which “Frankenstein” was a touchstone in the media opinions and parodies. Students from sciences, computer technology, literature, arts, and humanities made our seminar seem like a mini-university. Learning from each other, we pondered complexities and perplexities: literary, social, scientific, aesthetic, and ethical. If you haven’t read Frankenstein (many, myself included, found the tale first on film), it’s worth your time. 

READ MORE  PAW Goes to the Movies: ‘Victor Frankenstein,’ with Professor Susan Wolfson

Scarcely a month goes by without some development earning the prefix Franken-, a near default for anxieties about or satires of new events. The dark brilliance of Frankenstein is both to expose “monstrosity” in the normal and, conversely, to humanize what might seem monstrously “other.” When Shelley conceived Frankenstein, Europe was scarred by a long war, concluding on Waterloo fields in May 1815. “Monster” was a ready label for any enemy. Young Frankenstein begins his university studies in 1789, the year of the French Revolution. In 1790, Edmund Burke’s international best-selling Reflections on the French Revolution recoiled at the new government as a “monster of a state,” with a “monster of a constitution” and “monstrous democratic assemblies.” Within a few months, another international best-seller, Tom Paine’s The Rights of Man, excoriated “the monster Aristocracy” and cheered the American Revolution for overthrowing a “monster” of tyranny.

Following suit, Mary Shelley’s father, William Godwin, called the ancien régime a “ferocious monster”; her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was on the same page: Any aristocracy was an “artificial monster,” the monarchy a “luxurious monster,” and Europe’s despots a “race of monsters in human shape.” Frankenstein makes no direct reference to the Revolution, but its first readers would have felt the force of its setting in the 1790s, a decade that also saw polemics for (and against) the rights of men, women, and slaves. 

England would abolish its slave trade in 1807, but Colonial slavery was legal until 1833. Abolitionists saw the capitalists, investors, and masters as the moral monsters of the global economy. Apologists regarded the Africans as subhuman, improvable perhaps by Christianity and a work ethic, but alarming if released, especially the men. “In dealing with the Negro,” ultra-conservative Foreign Secretary George Canning lectured Parliament in 1824, “we are dealing with a being possessing the form and strength of a man, but the intellect only of a child. To turn him loose in the manhood of his physical strength ... would be to raise up a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent romance.” He meant Frankenstein. 

Mary Shelley heard about this reference, and knew, moreover, that women (though with gilding) were a slave class, too, insofar as they were valued for bodies rather than minds, were denied participatory citizenship and most legal rights, and were systemically subjugated as “other” by the masculine world. This was the argument of her mother’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), which she was rereading when she was writing Frankenstein. Unorthodox Wollstonecraft — an advocate of female intellectual education, a critic of the institution of marriage, and the mother of two daughters conceived outside of wedlock — was herself branded an “unnatural” woman, a monstrosity. 

Shelley had her own personal ordeal, which surely imprints her novel. Her parents were so ready for a son in 1797 that they had already chosen the name “William.” Even worse: When her mother died from childbirth, an awful effect was to make little Mary seem a catastrophe to her grieving father. No wonder she would write a novel about a “being” rejected from its first breath. The iconic “other” in Frankenstein is of course this horrifying Creature (he’s never a “human being”). But the deepest force of the novel is not this unique situation but its reverberation of routine judgments of beings that seem “other” to any possibility of social sympathy. In the 1823 play, the “others” (though played for comedy) are the tinker-gypsies, clad in goatskins and body paint (one is even named “Tanskin” — a racialized differential).

Victor Frankenstein greets his awakening creature as a “catastrophe,” a “wretch,” and soon a “monster.” The Creature has no name, just these epithets of contempt. The only person to address him with sympathy is blind, spared the shock of the “countenance.” Readers are blind this way, too, finding the Creature only on the page and speaking a common language. This continuity, rather than antithesis, to the human is reflected in the first illustrations: 

In the cover for the 1823 play, above, the Creature looks quite human, dishy even — alarming only in size and that gaze of expectation. The 1831 Creature, shown on page 29, is not a patent “monster”: It’s full-grown, remarkably ripped, human-looking, understandably dazed. The real “monster,” we could think, is the reckless student fleeing the results of an unsupervised undergraduate experiment gone rogue. 

In Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein pleads sympathy for the “human nature” in his revulsion. “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health ... but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room.” Repelled by this betrayal of “beauty,” Frankenstein never feels responsible, let alone parental. Shelley’s genius is to understand this ethical monstrosity as a nightmare extreme of common anxiety for expectant parents: What if I can’t love a child whose physical formation is appalling (deformed, deficient, or even, as at her own birth, just female)? 

The Creature’s advent in the novel is not in this famous scene of awakening, however. It comes in the narrative that frames Frankenstein’s story: a polar expedition that has become icebound. Far on the ice plain, the ship’s crew beholds “the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature,” driving a dogsled. Three paragraphs on, another man-shape arrives off the side of the ship on a fragment of ice, alone but for one sled dog. “His limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering,” the captain records; “I never saw a man in so wretched a condition.” This dreadful man focuses the first scene of “animation” in Frankenstein: “We restored him to animation by rubbing him with brandy, and forcing him to swallow a small quantity. As soon as he shewed signs of life, we wrapped him up in blankets, and placed him near the chimney of the kitchen-stove. By slow degrees he recovered ... .” 

The re-animation (well before his name is given in the novel) turns out to be Victor Frankenstein. A crazed wretch of a “creature” (so he’s described) could have seemed a fearful “other,” but is cared for as a fellow human being. His subsequent tale of his despicably “monstrous” Creature is scored with this tremendous irony. The most disturbing aspect of this Creature is his “humanity”: this pathos of his hope for family and social acceptance, his intuitive benevolence, bitterness about abuse, and skill with language (which a Princeton valedictorian might envy) that solicits fellow-human attention — all denied by misfortune of physical formation. The deepest power of Frankenstein, still in force 200 years on, is not its so-called monster, but its exposure of “monster” as a contingency of human sympathy.  

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 25 March 2020

Monsters: interdisciplinary explorations in monstrosity

• Sibylle Erle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8567-5810 1 , 2 &
• Helen Hendry 1 , 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  6 , Article number:  53 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

46k Accesses

3 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a continued fascination with all things monster. This is partly due to the popular reception of Mary Shelley’s Monster, termed a ‘new species’ by its overreaching but admiringly determined maker Victor Frankenstein in the eponymous novel first published in 1818. The enduring impact of Shelley’s novel, which spans a plethora of subjects and genres in imagery and themes, raises questions of origin and identity, death, birth and family relationships, as well as the contradictory qualities of the monster. Monsters serve as metaphors for anxieties of aberration and innovation (Punter and Byron, 2004 ). Stephen Asma ( 2009 ) notes that monsters represent evil or moral transgression and each epoch, to speak with Michel Foucault (Abnormal: lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–75, 2003, p. 66), evidences a ‘particular type of monster’. Academic debates tend to explore how social and cultural threats come to be embodied in the figure of a monster and their actions literalise our deepest fears (Gilmore, 2009 ; Scott, 2007 ). Monsters in contemporary culture, however, have become more humane than ever before. Monsters are strong, resilient, creative and sly creatures. Through their playful and invigorating energy they can be seen to disrupt and unsettle. They still cater to the appetite for horror, but they also encourage us to feel empathy. The encounter with a monster can enable us to stop, wonder and change our attitudes towards technology, our body and each other. This commentary article considers the use of the concepts of ‘monsters’ or ‘monstrosity’ in literature, contemporary research, culture and teaching contexts at the intersection of the Humanities and the Social Sciences.

Introduction

The reception of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) offers many opportunities for academic research to intersect with popular culture. Frankenstein has become a significant cultural reference point. Indeed, responses to Shelley’s novel have proliferated across a range of genres and media since its publication and continue to spawn contemporary reactions. In the twentieth century, these include sequels (Myers, 1975 ) and retellings (Ackroyd, 2008 ; Aldiss et al., 2016 ), as well as the use of the name ‘Frankenstein’ as a token for horror in subsequent novels from the 1950s onwards (Carrière, 2016 ). Performance adaptations started with Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein , written by Richard Brinsley Peake, first shown in London in 1823 and the most recent is Liam Scarlett’s adaption for the Royal Ballet (ROH, 2019 ). Frankenstein has also inspired many movies with the Monster being portrayed as a grotesque, an innocent and a source of humour, further influencing a range of film hybrid genres, such as Science-Fiction Horror (Picart, 2003 ). The novel has been considered as a pre-cursor to Science Fiction (Seed, 1995 ), it has been interrogated through feminist approaches (Hodges, 1983 ), queer theory (Rigby, 2009 ), and in the context of the Gothic as well as in examinations of slavery and racism where Frankenstein functions as a metaphor to politically critique discourses of power, identity and nature with (Sterrenburg, 1979 ; Collings, 2009 ; Mulvery-Roberts, 2016 ; Young, 2008 ). Analysis of Frankenstein’s Monster has led to discussions of new forms of humanity and reflections on social relations as well as gender (Hedrich-Hirsch, 1996 ; Creed, 1993 ). Footnote 1

The range of literary perspectives and multidisciplinary connections across this special collection brings into focus the pertinent theoretical and methodological challenges relating to how the monstrous finds application not only in critical thinking but also in teaching contexts. Monsters, despite any kind of reservation, have a lot to offer. When it comes to defining ‘monster’ and ‘monstrosity’, Foucault in his lectures on the Abnormal ( 2003 ) differentiates between three, different figures: one, the ‘human monster’, i.e., someone or something who has the ‘capacity to create anxiety […] due to the fact that it violates the law […] by its very existence’ (p. 56). Two, the ‘individual to be corrected’, so that they confirm with the law, and three, specifically the ‘masturbator’ who breaks moral law. Foucault, in his archaeology of the Abnormal, reviews the shifting relations between the normal, the abnormal and the sexually deviant to explain the transgressive quality and moral challenge embodied by the monster, which, in Foucault’s words, is ‘a monstrosity of conduct rather than the monstrosity of nature’ (p. 73). The issue here is the normative approach to the human condition. This collection is, in the first instance, concerned with the relationship between figures one and two which Foucault explains thus:

The monster’s frame of reference was nature and society, the system of laws of the world: the monster was a cosmological or anticosmological being. The frame of reference of the individual to be corrected is much narrower: it is the family exercising its internal power or managing its economy, or, even more, in its relations with the institutions adjoining or supporting it. (p. 57)

For our purposes, the combination of the categories (‘human monster’ and ‘individual to be corrected’) raises the question of what is acceptable or desirable in human beings as well as in social contact. Turning to these questions from within a literary framework, we note that English Literature abounds with monsters, ranging from Grendel to Voldemort. Monsters are also familiar figures from our consumption of Greek myths, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and, of course, Fairy Tales. Monsters in all these stories must be fought and victory tends to be conquest followed by relief or emotional stillness. After the fight the protagonist, to regain his humanity, has to let go of everything (monstrous), everything they used to conquer the opposing force with (Botting, 2008 ). Only then will they have grown and only then can they embrace their new, better self and start afresh. Traditionally, the figure of the monster has been used to measure the status of ‘the human’ both in terms of appearance and ethical choice or agency. Conflict exists and inappropriate behaviour needs to be addressed to improve and guarantee the functioning of human relations as well as political systems. What does it mean to be human? This question has been posed continually in Literature but also in the context of Education, particularly through curriculum discourse in Religious Education (R.E.), Citizenship and Personal Social and Emotional education (P.S.I.). It is all the more pertinent in an age in which we talk about the post-human, which includes hybrid human and technological modes of life and living. School is one site where the nurturing of human values and attempts to form or rather transform society for the better commence. In a time of societal change, the application and integration of technology is often perceived to be a threat to human integrity, as well as to emotional relations between human beings. Furthermore, at a time of conflict and division in politics and society in the UK and beyond, groups of diverse perspectives, religions and cultures can be ‘othered’ in a way that they become regarded as monstrous (Struthers, 2017 ; Kenny and Ghale, 2015 ). This othering is both constructed and contested by some educational opportunities and expectations. More often, monsters represent the unfamiliar and threatening and sometimes the soulless and inhuman.

Where does ‘the monster’ end, and where does ‘the human’ start? The boundaries between these categories are fluid as the description of research on Shelley’s Frankenstein below will indicate. In The Order of Things ( 2005 ) Foucault outlines the function of monsters and functioning of monstrosity for the concept of ‘the human’ and, quoting Foucault, Fred Botting ( 2003 ) delineates the cultural significance of monsters thus:

There are two natures disclosed by monsters: that which is ordered, classified and regulated by scientific discourse, and that which remains undifferentiated, in process. Monsters from the point of articulation between the two, located as part of the undifferentiated murmur or noise of natural process and marked out in the identification of proper and recognisable species: ‘on the basis of the continuum held by nature, the monster ensures the emergence of difference’ (cited in Foucault, 2005 , 156). (p. 344)

Botting, like Foucault before him, deliberates classification. His neat summary should not take away from the fact that monsters—by their very nature—confront us with excess, a circumstance, which strictly speaking should make classification impossible. However, as Botting suggests, the use of ‘monster’ as metaphor enables the interrogation of social or intellectual problems: monsters embody fear or excitement and monstrosity represents amoral or uncontrolled behaviour. All is channelled into emotional expression through language and in particular through metaphor. Monsters, in addition, put into words feelings that we struggle to express ourselves. A metaphor, to return to Foucault however, can really only be an indirect approach to a challenge or social problem, one which falls into the ‘regime of silence’ or within the realms of ‘censorship’ ( 2003 , p. 70). This means that monsters are often mysterious because they represent what cannot be articulated. Foucault, moreover, viewed education itself as a monstrous force of power and discipline, which enacts control over the transgressive intents of childhood (Deacon, 2006 , p. 184). Similarly, institutional racism, labelling and othering of pupils and families also highlight the Foucauldian perspective in which ‘the natural’ is made monstrous by society (Harwood et al., 2014 ). As a phenomenon, consequently, monsters or monstrous acts can prompt the impulse to imagine new social relations both during the reading and teaching processes.

The afterlife and legacy of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Shelley’s novel engages with questions of origin as well as identity via the complex relationship between Frankenstein and the Monster (Smith, 2016 ). The 1818 edition (now the preferred teaching text) never reveals how Frankenstein made his monster or indeed animated its lifeless body. Only in the introduction to the third edition, published in 1831, did Shelley mention ‘galvanism’ (Baldick, 1987 , p. 4; Vasbinder, 1984 , pp. 32–37). This scientific practice, which needs to be contextualised with the Enlightenment discourse of progress as well as the Industrial Revolution, harks back to the experiments of the Italian physician and philosopher Luigi Galvani (1737–1798), who used electric currents and discovered their electro-magnetic effect on frog legs. Galvani saw the muscles of dissected animal limbs contract (Turney, 1998 , pp. 19–22). It appears that it is due to Shelley’s belated explanation that Frankenstein has become the epitome of the mad scientist, as well as a shorthand for advances in science or technology gone wrong. Shelley, furthermore, refines much of her description of Frankenstein’s character in the 1831 version of the text. In 1818, the narration and its handling of point of view is delicately balanced, allowing both creator and creation to emerge as heroic. In 1831, self-torture and histrionic regret dominate the delineation of Frankenstein’s inner life. About Shelley’s rewriting and the shift from scientific break-through to moral disaster, Marilyn Butler writes: ‘her alteration were acts of damage-limitation rather than a reassertion of authority’ ( 1993 , p. 313): ‘in 1831 Mary Shelley added long passages in which her main narrator, Frankenstein, expresses religious remorse for making a creature, and it is on such passages of reflection and analysis that the empathetic modern reader is encouraged to dwell’ (p. 303). While the Monster is of nature as it is a walking assemblage of corpses, it is also beyond nature because it is badly made by someone who acts outside nature. This creature is not born (Huet, 1993 ) and Frankenstein has made many claims about his probing deeply into the secrets of life; he deems himself able to master natural laws. The Monster, to be clear, is ugly but kind and these qualities coexist throughout the story. To explain the Monster’s complex beginning from a Feminist perspective scholars have turned to Shelley’s life-story, and, in particular, the themes of death, birth and family relations, in an attempt to explain the motivation behind some of her artistic choices (Mellor, 1980 ).

Frankenstein has a resonating cultural presence. Why has Shelley’s story been so successful? In view of the existing interpretations, the reason appears to be two-fold: one, the theme of monstrosity, i.e., the impact of Frankenstein’s disastrous creation and abandonment of his creature (Bann, 1994 ), and two, monstrosity as writing process (Clark et al., 2001 ), i.e., Shelley’s artistic conception of a novel that blends disciplines and twists genres. The story has also a great number of historical reference points. Shelley implies the context of Romantic science (Shelley, 1994 ; Mitchell, 2013 ) and includes quotations from John Milton’s Paradise Lost , Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s ‘The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner’ and William Wordsworth’s ‘Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey’. The patching together of texts (as well as body parts) is characteristic of the Gothic and Judith Halberstam, whose Skin Shows ( 1995 ) combines Foucauldian reading with psychoanalytic interpretation, comments that monstrosity is foremost textual: ‘multiple interpretations are embedded in the text and part of the experience of horror comes from the realisation that meaning itself runs riot’ (p. 2). Gothic texts are layered and purposefully construct different meaning-systems whose contradictions are suspended rather than resolved. The role of the monster, consequently, can be part of a multi-faceted signifying net and multimodal; it ‘condenses’, she writes, ‘various racial and sexual threats to nation, capitalism, and the bourgeoisie into one body’ (p. 3).

Frankenstein’s Monster has no name. It is referred to as ‘monster’, ‘wretch’, ‘daemon’, ‘creature’ and ‘fiend’ (Baldick, 1987 , p. 10) and in her novel Shelley uses the word ‘creature’ (nowadays a popular name for the Monster) to refer to other characters. However, ever since Nick Groom’s edition of Frankenstein ( 2018 ) ‘being’ appears to be the correct or rather the most acceptable term for Frankenstein’s creation. This is regardless of anyone’s personal preference. The gravitation towards a term that evokes this figures victimhood leads us to the symbolic power of naming, because what Frankenstein’s creation is depends on what we call it (Lacan, 1966 ). Interestingly, and this tends to happen frequently, the names of creator and creation get mixed up. This confusion dates back to the nineteenth century and has long since invited the concept of a double-being and literary device of Doppelgänger and the conclusion that Monster is a projection and that Frankenstein is the real monster. The physical reality of the Monster’s deformed body, on the other hand, cannot be ignored. To quote Baldick: ‘the novel provides no explanation for the creature’s ugliness, and if we are tempted to account for it psychologically as a mere projection of Frankenstein’s guilty revulsion of his dead, we run up against the evidence of the other character’s reactions’ (p. 33). The Monster is a real enough entity and albeit its freedom to disobey fascinates, a better understanding of the reasons behind its monstrous acts does not necessarily lead to a defeat of fear. The reason being that the permeable boundary between ‘the human’ and ‘the monstrous’ never settles (Feder, 2010 ). The Monster may not look like Frankenstein but they are definitely connected (Botting, 2008 ). Shelley explores this through the Monster’s reading to Paradise Lost and its consequent identification with Adam and Satan (Cantor, 1984 ; Newlyn, 1992 ). Through this shift in self-perception Shelley presents deformity as difference in the force field of natural philosophy, as well as religion (see Foucault, 2005 ). She delves deeply into the deviant anatomy of the human body (Youngquist, 2003 ). The Monster cannot fit in and its hybridity, bearing in mind that Frankenstein united human with animal parts, speaks strongly against a place in God’s creation even though it is a perfect artwork before it starts to move. This means that Frankenstein’s Monster is an object of desire as well as disgust (Wright, 2018 ; Erle, 2018b ). Frankenstein wanted to create a new species but he terminates its future when he breaks his promise and aborts the female monster, which is Frankenstein’s ultimate act of monstering. He socially isolates the Monster. The Monster’s response, however, is so familiar, so human. It is angry and demands revenge and justice.

Monsters are familiar and part of everyday life (Canguilhem, 1962 ; Auerbach, 1995 ; Botting, 2008 ). However, Frankenstein’s Monster is special because Frankenstein formulates the tensions arising between nature and nurture as well as self and society (Gilbert, 1978 , pp. 59–63). Monstrosity in Frankenstein is not only associated with appearance but also with actions: Frankenstein’s creation is a killer. In spite of this fact there exists a tendency to explain away its monstrous acts with neglect or bad treatment. The Monster kills Frankenstein’s youngest brother William but is not to blame because it was abandoned by its maker; it is a victim and we—readers of Shelley’s novel—should feel compassion and, according to a recent newspaper article, most of our current students do (O’Shea and Jacobs, 2018 ). This move towards more empathy implicates the reader in new and interesting ways. Should we understand and ultimately forgive absolutely everything? This collection starts with the premise that Shelley’s monster is not only larger than life, it has also assumed a life outside the novel. The collection, consequently, wants to position Shelley’s Frankenstein beyond its immediate Gothic and literary contexts. The meaning of the monster is in the eye of the beholder and therefore they can be therapeutic, familiar, reassuring as well as evil. Monsters do not always repulse nor do monstrous acts always evoke fear and disgust (Wright, 2018 ), which is why they are connected to a whole range of disciplines, such as architecture, counselling, drama, ecocriticism and children’s literature.

Monster theory and monster studies

In his foreword to The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous (2012) John Block Friedman, author of The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought (1981) proclaims that monsters are ‘ubiquitous […] [they] are all around us, in our dreams our children’s reading, in accounts of postcolonial capitalism and exploitation and films detailing the power relations between men and women, in our perceptions of disabled people in the streets; sometimes, even, they are us’ (xxvii). The Ashgate Companion , consequently, gives an extremely useful overview of monster traditions and in his introduction Asa Simon Mittman justifies the existence of Monster Studies, emphasising impact over qualities of monsters: ‘the defining features cannot be considered essential, as it were, as the sources are too varied, to wonderfully divergent to be summarised or contained by such characteristics’ (p. 9). Regarding impact, which results in a change in attitude towards difference, Patricia McCormack’s definition of ‘encounter’ is helpful: ‘The Monster’ refers to the element outside the observer that sparks and creates an event of perception that necessitates the participation of two unlike entities.’ A monster, she writes, is ‘a catalyst toward an encounter’ ( 2012 , p. 294) and this ‘encounter’ is productive. Consequently, what is unacceptable because it is morally transgressive can still suggest new possibilities for human interaction. In this sense, it was our aim for this collection to juxtapose different approaches which, we hope, will facilitate a dialogue between the Social Sciences and the Humanities.

What makes a monster ‘a monster’? Jeffrey Weinstock explains that monsters ‘are things that should not be, but nevertheless are—and their existence raises vexing questions about humanity’s understanding of and place in the universe […]. The Monster’, he writes, ‘undoes our understanding of the way things are and violates our sense of how they are supposed to be’ ( 2014 , 1 and 2). Foucault, when defining these categories, emphasised the quality of mixing or ‘blending’ of species, sexes and forms ( 2003 , p. 63). His definition acknowledges that the notion of a true or authentic self is a construction; it is indeed problematic on the basis of lived experience to insist that one gender or one race are enough to categorise human beings with. If we, however, treat ‘monsters’ or ‘monstrosity’ as fear projected on to another, then ‘otherness’ comes to include all those traits (of us as individuals or a society), which we know exist but refuse (consciously or subconsciously) to acknowledge (Kearney, 2013 ). Halberstam, too, pays tribute to the psychoanalytic dimension of monsters as a category for conceptualisation, when summarising the trends in scholarship on Horror, and in particular in relation to Freud’s Studies on Hysteria ( 1995 , pp. 18–20). Barbara Creed, in turn, investigated the connection between the female and the monstrous (1995). Mitman, by comparison, asks a simple but potent question which entirely discards the Gothic and ignores any literary conventions to do with the supernatural. To paraphrase Mittman: does the fact that people believe in monsters make them ‘real’ (p. 4)? Mittman then traces this phenomenon (the apparent reality of monsters) back to Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s Monster Theory: Reading Culture ( 1996 ), one of the founding texts of Monster Studies (Cohen argued that monsters were a product of culture, functioned as signs and symbols for societal problems and demanded to be acknowledged on account of their mere presence). Mittman essentially suggests that when we experience monsters through the emotional effect (‘impact’) they have on us, they become a physical reality for us (p. 4). This is, we think, why monsters are both a metaphor and a tool to tackle the moral and ethical consequences of science’s potential to enhance life and human agency (Ryder, 1990 ).

One reason for the continuing fascination with Frankenstein is its othering of creator and creation and the uncertainty this act of separation brings about. It links to the fear of losing status, which, as stated above, is caused by shifting boundaries between self (‘the human’) and other (‘the monstrous’). With regard to enhancement, which is of course Frankenstein’s starting point, improvement can also be perceived as other. Fear, it seems, is caused by technological determinism, which is only hinted at in the novel of 1818 but developed through the reception process. So, where do we draw the line? Georges Canguilhelm ( 1962 ), for whom monstrosity was primarily a biological concept, argues that to be a monster, the thing has to be alive: ‘the qualification of monster must be reserved for organic beings. There is no such thing as a mineral monster. There is no such thing as a mechanical monster’ (p. 28). The monstrous quality of life comes to the fore in Frankenstein’s laboratory and at the very moment the new species opens its eyes. Frankenstein overreacts but he does come to his senses; he recognises that he has created a monster and that he is unable to handle it. A monster is always alive and, therefore, a negation of human values and, therefore, ‘valuable only as a foil’. Canguilhelm writes further: ‘by demonstrating how precarious is the stability to which life has accustomed us—yes, only accustomed, but we made a law out of its custom—the monster gives an all the more eminent value to specific repetition, to morphological regularity, to successful structure; it makes us realise that these are not necessary’ (p. 29). We have come a long way (see McNally, 2011 ). The imaginings of what can count as ‘normal’ and by default ‘human’ have since incorporated enhancement of potential through the discourses of robotics and artificial intelligence and in Science Fiction. Medical science can now delay death and digital technologies appear to enable us to plan our afterlives. The moral and ethical implications of this paradigmatic shift in human existence are obvious. We may decide to think of the dead version of ourselves as monstrous.

Frankenstein is part of discussions of the post-human condition. In this context, the question of what it means to be human contests with the transformative powers of technology, which are either welcomed as an extension or dreaded as an invasion (Zylinska, 2002 ; Szollosy, 2017 ). Analysis and critical framing of the technological evolution and consequences for human relations is in Donna Haraway ( 1991 ), Bruno Latour ( 1993 ), Chris Hables Grey ( 1995 ) and Elaine Graham ( 2002 ). Reviewing the existing literature, Graham ( 2004 ) notes ‘contemporary technology […] will shape our understandings of what it means to be human into the next century. For embedded in the various technologies are crucial issues of identity, community and spirituality’ (p. 12).

The flourishing interpretations of the relationship between Frankenstein and the Monster speak of of changes in culture. What qualifies as a monster has been thrown into relief through the shift in appreciation of the problems the monster embodies (McNally, 2011 ). Frankenstein’s Monster is a hybrid because it is not born but made with ‘instruments of life’. Technology is transformative, not neutral, but still the ever so important story of origin remains vague because Frankenstein never specifies what these ‘instruments’ are. Shelley may have given an explanation in the introduction to the 1831 edition (Hitchcock, 2007 ), but ‘instruments of life’ and ‘spark of life’, which can be read as either electrical spark or indeed soul, is all the novel gives; to start with, body and soul were not separated, at least in the Greek tradition. Today it is the priest who deals with the soul and the undertaker who deals with the body. It is perhaps through the movies and Hollywood adaptations that the laboratory scene, that ur-story told on Lake Geneva in 1816, has been fleshed out, as well as repositioned within different critical frames. In the novel, it is when the Monster starts to move, according to Frankenstein, that everything changes (Erle, 2018a ). The so-called creation scene appears to equip the Monster with a body as well as feelings. Frankenstein’s creature resembles no one but it tries to bond. Frankenstein, however, cannot bear the sight of it; he rejects and abandons it. The Monster later articulates its need for affection and attempts to come to an agreement with his maker; its request for a partner is eventually denied on account of the potential monstrousness of that future partner and yet, it is most likely that it is the pleading with its master and subsequent disappointment that transforms this monster from an ‘it’ into a ‘he’. Frankenstein has referred to his creation as both ‘he’ and ‘it’, designations, which reflect his ambivalence, and with the narrative unfolding and points of view complementing each other, Frankenstein’s creation becomes more and more familiar. He has real, recognisable needs and desires. Frankenstein’s decision, his sudden moral qualms or realisation that he ought not to go ahead however, condemns his creature to utter loneliness. Frankenstein’s Monster is on his own forever. Popular culture, on the other hand, teems with monsters and many of them can keep each other company.

Monsters in teaching contexts

Popular cultural representations of monsters include their ubiquitous presence in children’s literature. Monsters are therefore an important part of children’s lives through reading and storytelling both within the classroom and at home. Like Frankenstein, the monsters of children’s literature are often multi-faceted, with their motives and imagery open to interpretation. They can represent fears of children and adults, the child protagonist’s alter ego, or inner-self, or even be an interesting subject of analysis as a character with their own needs and challenges (Papazian, 2014 ). For these reasons, discussion of monsters and the monstrous in children’s literature provides an obvious vehicle for teachers to connect to curriculum and teaching about personal, social and emotional issues, character and motivation. For example, monsters can be a focus for considering relationships, differences, bullying and overcoming fears. Rather than using texts as a way of teaching a directive moral lesson, a socio-cultural approach to teaching emphasises that children and young people learn through participation or ‘dialogically’ constructing their own meanings and understanding through discussion with others (Alexander, 2008 ; Cox, 2017 ). Children’s literature offers a unique and flexible place for such construction. Furthermore, ‘monstrous’ visions of the future and societal change presented through dystopian young adult fiction such as The Hunger Games (Collins, 2009 ) and picture books or animated shorts such as ‘Varmints’ (Craste and Ward, 2013 ) allow teachers to open sensitive discussion about challenging concepts and issues, including human rights, democracy and conflict:

Such narratives play upon deep, unresolvable fears from ‘reality,’ exaggerating (and sometimes solving) them in fictional scenarios. In the case of young adult dystopia, it is the young people—willing or not—who must confront these fears and ultimately solve the problems that spawn them (Ames, 2013 , p. 6).

Ames argues that these texts offer a way of connecting pupils with political and social challenges in an environment that is safely removed from their real lives. These teaching possibilities are particularly important when pupils witness conflict and division in the media and day to day lives or are coping with making sense of conflicting perspectives on challenging issues such as gender identity and the treatment of refugees (Woolley, 2010 ; Hope, 2018 ).

Children and young people’s mental and emotional health and well-being are a significant area of concern for health services, families, educators and policy makers (NHS Digital, 2017 ; Patel et al., 2007 ; PHE, 2016 ; PSHE Association, 2019 ). This topical concern links to the use of monster characters in fiction as a possible teaching tool, as PSHE guidance emphasises that ‘distancing’ learning about sensitive issues by using fictional characters could help pupils to engage with the topic rather than becoming overwhelmed by their own emotional responses. Similarly, the threat and opportunity of technological change looms large in teaching contexts where teachers and pupils must navigate the creative potential of cyber-space with caution (DfE, 2019 ; UKCIS, 2018 ). Schools must equip pupils to avoid ‘monstrous’, transgressive uses of technology as either recipients or participants and this too can be raised through literature, for instance in Penguinpig (Spendlow, 2014 ), the tale of a little girl misled by the internet to search for an unobtainable creature.

Themes emerging from connections with Frankenstein in teaching contexts move beyond using monstrous imagery and characters in children’s literature to spark discussion. There are many more monstrous issues that influence research and debate about education itself. In England, the terminology of ‘British Values’ and the expectation to uphold these as part of the standards for qualified teachers (DfE, 2011 ) is felt by some to connect ‘British Values’ with whiteness and demonise people of ‘non-British’ origin, setting up a false division and potentially encouraging a backlash against ethnic minority cultures (Maylor, 2016 ; Phillips, 2010 ). Furthermore, the ‘Prevent’ duty placed on schools to monitor and report concerns about pupils at risk of radicalisation has been noted to be socially divisive and create a particularly negative focus on Muslim pupils, potentially ‘othering’ them within school communities (Kenny and Ghale, 2015 ; Lumb, 2018 ). Similarly, but affecting both the UK and beyond, interest in the power of education to address social disadvantage and disparity in pupil outcomes has led to the development of character and resilience education (Paterson et al., 2014 ). In some cases, this has focused on what McDermott and Nygreen ( 2013 , p. 93) call ‘new paternalism’:

New-paternalist schools promise to reduce social inequality by teaching low-income students a set of character traits and rewarding good behaviour

Originating in the USA as KIPP schools, this approach has transferred to some academies in England and emphasises discipline and a strict adherence to set behaviours, which has been described as militaristic (Lack, 2009 ). While there is a positive intention underlying this approach as a way of ‘levelling the playing field’ for students from less advantaged social and cultural groups, this view of character education has been criticised for unchallenged underpinning deficit assumptions about low socio-economic status students (McDermott and Nygreen, 2013 ). There are also concerns about the way that character and resilience education is applied, either by ignoring pupils’ fund of knowledge and attempting to eradicate cultural differences in communication in the name of ‘character’ (McDermott and Nygreen, 2013 ) or by pursuing the assessment of resilience as a measure of both pupil and school success (Duckworth, 2016 ). In this climate, monsters and the monstrous may not simply be something that teachers teach about but they may, inadvertently, be created by the educational system in which teachers function.

Monsters and monstrosity in literary texts and social contexts often work as a metaphor or a tool to tackle individual or social problems with. Gothic characters and themes are popular with students but have also invigorated current academic debates. They help to highlight, address as well as work through societal challenges as the range of contributions to this collection has shown. Monstrosity continues to be closely linked to the visual, which invites the question if Frankenstein’s Monster would have integrated, had it lived today. When it meets and talks to the blind old man DeLacey, the Monster appears to be at ease. For once it is able to reach out and connect to another (human) being. The scene of social bonding, unfortunately, is cut short by the return of the rest of the family. There is no time to consider, remember or acknowledge the Monster’s kindness towards the De Laceys. They may not have survived, if it had not been for the Monster. This leaves us with their ungrateful and monstrous behaviour. Monsters, in other words, force us to take a look at ourselves. Ideas of progress have always been twined with fear of progress, science and technology and in an age, on the brink of post-modernity, the all-enveloping claim on the so-called human essence of our identity appears to be under threat. Should we embrace or reject the changes? Time has shown that monstrous appearance and behaviour can be healed, remedied or corrected to suit cultural norms. Bodies can be operated on and personality disorders can be treated by therapists or medicated by psychiatrists. There are many options with which to enhance the bodies we have been given, as well as the connections we can forge in and beyond the communities we live in. Contemporary technology, in addition, improves human relations in that it gives better access to individual lives. These lives, on the other hand, are prone to manipulation. Photos and images can be edited and fears of losing face or a damaged reputation prevail and dominate social interaction, be it physical or real or digital or virtual. This takes us right back to Frankenstein because Frankenstein’s biggest failure was to give his creation life but not a good face. By paying attention to processes and acts of monstering in teaching contexts and wider society we can learn to direct our attention towards ourselves to then empathise and re-connect with all those ‘others’ (Wright, 2013 ).

We are grateful to our assistant Michael Hendry who contributed to this section by researching the contemporary, popular reception of Mary Shelley’s novel. Michael’s research highlights Frankenstein ’s pervading cultural presence.

Ackroyd P (2008) The casebook of Victor Frankenstein: a novel. Anchor Books, New York, NY

Google Scholar  

Alexander R (2008) Towards dialogic teaching: re-thinking classroom talk, 4th edn. Dialogos, York

Aldiss BW, Moorcock M, Walker T (2016) Frankenstein unbound. Centipede Press, Colorado

Ames M (2013) Engaging “Apolitical” adolescents: analyzing the popularity and educational potential of dystopian literature post-9/11. The High School J, 9.1:3–20. Available at https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/high_school_journal/v097/97.1.a

Asma ST (2009) On monsters: an unnatural history of our worst fears. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Auerbach N (1995) Our vampires, ourselves. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

Book   Google Scholar  

Baldick C (1987) In Frankenstein’s shadow: myth, monstrosity, and nineteenth-century writing. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Bann S (ed) (1994) Frankenstein, creation and monstrosity. Reaktion, London

Botting F (2003) Metaphors and monsters. J Cultural Res 7.4:339–365

Article   Google Scholar  

Botting F (2008) Limits of horror: technology, bodies, Gothic. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Butler M (1993) Frankenstein and radical science. In: Hunter JP (ed) Frankenstein. A norton critical edition. Norton, New York, NY, pp. 302–313

Canguilhem G (1962) Monstrosity and the monstrous. Diogenes 10.4:27–42

Cantor P (1984) Creature and creator: mythmaking and English romanticism. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

Carrière JC (2016) Frankenstein’s tread. Grey Tiger, London

Clark, T, Royle, N, Bennington, G, Kamuf, P, Bennett, A & Rooney, C (2001) “Explanations, Applications and Orientations”, Monstrism (issue of experimental criticism). Clark T, Royle N (eds). In Oxford Literary Review. 23:5–31

Cohen JJ (ed) (1996) Monster theory: reading culture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Collings D (2009) Monstrous society: reciprocity, discipline, and the political uncanny, 1780–1848. Bucknell University Press, Lewisburg, PA

Collins S (2009) The hunger games. Scholastic, London

Cox S (2017) Developing values in primary classrooms and the place of the humanities. Education 3–13 45(3):375–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2017.1296925

Craste M, Ward H (2013) Varmints. Templar Publishing, Dorking

Department for Education (2019) Teaching online safety in school. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teaching-online-safety-in-schools

Creed B (1993) The monstrous-feminine: film, feminism, psychoanalysis. Routledge, London and New York, NY

Deacon R (2006) Michel Foucault on education: A preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education 26:177–187

Department for Education (DfE) (2011) Teachers’ Standards Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-standards

Duckworth A (2016) Don’t grade schools on Grit. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/dont-grade-schools-on-grit.html

Erle S (2018a) How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe …?: Frankenstein, Walton and the Monster” . Disbelief and romanticism. In: Andrea Tímár (ed), Special edition of AnaChronisT , New Series, 144–167. Retrieved from https://ww.theanachronist.org

Erle S (2018b) From vampire to apollo: William Blake’s ghosts of the flea c. 1819–1820. In: Bruder HP, Tristanne TConnolly (eds) Beastly blake, Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 225–252

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Feder H (2010) ‘A blot upon the earth’: Nature’s ‘negative’ and the production of monstrosity in Frankenstein. Journal of Ecocriticism 2.1:55–66

Foucault M (2005) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Routledge, London, Trans. Alan Sheridan

Foucault M (2003) Abnormal: lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–75. Picador, New York, NY, pp. 55–75. Trans. Graham Burchell

Gilbert SM (1978) Horror’s twin: Mary Shelley’s monstrous eve. Feminist Studies 4.2:48–73

Gilmore DD (2009) Monsters: evil beings, mythical beasts, and all manner of imaginary terrors. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA

Graham E (2002) Representations of the post/human: monsters, aliens and others in popular culture. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Graham E (2004) ‘Post/human conditions’. Theology & Sexuality 10.2:10–32

Gray CH (1995) The Cyborg Handbook. Routledge, London

Halberstam J (1995) Skin shows: Gothic horror and the technology of monsters. Duke University Press, Durham, NC

Haraway D (1991) Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Free Association Books, London

Harwood V, Muller J, Olssen M (2014) Foucault, power, and education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 35(6):933–945

Hedrich-Hirsch D (1996) Liberty, equality, monstrosity: revolutionizing the family in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In: Cohen JJ (ed) Monster theory: reading culture. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, pp. 115–140

Hitchcock ST (2007) Frankenstein: a cultural history. W.W. Norton, New York, NY and London

Hodges D (1983) ‘Frankenstein and the Feminine Subversion of the Novel’. Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature 2.2:155–164

Hope J (2018) “The soldiers came to the house”: young children’s responses to the colour of home. Children’s literature in education. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 302–322

Huet MH (1993) Monstrous imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Kearney R (2013) Strangers, Gods and monsters: interpreting otherness. Reaktion, London

Kenny A, Ghale B (2015) Prevent and ‘British Values’. Forum 57.2:227–229

Lacan J (1966) Écrits. Seuil, Paris

Lack B (2009) No excuses: a critique of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) within charter schools in the U.S.A. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 7:125–153

Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Lumb E (2018) Terrorism in the nursery: considering the implications of the British values discourse and the prevent duty requirements in early years education, FORUM: for promoting 3–19 comprehensive education. Symposium Books, 60(3)

Maylor U (2016) I’d worry about how to teach it: British values in English classrooms. Journal of Education for Teaching 42.3:314–328

McCormack P (2012) Posthuman teratology. In: Mittman AS, Dendle PJ (eds) The ashgate research companion to monsters and the monstrous. Ashgate, Farham, pp. 293–309

McDermott KA, Nygreen K (2013) Educational new paternalism: human capital, cultural capital, and the politics of equal opportunity. Peabody Journal of Education 88.1:84–97

McNally D (2011) Monsters of the market: zombies, vampires, and global capitalism. Brill, Leiden and Boston

Mellor AK (1980) Mary Shelley: her life, her fiction, her monsters. Routledge, New York, NY

Mitchell R (2013) Experimental life: vitalism in romantic science. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Mulvery-Roberts M (2016) Dangerous bodies: historicising the Gothic corporeal. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Myers RJ (1975) The cross of Frankenstein. Lippincott, Philadelphia

Newlyn L (1992) ‘Paradise Lost’ and the romantic reader. Clarendon Press, Oxford

NHS Digital (2017) Mental health of children and young people in England. Retrieved from https://files.digital.nhs.uk/A6/EA7D58/MHCYP%202017%20Summary.pdf

O’Shea G, Jacobs T (2018). Flakensteins Snowflake students claim Frankenstein’s monster was ‘misunderstood’–and is in fact a VICTIM. The Sun. 5 March. Retrieved from https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5732932/snowflake-students-dub-frakenstein-misunderstood-victim/

Papazian G (2014) Children’s literature, monsters in. In: Weinstock JA (eds) The ashgate encyclopedia of literary and cinematic monsters. Ashgate Publishing, Surrey. Retrieved from http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/ashgtmonster/children_s_literature_monsters_in/0?institutionId=292

Patel V, Flisher AJ, Hetrick S, Mcgorry P (2007) Mental health of young people: a global public-health challenge, The Lancet. Elsevier Ltd, 369.9569: 1302–1313. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60368-7

Paterson C, Tyler C, Lemond, J (2014) Character and resilience manifesto. All party parliamentary group. Retrieved from http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2014-appg-social-mobility.pdf

Phillips A (2010) Multiculturalism. In: Edmonds D, Warburton N (ed). Philosophy bites. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 68–76

Picart CJS (2003) Remaking the Frankenstein myth on film: between laughter and horror. State University of New York Press, New York, NY. ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/open/detail.action?docID=3408596

PHE (Public Health England) (2016) The mental health of children and young people in England. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575632/Mental_health_of_children_in_England.pdf

PSHE Association (2019) Teacher guidance: teaching about mental health and emotional well-being. Retrieved from: https://www.pshe-association.org.uk/system/files/Mental%20Health%20guidance%20online%20version%20%28Updated%20July%202019%29.pdf

Punter D, Byron G (2004) The Gothic. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Rigby M (2009) Uncanny recognition: queer theory’s debt to the Gothic. Gothic Studies 11.1:46–57

Royal Opera House (ROH) (2019) Frankenstein. Retrieved from: https://www.roh.org.uk/productions/frankenstein-by-liam-scarlett

Ryder R (1990) When Pigs Will Fly. In: Wheale P, McNally R (eds) The bio-revolution, Cornucopias or Pandora’s Box. Pluto, London, pp. 189–194

Scott N (ed) (2007) Monsters and the monstrous: myths and metaphors of enduring evil. Rodopi, Amsterdam

Seed D (1995) Anticipations: essays on early science fiction and its precursors. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, UK

Shelley MW (1994) Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus: the 1818. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Marilyn Butler (ed)

Shelley MW (2018) Frankenstein or ‘the modern Prometheus’: the 1818. Oxford University Press, Oxford, Nick Groom (ed)

Smith A (2016) The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Spendlow S (2014) Penguinpig. Mathom House Publishers, Alfreton

Sterrenburg L (1979) Mary Shelley monster: politics and psyche in Frankenstein. In: Levine G, Knoepflmacher UC (eds) The endurance of Frankenstein: essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 143–171

Struthers AE (2017) Teaching British values in our schools: but why not human rights values? Social & Legal Studies 26.1:89–110. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663916656752

Szollosy MF (2017) Frankenstein and our fear of robots: projection in our cultural perception of technology’. AI & Society: Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Communication 32.3:433–439

Turney J (1998) Frankenstein’s footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. Yale University Press, New Haven and London

UKCIS United Kingdom Council for Internet Safety (2018) Education for a connected world framework. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-for-a-connected-world

Vasbinder SH (1984) Scientific attitudes in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor

Weinstock JA (2014) The ashgate encyclopedia of literature and cinematic monsters. Ashgate, Farnham

Woolley R (2010) Tackling controversial issues in the primary school: facing life’s challenges with your learners. Routledge, Florence, 10.4324/9780203848326

Wright A (2013) Monstrosity: the human monster in visual culture. I.B. Tauris, London and New York, NY

Wright K (ed) (2018) Introduction. Disgust and desire: the paradox of the monster. Wright K (ed) Brill and Rodopi, Leiden and Boston. pp. vii–xii

Young E (2008) Black Frankenstein: the making of an American metaphor. New York University Press, New York, NY

Youngquist P (2003) Monstrosities: bodies and British romanticism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Zylinska J (2002) Extending McLuhan into the new media age: an introduction. The Cyborg experiments: the extensions of the body in the media age. Continuum, London and New York, NY, pp. 1–11

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Bishop Grosseteste University, Lincoln, UK

Sibylle Erle & Helen Hendry

The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sibylle Erle .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Erle, S., Hendry, H. Monsters: interdisciplinary explorations in monstrosity. Palgrave Commun 6 , 53 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0428-1

Download citation

Received : 03 March 2020

Accepted : 04 March 2020

Published : 25 March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0428-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: a Look at Characters in “Frankenstein”

This essay about the characters in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” explores the complex nature of humanity and monstrosity within the novel. It highlights how characters like Victor Frankenstein and his Creature, along with Elizabeth Lavenza, Henry Clerval, and the De Lacey family, serve to explore themes of isolation, responsibility, and the quest for understanding. Victor’s unchecked ambition and the Creature’s desire for companionship are central to the narrative, illustrating the consequences of alienation and the innate need for connection. Through these characters, Shelley critiques societal norms, questions the essence of monstrosity, and delves into the duality of human nature. The essay underscores “Frankenstein” as a profound study of human and monstrous nature, inviting reflection on the responsibilities of creators and the impact of societal rejection.

How it works

Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” transcends the realm of mere horror and delves into a labyrinthine narrative replete with characters embodying the intricate tapestry of humanity and monstrousness. Through the figures of Victor Frankenstein, the Creature, and an array of ancillary personas, Shelley navigates themes of solitude, accountability, and the relentless pursuit of enlightenment, rendering the novel an enduring exploration of the human psyche.

At the epicenter of this intricate narrative stands Victor Frankenstein, the fervent young scientist driven by an insatiable thirst for knowledge and acclaim.

Victor epitomizes the ceaseless human endeavor for greatness and validation. Yet, his failure to anticipate the repercussions of his actions and subsequent evasion of accountability serve as a cautionary testament to the perils of unbridled ambition. Victor’s transformation from an idealistic visionary to a tormented soul consumed by remorse and bereavement serves as a poignant critique of the Enlightenment’s unwavering faith in progress.

In stark contrast to Victor looms his creation, the Creature. Despite his grotesque visage, the Creature manifests a cognitive and emotional depth rivaling, if not surpassing, that of his human progenitor. Through his eloquent narrative, the Creature unveils his profound yearning for companionship and acceptance, underscoring the inherent sociability of sentient beings. Shelley deftly employs the Creature’s encounters with rejection and brutality to challenge societal norms and prejudices, probing the essence of monstrosity—is it mere appearance or actions that define it?

The auxiliary characters, including Elizabeth Lavenza, Henry Clerval, and the De Lacey family, serve as mirrors reflecting the traits and choices of both Victor and the Creature. Elizabeth, Victor’s betrothed, embodies the domestic ideal of her era, her purity and innocence juxtaposed against the turmoil and gloom pervading Victor’s existence. Henry Clerval symbolizes the humane and communal facets of life neglected amidst Victor’s single-minded pursuit. Conversely, the De Lacey family offers a glimpse into the societal acceptance and belonging craved by the Creature, yet tragically denied due to his outward semblance.

“Frankenstein” delves into the repercussions of estrangement and the innate human longing for connection and comprehension. Both Victor and the Creature grapple with isolation, whether self-imposed or imposed by others. This isolation propels them towards their tragic denouements—Victor towards obsession and remorse, the Creature towards vengeance and desolation. Thus, Shelley’s characters epitomize the dualistic nature of humanity—the potential for greatness juxtaposed with tendencies towards destruction, empathy warring with indifference.

In summation, the denizens of “Frankenstein” transcend their roles as mere actors in a gothic spectacle; they serve as profound allegories for the human condition. Shelley’s magnum opus remains a poignant exploration of the depths of human and monstrous inclinations, compelling readers to ponder the essence of humanity, the duties of creators, and the societal constructs dictating our identities. Through the arcs of Victor Frankenstein’s ambition and downfall, the Creature’s quest for acceptance, and the reactions of those surrounding them, Shelley beckons us to contemplate the intricate interplay between inherent traits, environmental influences, and the decisions that mold our fates.

Cite this page

The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein". (2024, Apr 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/

"The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein"." PapersOwl.com , 1 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein" . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/ [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2024]

"The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein"." PapersOwl.com, Apr 01, 2024. Accessed April 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/

"The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein"," PapersOwl.com , 01-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Depths of Humanity and Monstrosity: A Look at Characters in "Frankenstein" . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-depths-of-humanity-and-monstrosity-a-look-at-characters-in-frankenstein/ [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Suggestions

• As You Like It
• Brave New World
• Great Expectations
• The Crucible
• The Handmaid's Tale

Please wait while we process your payment

Reset Password

Your password reset email should arrive shortly..

If you don't see it, please check your spam folder. Sometimes it can end up there.

Something went wrong

Log in or create account.

•   Be between 8-15 characters.
•   Contain at least one capital letter.
•   Contain at least one number.
•   Be different from your email address.

By signing up you agree to our terms and privacy policy .

Don’t have an account? Subscribe now

Create Your Account

Sign up for your FREE 7-day trial

• Ad-free experience
• Note-taking
• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AP® English Test Prep
• Plus much more

Already have an account? Log in

Choose Your Plan

Group Discount

$4.99 /month + tax

$24.99 /year + tax

Save over 50% with a SparkNotes PLUS Annual Plan!

Purchasing SparkNotes PLUS for a group?

Get Annual Plans at a discount when you buy 2 or more!

$24.99 $18.74   / subscription + tax

Subtotal $37.48 + tax

Save 25% on 2-49 accounts

Save 30% on 50-99 accounts

Payment Details

Payment Summary

SparkNotes Plus

 Change

You'll be billed after your free trial ends.

7-Day Free Trial

Not Applicable

Renews April 20, 2024 April 13, 2024

Discounts (applied to next billing)

SNPLUSROCKS20  |  20% Discount

This is not a valid promo code.

Discount Code (one code per order)

SparkNotes PLUS Annual Plan - Group Discount

SparkNotes Plus subscription is $4.99/month or $24.99/year as selected above. The free trial period is the first 7 days of your subscription. TO CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION AND AVOID BEING CHARGED, YOU MUST CANCEL BEFORE THE END OF THE FREE TRIAL PERIOD. You may cancel your subscription on your Subscription and Billing page or contact Customer Support at [email protected] . Your subscription will continue automatically once the free trial period is over. Free trial is available to new customers only.

For the next 7 days, you'll have access to awesome PLUS stuff like AP English test prep, No Fear Shakespeare translations and audio, a note-taking tool, personalized dashboard, & much more!

You’ve successfully purchased a group discount. Your group members can use the joining link below to redeem their group membership. You'll also receive an email with the link.

Members will be prompted to log in or create an account to redeem their group membership.

Thanks for creating a SparkNotes account! Continue to start your free trial.

Your PLUS subscription has expired

• We’d love to have you back! Renew your subscription to regain access to all of our exclusive, ad-free study tools.
• Renew your subscription to regain access to all of our exclusive, ad-free study tools.
• Go ad-free AND get instant access to grade-boosting study tools!
• Start the school year strong with SparkNotes PLUS!
• Start the school year strong with PLUS!

Frankenstein

• Study Guide
• Mastery Quizzes
• Infographic

Mary Shelley

Unlock your free sparknotes plus trial, unlock your free trial.

• Ad-Free experience
• Easy-to-access study notes
• AP® English test prep

A+ Student Essay: The Impact of the Monster's Eloquence

The monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein lurches into life as big as a man but as ignorant as a newborn. He can’t read, speak, or understand the rudiments of human interaction. When he stumbles upon the cottagers, however, he picks up language by observing them and studying their speech. It is this acquisition of language, along with the eloquence it brings, that turns the monster from a mysterious nightmare into a sympathetic and tragic figure. By showing how language transforms the monster, and by contrasting the well-spoken monster with his equally articulate creator, Shelley argues that verbal communication—rather than action or appearance—is the only way through which people can truly understand one another.

Before the monster learns to express himself, his actions are no less than terrifying. His escape from Victor’s workshop seems sinister and his murder of William apparently confirms the notion that he is a powerful, malignant beast capable of unmotivated violence. His shocking appearance does not help matters. Victor assumes, and Shelley invites us to assume along with him, that this being, with his patched-together body, his yellow skin, and his black lips, must have a soul that matches his hideous appearance.

When the monster speaks, however, he throws his actions into a different light. He explains that Victor’s desertion left him alone and frightened. He conveys how hurt he was when he realized that his appearance scares normal people. His stories about sympathizing with and secretly helping the cottagers show that he has an empathetic nature, and his tale of rescuing a young girl and getting a bullet for his trouble demonstrates his instinct to help those weaker than himself, sparking our outrage at society’s unwarranted cruelty toward him. Even the monster’s description of William’s murder makes the convincing case that fury at Victor drove the monster to violence—not an excuse, by any means, but certainly an explanation that is understandable and psychologically credible. By giving the monster the power of oratory, Shelley forces us to consider his behavior from an entirely different angle and to sympathize with his plight.

Shelley bolsters our sympathy for the monster by comparing his words to Victor’s. Frankenstein is Victor’s story; he has countless opportunities to argue his case and cast himself as the tragic hero of the tale. Despite his earnest—and long-winded—attempts to put himself in the right, however, Victor’s words only alienate us as they pile up. He feels little besides relief when the monster escapes; he lets Justine go to her death rather than risk his reputation by telling the truth; he whines and prevaricates; he heartlessly abandons and scorns his own creation. Ironically, Victor would be more appealing were he to lose the power of speech. Unlike his monster, he is no murderer. By themselves, his actions might seem reasonable. But because he bares his soul by communicating verbally to us, the readers, he reveals the unappealing motivations behind those reasonable actions and loses our trust and sympathy.

The monster’s eloquent words do not have the effect he intends: They fail to win Victor’s approval or gain his affection. They do have an effect he cannot foresee, however. By explicating himself and his actions, the monster gains our favor and turns himself into the hero of Victor Frankenstein’s narrative. And by pulling off this neat reversal, Shelley demonstrates the overwhelming importance of language in shaping individuals’ identities—as well as the perception of those identities by others.

Frankenstein SparkNotes Literature Guide

Ace your assignments with our guide to Frankenstein ! 

Popular pages: Frankenstein

Full book analysis summary, character list characters, victor frankenstein characters, themes literary devices, important quotes explained quotes, ambition quotes, full book quick quizzes, take a study break.

QUIZ: Is This a Taylor Swift Lyric or a Quote by Edgar Allan Poe?

The 7 Most Embarrassing Proposals in Literature

The 6 Best and Worst TV Show Adaptations of Books

QUIZ: Which Greek God Are You?

Frankenstein and the Language of Monstrosity

Fred botting, chapter 1 of making monstrous: frankenstein, criticism, theory (manchester: manchester univ. press, 1991).

Authorized by history, Burke's book turns the Revolution into a text so that he may outstrip it as a text, over-writing the revolutionaries' work in a superior act of authorship. (105)

Works Cited

Exploring Monstrosity in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”

Introduction.

Some of the notions that people have always tried to define are good and bad. For example, when thinking about what can be associated with good things, words like kindness, care, and generosity come to mind. And when thinking about bad things, the word monster comes to mind. However, since the culture now defines monstrosity differently than before, it is interesting to find out that the true monster in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is not the Creature but rather its creator, Victor.

Monsters in culture have always represented others. The fear of monsters is simply the fear of the unknown and unexplored. Consequently, that fear disappears when the mystery is deciphered (Lehtinen 11). According to Lehtinen, when science started evolving in the late 19th century, understanding of what seemed strange before changed as well (12). That resulted in monstrosity being understood as ugliness of mind rather than physical ugliness. Thus, in the novel, Victor Frankenstein’s desire to imitate life and the following rejection of his creation fit the criteria of monstrosity much better than his Creature’s appearance.

In that regard, the inability to recognize the monster – who cannot be told apart from the rest by distinctive marks – is what makes them even more terrifying. This can be said about Victor Frankenstein: he is a young man from an upper-class European family who likes doing illicit things and hates societal norms and rules (Lehtinen 12). It is possible that this kind of attitude is even more difficult to understand than the similar attitude of someone who is rejected by the world due to their ugliness or oddness.

When going further, the concept of monstrosity can be compared to the concept of evil. It is a more complicated question: for one, the motivations behind the actions of those who do evil things are not completely incomprehensible (Lehtinen 13). According to Lehtinen, that means that since those who commit evil are not the others – they are not monsters – a dichotomy between the good ones and the evil ones is not as distinct as that between the normal and the monstrous (13), which is a sign that every person can be evil – even someone as smart and charming as Victor Frankenstein. Different scholars view evil as an “offense against the laws of God, nature and man” (Lehtinen 13). It is possible that this can be applied to Victor Frankenstein.

As has been mentioned above, monstrosity is otherness. That means that monstrosity challenges established rules. Lehtinen notes that the body of the Creature breaks the norms of what a human being has to look like – but Victor Frankenstein’s scientific overreaching threatens these norms deliberately (19). Threatening norms is also a key element of the definition of evil in theology – though they are called values there. However, that fits Frankenstein as well: “the sanctity of the divine creation and the nurturing of a child” is a suitable description of the central theme of the novel (Lehtinen 19).

What Frankenstein attempts to destroy is not the process of creation itself but rather the mystery of the process. It seems that Victor’s passion for knowledge and success is something that stands at the top of his desires – and sacred for him is not something to admire but something to decipher. He says that his “curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to [him]” are amongst the “earliest sensations [he] can remember” (Lehtinen 20).

Granted, Frankenstein’s ambitious attitude to explore the borders of normal is not what makes him the villain – it is his actions that lead him down the path of chaos. Lehtinen assumes that it is not Victor’s contemplations that amount to evil – it is his deliberate decision to act on his callings that do (21). It is almost as if Frankenstein’s goal is to dismiss God’s holy right to create and break the laws of nature itself by doing so. In addition to that, the sanctity of the dead is disregarded – though Frankenstein seems to have issues with it, as the following words demonstrate: “Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?” (Lehtinen 22). Still, it never stops him from doing what he intended to.

In conclusion, monstrosity is a complicated issue, and the views on it have changed with the development of science. If a true monster is someone whose soul rather than appearance cannot be understood – then Victor Frankenstein fits the criteria. He attempts to challenge the norms by taking God’s responsibilities of creating life, and he breaks the barriers which no one should attempt to break. It is a questionable act from the point of view of morality – and if someone decides to explore these more and more, very bad things might happen.

Lehtinen, Veera. “Victor Frankenstein as Monster: Evil, Cruelty and Monstrosity in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” (2018).

More posts about Frankenstein

Reviewing Romanticism pp 51–59 Cite as

Frankenstein and the Language of Monstrosity

• Fred Botting  

88 Accesses

2 Citations

Monsters appear in literary and political writings to signal both a terrible threat to established orders and a call to arms that demands the unification and protection of authorised values. Symptoms of anxiety and instability, monsters frequently emerge in revolutionary periods as dark and ominous doubles restlessly announcing an explosion of apocalyptic energy. Christopher Hill, for example, describes the fear evoked by the masses represented as a ‘many-headed monster’ in the decades leading up to the English Revolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Works cited

Baldick, Chris, In Frankenstein’s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity and Nineteenth-century Writing (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987).

Google Scholar  

Bloom, Harold, ‘Frankenstein, or the New Prometheus’, Partisan Review 32 (1965): 611–18.

Brooks, Peter, ‘Godlike Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein’, New Literary History 9 (1978): 591–605.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burke, Edmund, Reflections on the Revolution in France , ed. Conor Cruise O’Brien (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969).

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Felix, The Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia , trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, Helen R. Lane (New York: Viking, 1977).

Derrida, Jacques, ‘Signature Event Context’, Glyph 1 (1977): 172–97.

Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , trans. Alan Sheridan (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979).

Glynn Grylls, Rosalie, Mary Shelley: A Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1938).

Godwin, William, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice , ed. Isaac Kramnick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985).

Hill, Christopher, ‘The Many-Headed Monster in Late Tudor and Early Stuart Political Thinking’, in From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation , ed. Charles H. Carter (London: Jonathan Cape, 1966), pp. 296–324.

Klancher, Jon P., The Making of English Reading Audiences 1790–1832 (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).

Norman, Sylva, ‘Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’, in Shelley and his Circle 1773–1822 , Vol. III, ed. Kenneth Neill Cameron (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 397–422.

Paine, Thomas, The Rights of Man , in The Thomas Paine Reader , eds. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985).

Paulson, Ronald, ‘Gothic Fiction and the French Revolution’, English Literary History 48 (1981): 532–54.

Poovey, Mary, ‘My Hideous Progeny: Mary Shelley and the Feminization of Romanticism’, PMLA 95 (1980): 332–47.

Shelley, Mary, Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus , ed. M. K. Joseph (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969).

Sterrenburg, Lee, ‘Mary Shelley’s Monster: Politics and Psyche in Frankenstein’ , in The Endurance of Frankenstein , eds. George Levine and U. C. Knoepflmacher (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1979), pp. 143–71.

Wollstonecraft, Mary, A Vindication of the Rights of Men , in Burke, Paine, Godwin, and the Revolution Controversy , ed. Marilyn Butler, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

Wordsworth, William, The Prose Works of William Wordsworth , eds. W. J. B. Owen and Jane Worthington Smyser (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, UK

Philip W. Martin ( Field Chair ) ( Field Chair )

Bristol Polytechnic, UK

Robin Jarvis ( Lecturer in Literary Studies ) ( Lecturer in Literary Studies )

Copyright information

© 1992 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Botting, F. (1992). Frankenstein and the Language of Monstrosity. In: Martin, P.W., Jarvis, R. (eds) Reviewing Romanticism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21952-0_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21952-0_4

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-21954-4

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-21952-0

eBook Packages : Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts Collection Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

There is No Monster: Monstrosity and the Monstrous in "Frankenstein"

To date, the majority of scholars have framed the creature in Frankenstein as a monster. By focusing on a single embodiment, scholars have neglected the monstrous aspects pervasive in the novel and ignored the fact that Shelley’s creature actually reflects nineteenth-century Britain. This thesis argues that there is no monster, and Shelley’s intention was to display the monstrosity of her own society –– not to write a monster novel. Through a textual and historical analysis, this thesis will elucidate the spiritual, physical, mental, and social monstrosities within Frankenstein. Shelley addressed the monstrosities of her society through the creature, nine of which have been selected for this study and assorted into three categories: three spiritual, three physical and mental, and three social. The first three monstrosities connect the creation of the creature, his soul, and the science used to create him with the theological debates of the period regarding Christian resurrection, the status of the slave’s soul, and the changing status of science in Shelley’s era. The three physical and mental monstrosities address the creature’s hybridity, strength, and mental acuity as a reflection of monstrous births, and Shelley’s own experience with human frailty and mental instability. The last three monstrosities examine the role of animals, women, and family in the novel, and how the creature reflects these various aspects in the context of how Shelley experienced them in the nineteenth-century. All nine monstrosities appear to reflect upon Victor’s creature to make him seem more monstrous, but the creature is actually the mirror of a monstrous society and not an embodiment of monstrosity himself.

Related Papers

Priyanka Jain

This paper is divided into three parts. The first part of the paper focuses on the analysis of science as 'monstrous' and the monstrous enterprise taken by Frankenstein in order to give birth to the creature. The second part of the paper focuses on Mary Shelley's reinterpretation of the 'patriarchal myth'. Frankenstein is a commentary on Paradise Lost. It also focuses on the comparison of the creature to Adam and Satan. The final part of the paper focuses on the search of the 'monster' in the novel Frankenstein. It shows how the novel provides a critique of imperialism. It will focus on the circumstances because of which a physically hideous creature became the revengeful monster. Victor Frankenstein had to undertake a very monstrous enterprise in order to give birth to the creature. Frankenstein visited charnel houses for collecting the bones of the future body of the creature. He alienated himself both physically and emotionally by keeping his workshop in a " solitary chamber " (Shelley 37). David Punter in his essay " Gothic and Romanticism " says, Frankenstein considered himself as a " pure enquirer after truth " (Punter 277). Frankenstein is overconfident. He suffers from an overwhelming pride. But, still, there is a difference between

BEST: International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences (BEST: IJHAMS)

BEST Journals

Told in the technique of an epistolary tale, the story revolves around the woeful narrative of a young idealist Genevan student of ‘natural philosophy’ (science) at the University of Ingolstadt, who stumbles upon the secret of infusing life into matter, and creates a living thing out of an assemblage of bones from charnel houses, which ultimately leads to his ruin and subsequent death. The novel comes with an introduction where Mary Shelly avows that “Everything must have a beginning, to speak in Sanchean phrase. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos; the materials must, in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to dark, shapeless substances but cannot bring into being the substance itself”. This foreword impels us to consider, in a somewhat distorted manner, the idea of the Creation myth. Victor Frankenstein’s ‘monster’ proclaims, “You are my creator but I am your master”, highlighting the paradox against the backdrop of the Romantic era, when science was, as portrayed in the novel, was somewhat unnatural, and considered an alienation from Nature-both within and without. Beginning with Robert Walton’s letters to his sister, which provides us an insight into his character as well, which precedes Conrad’s The Secret Sharer in his search for an “other” in “the company of a man who could sympathize with me, whose eyes would reply to mine”. The idea is essentially Romantic and Modern where the Self seems to be quantified by the sympathy and compassion of an Other. We see the same feeling reiterated in Frankenstein’s monster speech when he attempts to justify that “My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor, and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal”. Religion is momentous in Frankenstein. The narrative abounds in Biblical references as well as heathen allusions. Other than the conundrum of the Creator and the Created, it is imperative to note that not unlike the fallen angel Lucifer who rebels against God, the “monster” considers Frankenstein his “archenemy “for whom he swears “inextinguishable hatred” as he identifies himself with Satan- “I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me. The fire equation can also be linked to the fact that the narrative is subtitled “the Modern Prometheus”, and the inextinguishable fire-like disposition what fuels the quest is appropriated with Prometheus’ stealing of fire from the heavens. The idea of the “Orient” and its mysteries are reiterated throughout the novel, giving us an insight into the Romantic imagination with respect to the other worlds, so to say, which is not necessarily heathen but different and exotic. Obstinately linked with the idea of the “Orient” is the desire to fit in. Frankenstein’s monster resolves “at least, not to despair but in every way to fit myself in for an interview with them which would decide my faith”. Intermingled with the idea of the fitting in is the idea of society, which disparages difference. The monster’s face “wrinkled into contortions too horrible for human eyes to behold” is “shunned and hated by all mankind” because of his hideous appearance. Society abhors him and by the end of his narrative, he avows that “he abhors society” too. The idea of “monstrosity” which I intend to explicate with reference to these contexts is born out of the idea of the “unnatural”. The other-worldly, the hideous, the fiend, the devil- all these are ideas of distortions. There is a subtle hint of the use of electricity in the creation of the “monster” which further heightens the idea of the unnatural, and therefore monstrous.

International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT)

The term “Other” is popular in cultural and literary studies. Edward Said proposed the idea of “the Other” in his work Orientalism (1978) . Othering is the occurrence in which some groups or individuals are labelled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. They are excluded and discriminated to be ‘the other’. The concept of the “Other” can be found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein . The creature is excluded by his representation as inhuman throughout the novel. The novel shows how society alienates anyone who does not suit its taste. By studying the creature’s appearance, the language and the creature’s interaction with other characters it can be understood how Victor Frankenstein’s creation is alienated and is denied the status of a human being. This paper focuses on the concept of the “Other” originally as the part of a post -colonial theory. This paper will analyse the idea of the “Other” within Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein particularly in regards to the character of the creature.

Affonso kristeva

Beast and the Beast: A deconstruction of​ Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Joniya Byngi Gadson

The purpose of this research paper is to examine the role of name omission in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and its contribution to the complexity of the novel's central creation and the relationship between the creator, Viktor Frankenstein, and his creation. The paper will analyze various instances of name omission in the novel, including the creature's lack of a name and Viktor's avoidance of naming his creation. By exploring the reasons behind these omissions, such as societal norms and implications, this paper will argue that the absence of a name adds to the ambiguity and mystery surrounding the creature's identity and purpose, highlighting the tension between Viktor and his creation. Additionally, the paper will examine the impact of the name omission on the power dynamic between Viktor and the creature, emphasizing how the creature's lack of a name deprives it of agency and autonomy while reinforcing Viktor's status as the dominant figure in the relationship. Overall, this paper will offer a nuanced analysis of the role of name omission in Frankenstein, highlighting its contribution to the novel's thematic complexity and shedding light on the intricate dynamics between Viktor and his creation.

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH

Kunal Debnath

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein (1818), we find several dichotomies: culture/nature, self/other, ego/id, male/female et cetera. In the novel, Victor is a scientist who wants to inject life into inanimate objects and thereby become a creator, a god. As science is an element of culture, Victor is associated with culture. But he represents the darker side of culture: scientism misused as fantasy. On the other hand, the creature is associated with nature. Though Victor infuses life into the monster through a scientific experiment, the monster is still a nature’s child as he is brought up in the midst of wild natural landscape. In the novel, we find that ‘male’ science (as a part of culture), in the person of Victor, penetrates “into the recesses of nature” (Shelley, 1818).

Génesis Andrade Arancibia

Lee Johnson

Självständigt arbete på grundnivå (kandidatexamen), 15 hp

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley and the characters within, tell a prominent story of the posthuman condition in a society where humanist thought is the only conception of subjectivity. The use of not only posthuman studies, but more specifically studies including subjectivity was needed, in order to analyse the relationship between the humanist and the posthuman subjects. Theories of posthuman subjectivity and subjectivity by Rosi Braidotti and Michel Foucault were used in order to examine the posthuman condition of “Frankenstein’s monster” and the role of humanist vs. posthuman subjectivity between Victor Frankenstein and the monster. The tension between Victor and the monster was analysed in order to investigate the monster’s struggle at acquiring subjectivity in a posthuman state, which revealed why it is impossible for the humanist and posthuman subject to peacefully coexist.

Sara Kosmajac

RELATED PAPERS

Rogério Sobreira

Revista Ciência Agronômica

José Valmir Feitosa

SHAILESH KOKATE

magally briceno

hadi setiawan

Antonija Milišić

Mark Davison

P. P R A V E E N KUMAR

Intermetallics

Małgorzata Lizer

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Seyed Mohammad Hashemi

Sören Wulff

Chemical communications (Cambridge, England)

Bas Pieters

Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics

Andrea Cobb

Maria Francesca Freda

Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing

Luis Torres

stefano canitano

Journal of Civic Education

Muhammad Muzzamil

Evgeniya Yugay

Bodvar Vandvik

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Parth Patel

Jurnal Penelitian dan Karya Ilmiah Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Trisakti

Nurhikmah B Hartanti

Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi

Radka Vaníčková , Stanislav Bílek

Journal of Economic Entomology

Daniel Miranda

InTech eBooks

Stephen Nwanya

PPT Penyusunan Anggaran Penjualan_Ari Febryanto_C0C023032

Ari Febryanto

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

2 The Politics of Monstrosity

• Published: June 1990
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

For the reader of Mary Shelley's novel, there is some uncertainty whether best to define the being created by Victor Frankenstein as ‘monster’, ‘wretch’, ‘daemon’, ‘creature’, or ‘fiend’. The myth, however, has evolved a consensus that the unnamed hominoid deserves at least the name of ‘the monster’. In modern usage, ‘monster’ means something frighteningly unnatural or of huge dimensions. However, in earlier usages, which persist into the nineteenth century, the word carries further connotations essential to the development of the Frankenstein myth, the essence of which is that they are not physiological, but moral in their reference. This moral sense of monstrosity is very common in Renaissance literature generally. In these uses, monstrosity is employed not just as an intensifier, highlighting the degree or extent of the vice, but as a special kind of superlative that indicates that the particular case has revealed the essence of the vice in question, and can be displayed as its very model and type.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• KS2 English
• Study Guides
• Practice Tests
• Rapid Revision
• YN+ Digital

This website uses Cookies

A Level Study Notes and Revision Guides

Frankenstein: as & a2 york notes, mary shelley, critical debates, rethinking frankenstein, monstrosity.

There has been a significant reassessment of Frankenstein since about 1990. New readings have stressed the significance of particular social and economic conditions to our interpretation of the text. By looking at various rewritings and reworkings of the Frankenstein myth, from films to cereal boxes to electricity advertisements, critics have examined the ever-changing significance of the monster and the changing cultural anxieties which he is adapted to embody. For many of the most recent critics, the text itself is 'monstrous', calling into question traditional values and comfortable categories. The idea of 'monstrosity' itself forms a key issue in Fred Botting's Making Monstrous: Frankenstein, Criticism, Theory (1991) which engages with both the text of Frankenstein and the criticism that has attempted to identify and fix the text's significance. Monstrosity is also a question with which a number of other critics engage in the essays Botting edited for the 1995 Macmillan New Casebook on Frankenstein . The question of whether Frankenstein is a 'minor' novel is no longer of any concern. This collection brings together many influential recent readings and, while the essays are often challenging, is a useful way for students to familiarise themselves with the various contemporary critical approaches to the novel.

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• English Literature
• Prose Fiction
• Mary Shelley

How does Shelley present the idea of Monsters and Monstrosity in Frankenstein?

Monster [mon-ster]: 1) a person who excites horror by wickedness or cruelty 2) any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behaviour, or character.

The most common definition of a ‘monster’ is that of an animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behaviour, or character, yet the term could also relate to a person who excites horror by wickedness or cruelty; these terms are both applied within the novel, ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley. Possibly the most obvious links are: the first definition to the creation, commonly perceived as the ‘monster’, and the second to the creator himself, Victor Frankenstein. Her strong literary background having two established authors as parents, leading her to be deeply involved in Romantic/Gothic literature, heavily influenced Shelley’s works. Most notably in the novel she inherits themes from ‘Paradise Lost’ by John Milton. This was her inspiration to write the dark and twisted tale of ‘Frankenstein’.

        In the novel the way monsters and monstrosity are depicted are through the descriptions of the characters. Doctor Frankenstein is described using unusual and inhuman adjectives. For example, ‘My cheek and grown pale’ and ‘my person had become emaciated’. Pale is a word that we would refer to ill, or unwell, or even to that of death. This suggests slightly inhuman features of Victor, with the word ‘emaciated’ suggesting shrunken and weak, emphasizing the imagery of death. Frankenstein conceals himself away and does not function with society as he states in his own narrative ‘I shunned my fellow creatures’. As human beings are social beings, who enjoy the company of others, it is unusual to ‘shun’ others; hence it is arguable that Frankenstein is being inhuman and in turn, more monstrous. This phrase also suggests that Frankenstein has accepted his animalistic tendencies through the use of the word ‘creatures’.

The way the creation is presented in the novel also portrays a sense of monstrosity as he is described as ‘yellow skin’, ‘horrid… water eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set’, ‘ black lips’ and ‘shrivelled complexion’. These description are all not related to ‘normal’ human features therefore presenting the image of inhumanity and therefore beastly and monstrous. These descriptions are further emphasised as they are placed juxtaposed in the text to that of ‘pearly white’ and ‘lustrous black’ which can be seen as more human and attractive features so therefore contrasting to the previous description making them stand out more. The overall effect of Shelley’s description displays a picture of inhumanity, as these are not features of a normal being emphasised through the contrasting portrayal.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another way Shelley presents the idea of monstrosity it the way the creation committed deadly sin (quite literally). The killings of the innocent (Elizabeth and Henry) were, in his mind a justified act of revenge but under the strict Christian views at the time (age of enlightenment), this would have been highly punishable. The creation’s want for revenge was justifiable to a certain extent, but to the point of murder, it was not.  This makes the creature look extreme and intimidating and therefore betraying what we would consider, a sense of monstrosity.  Furthermore the creature’s killing of its creator, therefore some would say its ‘God’ (Frankenstein) shows a sense of heresy and trying to be above God. This can be considered a monstrous act.

        However, Frankenstein also displays this kind of monstrosity when he creates the creation of a second but female ‘monster’ to accompany the original creation. But he changes his mind about this second creation and rips it apart. This is a metaphor for that of abortion of a human child in the womb, as it is still potentially a life, but it is cut short suggesting ethical imbalance. This point can also be made about Victor’s metaphorical ‘giving birth’ to the first creature and then being disgusted at what it is and abandoning resulting in much of the novel’s storyline. The act of abandoning ones own child at birth is an almost unthinkable act for a human to do therefore further presenting the idea that Victor did not behave in the way of how a human being normally would but instead behaved with the characteristics of a monster.

        Another way the creation is displayed as monstrous is from the night it was created, using pathetic fallacy. Firstly just the fact that it was night, suggests darkness and mystery about the creature. Also it happens in the month of November, which is a winter month and often perceived as cold and dark. Furthermore ‘the rain pattered dismally against the panes’ implicates an unpleasant setting creating the idea of an unpleasant action to the reader. The creature is made to seem more monstrous from this as he is ‘born’ out of a dark, cold and dreary atmosphere.  This imagery is typical of the Gothic genre, which was popular at the time, which often involved stories of monsters.

        In contrast to this, the author uses the creation’s narrative viewpoint to create a feeling of guilt in the reader. Throughout the novel, the creation is constantly being puerile and like a child, with helpless characteristics, ‘I felt cold also, and half frightened’. This creates sympathy for the creation, and allows the reader to start understanding, that even though the creature had been perceived as ‘evil’ and ‘monstrous’, he is actually quite innocent and the reader does not truly know about the creation. Shelley created the character of the creature to be a ‘monstrosity’ in the way he looks because she wanted the reader to understand that even though the creation is ‘monstrous’ in appearance on first impression, people should put aside their prejudice and not immediately place assumptions on a person, therefore making the reader feel guilt towards the creation.

This is an example of what happened when the De Lacey family first met the creation. The creation grows an attachment to the De Lacey family whilst he watches and ‘studies’ them, which can be seen as a human characteristic, therefore creating the idea of more human behaviour than monstrous. This made the puerile and naïve situation where the creature finally revealed himself to the De Lacey family, expecting not to be judged for how he looked, he the family had never seen him before and attacked him. But this raises an interesting point, as just before this, the creature enters the home and speaks to the old blind  man, the creation could talk normally without any judgement, because the blind man could not see his face, and the blind man accepted the creature as what he thought was human. Which shows the behind the appearance of the creation, he has very human characteristics and could be perceived as a human if he did not look the way he did. But when the blind man’s relatives came home and the rest of the family saw the monster, the blind man did not prevent the attacks, despite thinking he was a functioning human, until told otherwise.

 This leads to another point that despite being attacked, the creature never retaliates, ‘I could have torn him limb from limb, like a lion rends the antelope.’ But he doesn’t, therefore suggesting that the creation recognises his animalistic features, yet decides not to follow them, juxtaposed to this, Victor does tear his second creation to pieces showing Victor as a monster. Also Felix ‘tore’ the creature from his father’s legs, this again shows an animalistic action in contrast to the creation. Making the creature seem less of a barbaric animal, and more human unlike Victor and Felix who become the opposite, almost suggesting that because the creates looks like a ‘monster’ that it is acceptable to do monstrous things to him. So as inhumane and monstrous things are done around him this then emphasises the creation’s stronger more human characteristics.

Throughout the novel, the creature is related to a child. It does not remember his beginning, just like children cannot remember their birth. He also displays a level of naivety and vulnerability just like that of a child. ‘I was cold, and half frightened’, suggested that the creation is aware of what he is feeling but in a childish way does not know how to combat them. Also, the use of ‘half frightened’ suggests an infant way of speech. The creature also shows childish tendencies as he longs for a family and a parent figure to love and care for him, and therefore teach him social acceptability we know this as in the monsters dialogue he says: ‘No father had watched my infant days, no mother had blessed me with smiles and caresses; or if they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy in which I distinguished nothing’. This shows that the creation is more human than ‘monstrous’ and that in fact the real monster is the person who created, but then did not provide this for him (Frankenstein). This shows that Victor shunned his duties as a parent, to his own ‘child’. Which shows monstrosity, as it is hard to conceive a justifiable explanation for this behaviour in the world we live in. The creature also has a fascination for nature and its surroundings we know this as the creature speaks of ‘…eyes with thankfulness towards the blessed sun, which bestowed such joy upon me.’ This shows the creature’s interest and appreciation of nature, which was common in the romantic era in which Shelley wrote the novel. It shows another human side of the creature and therefore less of a monstrosity. This quote also shows pathetic fallacy, as when the sun is shining the creature is happy and joyous - emphasising the creature’s humanity.

This then makes the point that if the creation had had the guidance and the love and attention, would he have then committed the crimes that he then committed? Where the crimes ultimately Frankenstein’s fault through lack of guidance? The disappearance of a parent figure is something that is present in the natural world that we live in. But this is not so in the human way of live. Thus comparing Victor with that of an animal, and therefore monstrous. But we also are made to think that maybe it is not either the creature or Victor that are the monsters in the novel but society itself. As society and it’s stigma is responsible for Victor’s and the people of the novel’s (De Lacey family and others) reaction towards the creature and therefore its mistreatment.

Overall, Shelley presents the ideas of monsters and monstrosity in a controversial way, as rather than agreeing with the almost puerile conception that a monster is based on a being’s hideous appearance, she diversifies this, showing that the more actual human and accountable, Victor Frankenstein. Can be more monstrous than the creation, simply through the choice and actions that he makes. Therefore its actions and not its exterior define the level of monstrosity within a being. Shelley also portrays the idea of monstrosity through blaming society and its stereotypical views that lead to the ill-treatment of beings.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay.

Quality of writing

The structure here is great. There is a clear introduction which engages with the terms in the question, and then a coherent conclusion which weaves together the main points. Each paragraph adds something new, and the signposts are always relevant to the question and concise. The style here makes for a convincing argument, as ideas flow from each other with phrases such as "therefore" and "hence" being used. Spelling, punctuation and grammar are faultless. An essay to be admired!

Level of analysis

The analysis here is strong, as there is a clear focus on the techniques' effects rather than simply stating they are evident. For example when looking closely at the creation scene the choice of words is analysed well, and then the statement "the overall effect of Shelley’s description displays a picture of inhumanity" is made. These sort of comments are the ones examiners are looking for, as they want to see how techniques shape meanings rather than read essays simply feature spotting. If I were writing this essay, I would've taken this point further to discuss how this inhumanity affects the reader's perception of both the creature and Frankenstein. This essay's strengths lie with its breadth of points. Many essays at GCSE keep the analysis to a micro level, looking at language alone. However, this essay looks at structure and narrative viewpoint. This paragraph is particularly sophisticated, looking at the guilt evoked in the reader. I liked how this essay refers to Shelley's constructions, saying "Shelley presents the ideas as violent" rather than "the scene is violent". This enables the examiner to see the candidate has a clear understanding of Shelley constructing the novel for a purpose, and this naturally forces you when writing to discuss techniques more deeply.

Response to question

This essay responds superbly to the task. I liked how the argument was made clear in the introduction, looking closely at the definition and connotations of monsters and monstrosity. This task allows the writer to engage with the discussion of whether the creature is the monster, or Dr. Frankenstein himself. This sort of insight and perceptive debate will gain credit from the examiners, as it is going beyond simply answering the question by looking at techniques.

Document Details

• Word Count 1885
• Page Count 3
• Subject English

Related Essays

How does Mary Shelley present the creature in "Frankenstein"?

With Relation to social/historical context, how does Mary Shelley explore t...

Explore Mary Shelley's attitude to Monstrosity in 'Frankenstein' through a...

Looking at the monsters tale in 'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelley-Discussing h...

Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Essay

Introduction.

The main character of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was sure regarding his uniqueness: “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (42). The reason is that Viktor Frankenstein was a young scientist obsessed with the idea of creating a unique living creature by referring to science and alchemy.

Still, he cannot love this monstrous human being, and this fact leads to disastrous consequences (Cengage Learning 7; Seal 84-86). This novel represents the key characteristics of Romanticism through accentuating isolation from society, the focus on exploring nature, and the freedom of desires and feelings (Chase 165-166; Varner 137-138). Viktor, a Romantic character, chooses alienation as his path in the world that leads him to misery, and he develops as an irresponsible scientist who does not realize his duty.

Alienation in Shelley’s Novel

In Frankenstein, alienation is discussed through the perspective of sorrow and despair for the main characters. Although Viktor was brought up by loving parents, he always wanted to isolate himself from other people to focus on science (Gottlieb 127-129). Viktor states: “I must absent myself from all I loved while thus employed” (Shelley 117).

These words accentuate Viktor’s focus on himself and his desires that later determine his path, leading to more obsession with science and creating a new living being, as well as to more alienation while being locked in his laboratory and conducting experiments. Viktor’s alienation further leads him to despair because of creating the monster, but Frankenstein’s creature also suffers from isolation because he cannot be opened to society and accepted by it (Nesvet 348).

His first experience of interacting with people is described the following way: “The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me” (Shelley 83). The creature that wants to be loved faces the cruelty of the world that makes him become even more alienated and concentrated on revenge.

Responsibility in Frankenstein

In addition to making him and his creature be isolated, Viktor does not accept the idea of duty and responsibility for his actions because of his inability to understand what it means to be responsible for the creation. Being focused on a scientific aspect of creating, Viktor ignores his duty as a creator and a “father” (Bloom 22; Halpern et al. 50; Nair 78). As a result, the creature is forced to ask: “How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind” (Shelley 78). In this context, Viktor understands his duty only after his creature’s words.

However, he still does not accept his responsibility as a “father” because he cannot love his “child.” Thus, the creature states, “Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us” (Shelley 78). From this perspective, it is possible to note that Viktor is unable to take responsibility for his actions and perform his duties as both a scientist and a creator despite his ambition.

Alienation and the lack of responsibility regarding the scientist’s actions for society can be viewed as partially related to the modern world. On the one hand, the isolation of a scientist today cannot lead him to impressive results, but this characteristic is typical of Romanticism. On the other hand, modern scientists change the world, and they need to be responsible for their actions. Therefore, the ideas stated by Shelley in the novel should be reconsidered from the perspective of the modern world.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Infobase Learning, 2013.

Cengage Learning. A Study Guide for Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. Gale/Cengage Learning, 2015.

Chase, Cynthia. Romanticism. Routledge, 2014.

Gottlieb, Evan, editor. Global Romanticism: Origins, Orientations, and Engagements, 1760–1820. Bucknell University Press, 2014.

Halpern, Megan K., et al. “Stitching Together Creativity and Responsibility: Interpreting Frankenstein across Disciplines.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 36, no. 1, 2016, pp. 49-57.

Nair, Lekshmi R. “Playing God: Robin Cook’s ‘Mutation’ as a Reworking of the Frankenstein Theme of the Creator Pitted against the Creation.” Writers Editors Critics, vol. 6, no. 2, 2016, pp. 77-82.

Nesvet, Rebecca. “Review: Frankenstein: Text and Mythos.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 45, no. 2, 2018, pp. 347-351.

Seal, Jon. GCSE English Literature for AQA Frankenstein Student Book. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Diversion Books, 2015.

Varner, Paul. Historical Dictionary of Romanticism in Literature. Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.

• Plot Summary
• Summary & Analysis
• Literary Devices & Symbols
• Essay Samples
• Essay Topics
• Questions & Answers
• Mary Shelley: Biography
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, August 21). Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. https://ivypanda.com/essays/loneliness-isolation-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein/

"Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." IvyPanda , 21 Aug. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/loneliness-isolation-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein'. 21 August.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." August 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/loneliness-isolation-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein/.

1. IvyPanda . "Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." August 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/loneliness-isolation-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Loneliness & Isolation in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." August 21, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/loneliness-isolation-in-mary-shelleys-frankenstein/.

• Viktor Bout: Career in Illegal Arms Trafficking
• The Novel “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley
• Comparison of Jean-Paul Sartre's and Viktor Frankl's Theories
• "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl
• Political Protest for Change
• The Effects of 1917 Russian Revolution on the 20th Century Music
• Fashion as the Avatar of an Avant-garde
• Ethics as a Theme in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• "Pictures at an Exhibition" by Modest Mussorgsky
• Studying of History of Russia: Reflection
• Frankenstein: The Theme of Birth
• Frankenstein & the Context of Enlightenment
• Frankenstein: Novel & Movie Comparison
• Homosexuality in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Responsibility as a Theme in Frankenstein

Monstrosity In Frankenstein

This sample essay on Monstrosity In Frankenstein offers an extensive list of facts and arguments related to it. The essay’s introduction, body paragraphs, and the conclusion are provided below.

Montrosity is a key in Frankenstein. and it affects both the Creature and Victor. whilst at the same clip. Shelley argues that society is monstrous through unfairnesss of the clip and the societal conventions. Frankenstein could be said to be the monster himself- when he says “miserable monster” whom “I had created” .

we see Shelley implicitly suggest. through the alliterative phrase. that merely as “Adam was created in God’s image” so excessively was the Creature born in the image of Victor. Furthermore. the thought that Frankenstein is himself the monster is reinforced by “or instead cell” . “Cell” refers to a prison cell. and is used symbolically to stand for the thought that merely like a cell is for felons. who perform Acts of the Apostless of monstrousity. so to is Frankenstein the “criminal” perpetrating an act of “monstrosity” .

On the other manus. we could reason that it was non so much the act of creative activity that was monstrous. but instead Frankenstein’s reaction. By composing “I ran out of the room” we see Victor execute the ultimate rejection. and hence. eschewing the responsibilty that exists in the double star between “Parent” and “Child”- as John McRae argued.

Who Is The Monster In Frankenstein Essay

It is interesting to observe that Frankenstein rejects the monster because of an unconditioned selfishness- “the beauty of the dream vanished” implies that Frankenstein’s physical construct does non equal that of his mental construct.

Proficient in: Books

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

and that because Frankenstein’s program are in confusion. his rational scientific methods- “I selected…in proportion” show this- are replaced by emotional responses ; which for him. is territory unknown- in the same manner Walton seeks to “ascertain the secrets” or how the Animal wants to understand human behavior at the De Lacy’s. Therefore. we see a connexion between Victor and the Creature- whom he describes as “miserbale monster” .

Furthermore. the fact that Frankenstein can merely react to the Creature’s birth in empirical. scientific observations- “pearly white dentitions. dull eyes”- constrasts with Elizabeth’s response to William’s death- “O I have murdered my child” . By portraying Elizabeth in a positive light- she forms an emotional response. which juxtaposes with the unfertile feelings of Frankenstein at the construct of the Creatue. Shelley implies that adult females present a greater grade of humanity- and therefore criticises the male dominated society on education- whilst they may read “Shakespeare” and “Agrippa” . adult females will be worldly-wise. ( no uncertainty influence by her feminist female parent ) and that they are necessary to forestall freaks.

This thought of the female function is reinforced by the fact that as the novel progresses. the adult females are easy being removed- first his Mother. so Justine and so Elizabeth- “I saw Elizabeth…held the cadaver of my dead mother” . This presents Frankenstein’s mental degregation and finally. the ctalyst for the mosntrous act- so Shelley presents the thought of a duality between adult male and women- Darwin supported this by proposing the hierachy of reproducion- adult male and adult female is better than adult male entirely. However. it could besides be argued that Frankenstein’s scenes augment his monstrousity- we see a sense of isolation- “solitude” is repeated. connoting that by enforcing self-exile. Frankenstein detaches himself from society and its regulations and that he has become an “outsider” ( McCrae ) – much as the monstrousity that Victor calls the Creature. is besides an foreigner.

Indeed the connexion between the two is best examined by the Shelley usage of the mountain-top- “Chamonuix. where I saw him”- which alludes to the thought of the Creator and Creation meeting ( Hayward ) . both as equal. with both. arguably as montrous. Victor for abondoning the Creature. and the Creature ( for Victor ) a representation fo his failure. By utilizing “Solitude and “ Filthy Workshop of Creation” . Shelley implies that this isolation leads to ideas of monstrousity- Godwin influecned her argiung it “was a nusery of madmen” . This separation from society is symbolic excessively. If Geneva is “Eden” . so by widening against the bounds of knowledge-“if no adult male broke the rules” suggests no remorse- he cut himself off. much like Lucifer in Paradise Lost- and therefore. Shelley implies that this interior monster within Frankenstein and all of us. can merely be restrained by a balance- whether. male or female. or equal Torahs.

The thought that the monstrousity is within Frankenstein ( and hence us ) is suggested by “wildness in his eyes”- he claims the Animal to be “wild” . but if the eyes are “windows to the sould” . Shelley suggests and unconditioned montrosity in him ( and us ) ; an “id” that is the animal desires. This contrasts the thought of the Monster’s “dull eyes”- which challenges the thought that the Creature is the monstrosity- this challenge is the ground why Shelley uses the Chinese Box Narrative- the assorted “narritve eyes” makes us explicate our ain opinion. In fact. the Moster. may be the most human of us all- he “imitates the physiognamy and manners” in the same manner that Justine did. yet both are treated below the belt.

This thought of an unjust intervention alludes to Shelley’s belief that monstorusity exists in society- so whilst we can state it was Victor’s nature to be monstorus ( and that society placed bounds to forestall this ) . the nurturing of him within society is what leads to the freak arguably. In the instance of the Justine. the sarcasm is that she is treated “un-JUSTlY” reverse to her name- which possibly could be Shelley’s sly mention to her desire for female eqaulity ( influenced by Wollstencraft –the women’s rightist motehr ) – a name is afforded to all. and Justine’s name contain’s justice- therefore. when she “is found guilty”- there is a trangression of nature. in the same manner that Frankenstein transgresses nature by making life.

This presents the thought that society is excessively speedy to judge- merely as Frankenstein believes “seemingly to catch me” . Justine is rapidly found guilty- regardless of Elizabeth’s plea- no admiration Shelley nowadays s the jurisprudence in such a negative light- “judge…meddle in the dark side of human nature” . because it is flawed and makes roseola determinations. Therefore. we see Shelley see society as the monster. To reason. freak is pervades throughout the novel. impacting all characters and being influenced by puting and society. Yet. in the same manner that the Creature was Frankenstein’s creative activity. the novel coould be seen as her monster-shunned by contempories but exposing the reatiy of freak within us all.

Cite this page

Monstrosity In Frankenstein. (2019, Dec 06). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/

"Monstrosity In Frankenstein." PaperAp.com , 6 Dec 2019, https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/

PaperAp.com. (2019). Monstrosity In Frankenstein . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/ [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2024]

"Monstrosity In Frankenstein." PaperAp.com, Dec 06, 2019. Accessed April 13, 2024. https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/

"Monstrosity In Frankenstein," PaperAp.com , 06-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/. [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2019). Monstrosity In Frankenstein . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-explore-the-theme-of-monstrosity-in-frankenstein-essay/ [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

• Frankenstein And Edward Scissorhands Pages: 2 (313 words)
• Injustice In Frankenstein Pages: 3 (633 words)
• Frankenstein Literary Analysis Pages: 2 (329 words)
• James Whale's and Kenneth Branagh's “Frankenstein” Pages: 2 (386 words)
• Mary Shelley's Description Of Frankenstein Pages: 3 (677 words)
• Victor Frankenstein Personality Pages: 3 (719 words)
• Frankenstein And His Monster Pages: 4 (910 words)
• "Frankenstein" and its connection with society today Pages: 3 (840 words)
• Frankenstein Literary Analysis Essay Pages: 2 (350 words)
• Frankenstein Pov: Narrative Perspective Shifts Pages: 4 (1038 words)

How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?

Introduction.

Monstrosity simply is defined as an object of great and often frightening size, force, or complexity. However, monstrosity can also be represented by one’s qualities, characteristics, and actions. Throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, monstrosity is a prominent theme that greatly affects both Victor and his monster. Judging from the way the author portrays a monster, it is clearly evident, that a monster is a frightening object, which is completely different from human beings, and it is also more powerful. The author portrays Victor, and the monster as two characters who have similar characteristics which may frighten human beings. In addition, through vivid description, the author manages to show the evil side of Victor and the monster. Victor is consequently similar to the monster, in the sense that they have similar character traits, which include unnatural, hostility, and selfish. This makes his family members to be disconnected from him. Due to that reason, this paper will consequently analyze the representation of Monstrosity in the novel.

Monstrosity of Victor

Victor is a monster, in the sense that he exhibits characteristics which define a monster. Among these characteristics include the following: unnatural, hostility, and selfish. Victor feels he misses something, a factor which makes him to create a creature which can be an answer to whatever he misses. Through his monstrous behavior he creates a creature which has a yellow skin and is barely covered the work of muscles, and the arteries. The beings hair is lustrous black, with pearl white teeth and however, this opulence’s only created a more despicable contrast with his watery eyes, and straight black lips. Similarly, through what he says, it is clearly evident that Victor is monstrous. For instance, he speaks of how he could have with pleasure, destroyed the cottage together with its inhabitants, “Cursed, cursed creator! Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? I know not; despair had not yet taken possession of me; my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitant and have glutted myself… (Shelley, 26).” This quote explains how inhuman and hostile Victor is, to the point whereby he wishes he could have destroyed the cottage with inhabitants in it. Similarly, Victor is hostile towards others, a trait which monsters possess. He is hostile toward the being which he created making him abandon the creature, after realizing that he could not endure the aspect of the creature he had created. Finally, he is selfish in the sense that he creates a being, in order to gain fame, he does not therefore care about others, how they feel, and how they think, and he is merely concerned with his own fame.

Monstrosity of the Monster

The monster is monstrous through the way he has been created. As a matter of fact, his looks are frightening, to the point whereby he frightens Victor, who was his actual creator. He had yellow skin, which barely covered the exertion of muscles and arteries beneath. From this description, it is obvious, that the monster was frightening, with its outer look which appeared as an evil being which can only be compared to a devil. In addition, it is not only Victor who is frightened of the monster, because the gentle family which he had been spying on in the forest are frightened immediately after seeing the monster. Immediately Agatha sees the creature, she faints, whereas Felix who is also terrified beats the monster with a stick. On the other hand, Walton, who knows the story behind the monster, cannot be able to deal with the situation when he sees the monster, “Never did I behold a vision so horrible as his face, I shut my eyes involuntarily, (Shelley, 226)” said Victor. This therefore explains how frightening the creature was, to the point of terrifying anyone who laid eyes on him. The monster was basically monstrous, from the look of his face, the way he had been created, suggested more, about the monstrosity of the creature. The author has therefore been able to portray how monstrous the monster is to the readers, through showing how his body looked like, thus frightening anyone who came across the monster, including Victor who took part in creating the monster. Finally, through the way the monster behaves, to the point of killing William, it becomes apparent, that the creature Victor created was actually a monster, since monsters do not relate well with people, thus, he ended up killing William, because he does not see the value of human life.

Juxtaposition of Victor and the Monster’s monstrosity.

Victor and the monster are related in the sense that they have similar characteristics. Just as Victor, the Monster is selfish, cruel and hostile, and unnatural. The way Victor relates with other people makes him monstrous, because he cannot relate with people in a good way, thus making him to have no friends (Shelley, 141). This is also similar to the monster, even though the monster is not an actual creature, he is hostile in nature. This hostility makes Victor to run away from him, because Victor of how cruel the monster is, hence Victor cannot put up with his cruelty, and so Victor opts to run away, in order to protect himself from the monster’s cruelty. Furthermore, the monster is selfish, in the sense that he does not care about the wellbeing of other people, and that is why he ends up killing William. The same is applicable to Victor, since he is selfish, and is only concerned with his interests, henceforth he does not care about the way other people suffer from what he has done.

Victor also gives in to the monster’s plea of creating a female monster, in order to make the male monster to have a companion. After creating the female monster, he selfishly changes his mind, and destroys it, and dumps it in the lake, after which he is accused of murder. In this scenario, Victor did not care about the monster, and so he did not see the need of creating a companion for the monster, hereafter he ended up destroying the monster and throwing it in the lake (Shelley, 120). Finally, both Victor and the monster are unnatural simply because, they possess monstrous behaviors, a factor which makes people to run away from them, henceforward, making them to remain lonely. Victor’s character is inhuman, a factor which makes most people to separate themselves from him, making him to have no friends. This is similar to the monster, whose appearance alone, qualifies to send people away from him, including Victor who created him.

Further Support of Monstrosity

“However, some of the most terrifying monsters are those with primarily human attributes. They emphasize similarity between monstrous and the human, and thus they comment on the behaviors of humankind. The manticore, with the body of a lion, tail of a scorpion, and head of a man, was known for its brutally sharp teeth and voracious appetite; the minotaur, part bull and part man, for its violence; and harpies, with the bodies of vultures and the faces of women, for their cruelty (Cooper, 4).”

“The monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment-of a time, a feeling and a place. The monster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy (ataractic or incendiary), giving them life and uncanny independence (Cohen, 12).”

Shelley’s purpose of writing the novel was to explain, how human beings create obstacles in their own lives, which tend to affect them. In so doing, they end up blaming it on other people, when they themselves are the actual creators of such obstacles, after which they run away from such obstacles. This obstacle was the monster in the novel, which was created by Victor, and ended up running away from it. Secondly, the themes reflect her period, in the sense that they explain and portray what was actually happening during her period, and the beliefs which people had during that period. Thirdly, the themes explain how Shelley’s society was made up of people who determined to change the society, however, when things went contrary to their plans, they ended up running away.

In conclusion, the paper has basically discussed monstrosity in both Victor and the monster, where it was clear that Victor and the monster portrayed similar characteristics, which made them to have monstrous behaviors. In addition, the paper has also looked at the juxtaposition of Victor and the monster, and found the two are related, through their behaviors which are, hostility, selfish, and unnatural, factors which makes people to distances themselves from the two. Finally, the paper has offered support from other sources, regarding the perception of the society regarding the monster, and the reasons as to why the author wrote the story.

Cite this page

How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?. (2018, Sep 23). Retrieved from https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/

"How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?." supremestudy.com , 23 Sep 2018, https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/

supremestudy.com. (2018). How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein? . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/ [Accessed: 13 Apr. 2024]

"How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?." supremestudy.com, Sep 23, 2018. Accessed April 13, 2024. https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/

"How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?," supremestudy.com , 23-Sep-2018. [Online]. Available: https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/ . [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

supremestudy.com. (2018). How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein? . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/ [Accessed: 13-Apr-2024]

How Is Monstrosity Represented in Mary Shelley’s Novel, Frankenstein?. (2018, Sep 23). Retrieved April 13, 2024 , from https://supremestudy.com/how-is-monstrosity-represented-in-mary-shelleys-novel-frankenstein/

This paper was written and submitted by a fellow student

Our verified experts write your 100% original paper on any topic

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.

Please check your inbox

Sorry, copying content is not allowed on this website

Please indicate where to send you the sample.

Monstrosity In Frankenstein Research Paper

Jordanna Calderhead Mrs. Riordan AP Lit & Comp 26 February 2024 The Monster in the Mirror: How Mary Shelley Defines Monstrosity in Frankenstein In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, Shelley uses the novel’s two main characters to suggest that we might be more “monstrous” than we think — and that we could even be surrounded by “monsters” all the time. When Frankenstein, an eager scientist, discovers how to spark life, he decides to fashion his own living creature from dismembered body parts in hopes of new discoveries and research, yet contrary to his expectations, this creation turns out to be a hideous monster who craves vengeance for the way others have treated him, causing Frankenstein to flee while the “Monster” destroys everyone he loves. …show more content…

No male creature, it seems, should be without the option of a female counterpart, and the pain it causes him seems to at least momentarily excuse or explain any number of bad acts” (186). He goes on to say, “The creature’s planned fate both derives from and seeks to preserve his singularity, an inescapable and absolute condition of being that has given him great pain” (187). It might be the case that these unfair and unfortunate conditions that are set against the Monster provide him with a sort of excuse, because there is actually evidence for his humanity being stronger than his monstrosity. A great deal of the Monster’s treatment appears to be solely based on his appearance, which gives the illusion that he should be considered inhuman, when really it is not so. Matthew notices this unequal treatment in the case of the DeLaceys by noting that “The question [the monster] asks as he anxiously wonders how he will be received by the family is one for all of society: ‘Could they turn from their door one, however monstrous, who solicited their compassion and friendship?’”

More about Monstrosity In Frankenstein Research Paper

Emilie Nilsson

You are free to order a full plagiarism PDF report while placing the order or afterwards by contacting our Customer Support Team.

Check your email inbox for instructions from us on how to reset your password.

Finished Papers

Examples Of Monstrosity In Frankenstein

The Monstrosity of Victor Does an unpleasant appearance determine a monster, is it one with evil characteristics, or is a monster shaped by people's predetermined standard of beauty? Mike Wazowski in the well known Disney film Monsters, Inc., is described as a monster because of his green, one eyed body. Despite this, Mike is depicted as a friendly, kind-hearted character with his monstrosity defined by his appearance not his traits or actions. Contradicting the character of Mike Wazowski, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein details the story of a scientist named Victor who abandons the creature he created based on his lack of ability to conform to societal standards of beauty. In Mary Shelley's tragic novel Frankenstein, she portrays Victor Frankenstein as a monster as he …show more content…

The Creature’s emotional struggles ultimately trace back to the result of Victor’s neglect and abandonment, as he fails to fulfill his responsibilities of nurturing it. In addition, Victor's utter disregard for the consequences of his actions display his lack of morality and emphasizes the theme of the repercussions of unchecked ambition in Shelley's narrative. Victor begins to describe his interaction with the Creature in the mountains, where he confesses to the murders of William, Justine, and Henry, later describing his plans for revenge. Victor states, “I should almost regard him as invincible; and that when [the Creature] had pronounced the words, ‘I shall be with you on your wedding night,’ I should regard the threatened fate as unavoidable”(143). By Victor saying that he should regard the Creature “as invincible”, Victor realizes the extreme strength and capability of the Creature but still fails to acknowledge his responsibility for the Creature's

academic works concerning Mary Shelley's Frankenstein As Helena Feder has stated in her essay, "“A Blot upon the Earth”: Nature’s“Negative” and the Production of Monstrosity in Frankenstein", discourse on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein ”continues to reach staggering proportions” (Feder 56). The website of the Department of English in University of Pennsylvania (http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/) alone offers two hundred and nine academic articles on Frankenstein from the monster's vegetarian diet

The Cause of Monstrosity as seen in Metamorphosis and Frankanstine Monstrosity is something that is outrageously wrong with a person. However, the source of monstrosity is debated, whether it be the result of how one was raised and treated or just something wrong with them. Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, along with examples from outside research, convey the idea of monstrosity being derived from the way they were treated. They both convey the idea that the worse

Monstrosity and Morality In Frankenstein “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus” by Mary Shelley has a broad theme on monstrosity. Victor Frankenstein created a monster and he did this not essentially by creating a monster but rather through his actions and the impressions he gave to the creature after he created it-- “I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created.”. Victor looked at his creation in hatred, disgust and fear, and abandoned it. Throughout

In Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein,” we are introduced to the main characters of the story who are Victor Frankenstein and his creation. Victor’s creation is not only seen as a creature but would be referred to by many as the story’s monster. Although many would assume that the “thing” that had been created by a human is clearly the monster in the story, many would be surprised to find out that the real monster is not what had been put together from the parts of corpses. In this novel, our understanding

Who’s the real monster? Throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, there is a parallel drawn between Victor Frankenstein, and his creature he brought to life. They both demonstrate humanity and monstrosity, and although the creature is the real monster physically, Victor Frankenstein and the creature both show characteristics of monstrosity. They both start off as kind-hearted people, wanting to help others, then society corrupts them both, which leaves them both angry, miserable, and seeking revenge

Frankenstein, By Mary Shelley 's Frankenstein And The Modern Prometheus

Monstrosity in Marry Shelley 's “Frankenstein” Mary Shelley 's “Frankenstein” or “The Modern Prometheus” is an examination of monstrosity in all of its forms. Written during a time in which scientific, political and economical upheaval, the novel depicts mans desire to uncover every secret in the universe, while confirming the importance of the emotions that make us human, instead of monsters. But, what is considered to be a monster? When one thinks of a monster the first thing that comes to mind

Immanuel Kant Sublime In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

this article primarily refers to is, of course, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The philosophy is largely the philosophical ideas of famous philosopher Immanuel Kant, as written in his Critique of Judgment.There are quite a few ideas in this article, but the basis of them all is what Freeman declares her thesis to be, that “ Victor Frankenstein’s Monster is the third [AKA of Judgment] Critique’s heir, and that we are its inheritor.” That Frankenstein is the reply to the ideas of the Kant, and that

Consequences Of Abandonment In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein '

Extracts derived from Letter IV of ‘Frankenstein’ foreshadows the elementary ideas that transpire during the course of the novel. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797-1851) influenced by many, such as husband P.B Shelley, her father, William Goodwin and his friend the Scientist Erasmus Darwin. Considering these people and the context at the time, which influenced Shelley. It’s no surprise theories on Galvanism, Romantic literal movement and its resulting opposition to the industrial revolution, occur

What Is The Similarities Between The Tempest And Frankenstein

fellow trick-or-treaters as he’s dressed as a vampire for Halloween brandishing his pointy teeth with blood dripping out of his mouth. Both of these examples of monsters focus on the physicality of a creature and undermine the weight which the word ‘monster’ actually carries. In Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest, and in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, there are characters that perfectly fit the description of a tangible monster. However, monsters are more than their somatic features. Monsters are

Examples Of Gothic Elements In Frankenstein

Gothic Elements in the Narrative of Frankenstein Gothic Fiction is a genre of literature that incorporates aspects of supernatural horror, mystery, romanticism, and evidently ingenious inscription. The Gothic genre is highly characterized by the setting, characters, motifs, and basic elements that take place in the novel. For instance, the setting of Gothic literature typically portrays the disposition of the narrative and usually depicts the sensations and emotions the reader is experiencing while

Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner

“Frankenstein” composed by Mary Shelley and “Blade Runner” directed by Ridley Scott Propose two of the most paramount science fiction stories as they don’t just pursue the logic of technological futurism but also present us with ideas about our humanity. Catalysed by their powerful contexts, both texts represent their common ideas, themes and values allowing us to fully appreciate their significance which continue to resonate throughout time. Despite being composed at different times, both Frankenstein

The Prejudice of Humanity in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

course not! We would blame the circumstances that led to the cause of the transformation going bad. The same applies to the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. His downfall from virtue to monstrosity is a result of circumstances out of his control: humanity’s prejudice. Because of humanity's prejudice, the creature's virtue transforms into monstrosity. The creature has not always been monstrous. At the beginning of his life, he is virtuous and caring. He feels joy and pleasure at the simple things

Essay about The Function of Monstrosity in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

The Function of Monstrosity in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein 'Frankenstein' is a piece of Gothic literature and was written in the Romantic era. It was published in the 19th Century and was written by Mary Shelley. 'Frankenstein' was considered to be one of the most evil horror stories of its time; it shocked and surprised its readership due the controversial issues that it addressed. It was inconceivable that an author could engage with the idea of creating a being from

Analysis Of Mary Shelley 's ' Frankenstein ' Essay

While research analysts pursue medication for harmful diseases, such as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Tuberculosis, a neglected disease continues to plague millions of individuals: monstrosity. For example, in the United States, political action committees, commonly known as Super PACs, raise unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions, and billionaires to influence political candidates, namely Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. In effect, these “donations” negate preferences

Frankenstein and True Monster

cliché as this popular Hollywood quotation may sound, it is extremely fitting to describe the situation where Dr. Frankenstein finds himself. When one has the ability, knowledge and power to create another living, breathing and thinking piece of flesh, a burden is immediately presented to whomever holds this invaluable control. Will this power be used to create horrible monstrosities that will be a form of destruction on society? Or will this knowledge be used for the betterment of the populace