When reading a piece of literature, it may occur that something about a text captures a reader’s attention, thus making them want to investigate the potential implications surrounding the work’s intention. Indeed, an author may frequently suggest particular themes in their novel that encourage a reader to delve more intently into the message the author wishes to assert. While many texts can create this interest, one in particular draws the reader’s attention in very poignant ways; this novel is Mary Shelley’s famous 19th century thriller, Frankenstein. After reading the text, one begins asking what Shelley wants to say to the reader. Is this a fantastical text meant to simply please the audience, or is there a more significant meaning Shelley wants the reader to consider? Indeed, Shelley raises a series of ethical questions through the actions of the novel’s protagonist, Victor Frankenstein that cannot be ignored. While Shelley writes addressing many areas of ethical importance, this essay will focus upon two of the most notable: this includes the importance of creative responsibility in parent-child relationships and in the world of modern science in general. The claim this author wishes to make therefore, is that by looking at the life of Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein and his creature, and modern society, one can perceive a strong correlation between the underlying ethical questions Shelley raises in her work with problems now seen in today’s contemporary society. In truth, Shelley warns her reader that when humans ignore ethical responsibility, horrific consequences will likely ensue.
Before discussing these ethical concerns within Frankenstein, one should be given a summary of the novel and the context surrounding the work. Essentially, the story involves a young, motherless Victor Frankenstein who leaves his idyllic home in Geneva where his father and adopted sister Elizabeth dwell, in order to study chemistry and natural philosophy at the university in Ingolstadt. After reading the works of Cornelius Agrippa, the sixteenth-century scholar of occult sciences, Victor becomes obsessed with discovering how to create new outside of natural means. Spending endless hours consumed with this endeavor, Victor “abandons his family and friends in attempt to win fame”, though ultimately finding the “cause of generation and life” through “physiological engineering” using electricity (Segal 861). From here, he begins gathering body parts to create his very own creature. Upon success, Victor rejects his creation due to its grotesque deformity and flees its presence. The maddened Frankenstein then becomes ill with guilt and is later told his youngest brother, William, has been murdered. Suspecting the death is due to his monster, he returns home and finds the creature crossing his path, thus confirming his suspicion. With a family friend, Justine, tried and unjustly killed for murder, Victor is again sickened with blame and leaves for the mountains to retreat and recover from the loss. While there, the creature approaches him and tells his tale, requesting he be given a companion out of justice and mercy. Upon serious deliberation and nearly completing the request, Victor ultimately refuses and destroys the female cadaver he produces. Consequently, the creature retaliates and kills those closest to Victor, going so far as to kill Victor’s bride, Elizabeth, on his wedding night, thus leaving him alone and desperate for the rest of his days. Victor, determined to kill his monster, chases him as far as the North Pole until he is rescued by a seaman to whom he tells his tale. There he dies and is then greeted by the creature who grieves over his maker and goes off into the sea to die.
The context surrounding the work is as follows. The year is 1816 and Europe is soon to embark upon the rise of the Industrial revolution. The age of science has driven men to explore aspects of life which have never been attempted. Mary Shelley, age nineteen, and knowledgeable in the areas of literature, philosophy and “familiar with the emerging trends in chemistry and electricity,” is married to the famous poet and secret “mad-scientist” Percy Bysshe Shelley (McCurdy 262). In the summer of that same year, Mary, after recently losing a child, vacations with friends Lord Byron and Dr. Polidori in Geneva, Switzerland where they each discuss composing a “horror story” (Mellor 40). With their lengthy ponderings upon the science of galvanism and the success of a Dr. Erasmus Darwin who made vermicelli move voluntarily, Mary has a frightful dream (Kemp). She describes her “waking” nightmare:
When I placed my head on my pillow, I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw – with shut eyes, but acute mental vision, -- [a pale] student of the unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion (Lienhard).
With this horridly vivid vision deeply impressed upon her mind, Mary begins writing her tale.
However, is there more purpose to her creating this text than to simply compose a fantastic horror story based off her frightening dream? For what reason does she write this work? Is it for creative pleasure, or are there deeper ethical messages she seeks to convey to her reader? When looking at the life of Mary Shelley and the world she lives in, one perceives there is more than purely creative intention for her writing this work. With European scientists like Giovanni Aldini and Andrew Ur trying to “infuse the spark of life into [a] lifeless thing” using electrical currents (Kemp), Shelley recognizes that the attempt to create life from death is not uncommon. Yet, while she knows of these realities, she does not necessarily agree with them. Shelley states, “Frightful it must be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world” (Kemp). In this insightful remark, Shelley warns society of the dire consequences that can result when humans crosses ethical lines, and how without creative responsibility, man can become worse than the “monster” Frankenstein seeks to destroy. With this simple contextual background, one may now look at the ethical implications Shelley addresses.
Reflecting first upon the ethics of parental responsibility in relation to the life of Shelley and her novel, the reader will see how Shelley speaks her position through Victor Frankenstein’s character, warning society to avoid his moral crime. The necessity of parental influence and affection is elemental for children who wish for future happy relationships; this is seen in the life of Shelley. Having lost her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, at birth, Shelley is left to be raised by her father William Godwin, a philosophical revolutionary of his time (Mellor 2). As biographer Anne Mellor comments, “[w]atching the growth of this baby girl into the author of one of the most famous novels ever written…, we can never forget how much her desperate desire for a loving and supportive parent defined her characters, shaped her fantasies, and produced her fictional idealizations of the bourgeois family”(1). The role of the family and the responsibility the parent has towards its child is something that Shelley was well aware of. For when Godwin remarries to Mary Jane Clairmont Godwin, a certain jealousy engenders towards her new stepchild and her relationship with her husband, which she attempts to thwart by “limiting access to the father” (8). Though this divide does not completely separate Godwin from his daughter, it does greatly affect his relationship with her. Being home-schooled, Mary does receive attention from her governess, Louisa Jones, which gives Mary much joy as a young girl (9). Yet, despite Louisa’s fondness, Shelley feels the loss of her father’s affection. Godwin reveals his disinterest for his only biological daughter when he describes her as being “singularly bold, somewhat imperious, and active of mind” (Mellor 13)- descriptions not becoming for a young child.
As author Lisa Nocks relates, Shelley’s parents are the source of Mary’s influence for her later writings that reflect her opinions regarding the need for familial companionship. She explains how Frankenstein, particularly, is a “a source of Mary’s own feelings of abandonment which are attributed to her mother’s death, and to her father’s subsequent marriage” (Nocks 144). After becoming a young woman, having an illegitimate love affair with Percy Shelley, and then escaping the Europe to elope, William Godwin refuses to see his daughter (Claridge 18). From this time forward, their relationship never quite heals, thus impacting Shelley’s perception on this ethical subject.
This ruptured relationship with her father seemingly influences her choice to marry Percy Shelley. For despite Percy being an immoral and uncaring of a man (he abandons his pregnant wife, Harriet Westbrook, to elope with Mary), Mary follows her heart and unfortunately learns the true character of Percy, which later influences her text. For instance, Percy believes in “free and communal love” (Mellor 29) which dramatically impacts Mary’s life and relationship with her husband. For although Mary’s is pregnant, Percy fosters a love affair with Claire, Mary’s stepsister, and furthermore encourages his friend, Thomas Hogg, to have one with Mary against her wishes (30). Additionally, the disinterest Percy expresses to Mary as she grows increasingly irritated with his relationship with Claire while she suffers from the death of her newborn child, shows the lack of discernment Mary possessed in choosing a good man to marry which again, likely results from the lack of familial attention she required from her father. Yet regardless of this fact, Mary sees the necessity for a strong nuclear family with parental involvement, which she then incorporates into her work (32).
With this understanding, one can reflect back upon the novel and see this theme of the importance of parental love and responsibility being transmitted into it. Through the sequence of events Shelley constructs, she clearly represents her beliefs on parental responsibility and the side effects that can ensue when this necessity is denied. In having Victor play the role of the rejecting father, and treating his creation with repulsion and disgust, one can see how Shelley makes her reader aware of the moral evil involved in parental neglect. These implications are noticeable from the first comment Frankenstein makes in recalling the night of the creature’s incarnation. Frankenstein states, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? ... I beheld the wretch—the miserable monster whom I had created (Shelley 34-5). Evidently, these are not words of love and acceptance one expects from a loving parent. Furthermore, Frankenstein does not give his creature a name, but refers to him as “the filthy daemon, to whom I had given life” (Shelley 48). Not to name one’s child is a sign of gross parental rejection and something the creature wrongly suffers because of his unchosen hideous deportment.
When evaluating Frankenstein’s reasoning behind creating this being, they appear thoroughly egocentric and obviously unconcerned about the subject who would suffer the consequences of his maniacal designs. Frankenstein comments, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley 32). Is it any surprise then that a person called a “devil” and a “vile insect” (Shelley 65) by its parent retaliates against humanity, or that they become destructive after being rejected not only by society, but by the very man who created him? Surely, the defense Shelley has the creature give Frankenstein for his malevolent behaviors shows the relationship between Victor’s neglect and his bad actions. The creature pleads
Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other and trample upon
me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection,
is most due. Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam,
but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous. (Shelley 66)
In this exchange, Shelley raises the question, if a person is not wanted by a negligent parent, and knows only violence and rejection, what kind of future can that person have, but to want to cause violence and pain for others? Can they really be blamed? To illustrate how Shelley’s insights concerning the dangers of parental neglect still exist, one can look at current society.
By applying the aforementioned questions to modern society, one can discern how these ethical issues have not only gone away, but moreover support the ethical claims for parental responsibility Shelley makes in her novel. Within the past decades, the crisis involving the need for parents to show love and acceptance towards their children has not only grown significantly, but has also spawned similar tragic consequences within society. In the United States, the rise of child neglect has grown to an astronomical degree. Studies report that in 1994, there were 2.9 million reports of suspected child abuse or neglect (Carter). Interestingly, a study found by the Family Violence Prevention Fund relates that “[e]arly childhood victimization, either through direct abuse [or] neglect… has been shown to have demonstrated long-term consequences for youth violence, adult violent behavior, and other forms of criminality”(Carter). The neglect or direct abuse of children is not something to overlook since modern research shows the strong correlation between neglect/abuse and violent behavior. Interestingly, one characteristic that increases social rebellion in youth is their sense of “community cohesion” (Carter). Thus, while parental abuse can seriously damage a child, so too can community rejection. This is evidenced in Frankenstein when Shelley sees that the creature becomes violent only after society rejects him and Frankenstein’s denies him a helpmate (Nocks 146). The point to emphasize is that people need people that vital sense of belonging, acceptance and love, which allows one to live well and behave suitably within society.
As Psychiatrist Selma Fraiberg writes in her book Every Child’s Birthright, “the unnurtured, the unloved child grows into the aberrant adult—the criminal who seeks to negate his overwhelming sense of nothingness by inflicting pain on others—a scream that ‘I exist, I am’” (Claridge 21). Her insight suggests that had more criminals or juvenile delinquents been given love by their parents, their lives might not have been as wayward. Again, one must remember that the innate need of a child is to be loved. Any person, if they are to survive and function among others, must have these foundational needs met, otherwise the risk for such grave results increases significantly. In relation to Victor, he unfortunately cannot see that his “monster” acts violently due to his “overwhelming sense of despair [from] lacking human connection” (21) which Victor should have provided him. Victor therefore speaks to the point Shelley’s makes regarding the bad parent so to remind her audience of the ethical duties parents have towards their children, and furthermore to warn them of the potential repercussions irresponsible parenting can have if they fail in this regard.
The second major underlying ethical concern Shelley raises in the minds of her readers is that of the place of science within the world and the catastrophic consequences its ethical irresponsibility can have not only on individuals, but on society as a whole. While Shelley was no scholar in the study of science, she did have personal experience with those who dabbled in scientific experiments, which allowed her to see how science can potentially corrupt the minds of people. Her husband, Percy, often experimented with magic and witchcraft, becoming greatly preoccupied with electricity. In fact, Thomas Jefferson Hogg, a personal friend, comments in Percy’s biography that “amongst his other self-sought studies, he was passionately attached to the study of what used to be called the occult sciences, conjointly with that of the new wonders, which chemistry and natural philosophy [physical science] have displayed to us” (34). Interestingly, he is also said to have been Mary’s model for Frankenstein’s character, for he was the man who would “arrogantly use chemistry and electricity to create a monstrosity” (McCurdy 262). Although Mary Shelley marries him, he is not (as already described) the ideal husband, for he was “intense, radical and hotheaded” (262) and can be called the encapsulation of what one critic described as the “aspiration of modern masculine scientists to be technically creative divinities” (262). This image of the scientist making himself a type of “creative divinity” plainly reveals itself in Mary’s work. Having such personal experiences with and witnessing the effects of science (as seen through her husband), it is not surprising that she would address the subject in the novel as she herself observes the effects of this ethical danger.
In examining the text, one reads that when Victor first goes to Ingolstadt, he becomes self-absorbed in his endeavor to discover the “Vital Spark” God used to create new life (Nocks 140). Frankenstein admits a “resistless and almost frantic impulse urged me forward; I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit” (Shelley 32). However, from this crazed fixation comes side effects not only for the monster, but for Frankenstein himself. Frankenstein transforms into a man he formally was not. He is motivated by an egotistical drive that blinds him from judging things rightly. He confesses to Walton, his sea companion, “No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world” (Shelley 32). He insinuates that by his discovering the source of life, he would be enlightening the world by his intelligence. Victor reveals his rather prideful desire to manipulate the powers of life, a responsibility not meant for mortal man to possess. Blinded by his pride, Frankenstein begins to see life as something for him to toy with and, as a result, starts changing his perspective on how he looks at people.
This is apparent in the way Victor later associates with his beloved family. Although he claims to love his family to “adoration” (Shelley), he consistently ignores their request to come home. In fact, it is only upon the death of his brother William, six years later, that he sees them again. In Lisa Nock’s essay “Frankenstein, In a Better Light,” she discusses this topic, stating how the most “disturbing parts of the narrative have to do with Victor’s gradual withdrawal from his family into an isolated working frenzy in which the corpses he uses lose their significance to him as human beings and become nothing more than raw materials” (139). Verily, Frankenstein changes not only in his relationship with his family, but he also slowly starts to dehumanize those around him due to his science. For instance, Frankenstein sees his creature not as a human, but rather as a lump of human parts used for his scientific advantage and thus does not consider the ethical responsibilities he has to care for him. Consequentially, Frankenstein runs head first into disastrous and irresponsible creative experimentation.
To illustrate this truth, one can look at Frankenstein’s logic surrounding the way he constructs the body. Frankenstein is more concerned with the speed with which he makes his new creation than he is with the creature’s overall appearance. As professor Harriet Hustis explains, Frankenstein “acknowledges his unwillingness to allow seemingly insignificant minutiae to impede the progress of his creative impulse; he is interested in the principle of ‘life’ only as an abstraction.” For Victor, the creature’s appearance is insignificant; accomplishing the task takes precedence over such minor or secondary considerations. And yet, when the creature comes to life, it is precisely because of its appearance that Victor abandons it. Indeed, Victor’s scientific irresponsibility makes him more abhorrent than the victimized “monster” he seeks to destroy.
But this theme of man losing his sense of ethical boundaries and becoming monstrous through the abuse of life and science has not disappeared in the last 200 years; sadly it has only grown to astronomical proportions. Since Shelley’s time, a plethora of ethical concerns have surfaced regarding the role of science in the modern world. One underlying issue that applies to modern day is that of doctors performing an abortion, now a legal practice performed in nearly every country. Ironically, Shelley prophetically alludes to this contemporary problem when she has the creature lament, “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on (Shelley 155). This problem of women conceiving children who they want to abort is currently a point of gross contention between people around the world and is causing much discussion in the world of ethics. Is this it okay for a woman to destroy a little baby simply because it is undesired, burdensome or possibly malformed? Can science or medicine be used to kill unwanted people?
As Shelley foresees, from the time of the scientific revolution, a Frankenstein-like mentality has increasingly spread around the world inspiring people to objectify and dehumanize others due to their convenience, their appearance, or their social function. Resultantly, such people have begun unjustly denying innocent people their right to life and liberty, deeming it their right to decide the life or death of others. Today it is estimated that approximately 46 million abortions occur every year around the world for social reasons such as its being merely unwanted (Abortion Facts). Furthermore, some individuals reason other humans are better off not existing because of physical handicaps, such as Down’s Syndrome. Because handicapped individuals look and act differently people assume that “handicapped persons cannot live meaningful and even happy lives” (Beckwith) and thus should be aborted. However, as long as there is someone to love them they can in fact live very happy and fulfilling lives. As former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop notes, “Some of the most unhappy children whom I have known have all of their physical and mental faculties, and on the other hand some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which I myself would find very difficult to bear” (Beckworth). Yet, because of this Frankenstein-like mindset, people ignore these facts and do as Victor did and dehumanize, neglect, abandon or abort these innocent children simply because they are different or unwanted.
One ethical issue that spawned from the abortion debate is how to develop the perfect child; how to genetically engineer people without physical defects, psychological problems or academic difficulties; how to rid the world of people who are defective and to produce the perfect eugenic race. The issue has now reached the point where scientists in the U.K. are attempting to artificially create the perfect “disease free” human baby by using DNA from three parents- one male and two female donors (Hutchison). Adding to this, technological advances now allow couples to create their very own “designer children” (Sandel). People can determine whether their child’s sex, hair and eye color, height, intelligence, etc. But the question begs, should they? Is it right for scientists to create a designer child for a couple? These are questions that cannot be ignored and must be thought of in light of Frankenstein, since both relate to the same issue; this being, what happens when science plays with human lives? Is it right to trust scientists to this task or are there limitations that must be upheld?
Harvard professor, Michael Sandel, discusses the threats such risky scientific liberties can have on society. He warns how similar ideas of the creating the perfect people proliferated through figures such as Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). He states that while they endorsed a more aggressive form of eugenics, or the creation of the perfect human race, that no form of eugenics should be accepted in society. He argues that having high ideals and expectations for children is not realistic and can encourage people to be less able to love them unconditionally. However, this occurs when science, by playing God, encourages such contingencies between parents and children. For what happens when the child does not meet the parents’ expectations? Will they no longer provide the child with self-sacrificing love, as Frankenstein demonstrates? Sandel explains, “[t]he problem of genetic engineering lies in the hubris of the designing parents. Even if this disposition doesn’t make parents tyrants to their children, still it disfigures the relation between parent and child and it deprives the parent of the humility, the human sympathies, and the openness to the unbidden.” Essentially, by science having the ability to make children “to order,” parents potentially lose the openness to accept whatever child comes to them. Additionally, this mindset continues to promote the dehumanization of people and the fostering of the flagrant abortive mentality so widespread. Sandel also adds
What makes us most uneasy about the use of genetic engineering to enhance or to create something, has to do with the fact that the drive to create children of a certain character reflects an aspiration to freedom, mastery, and control, and to exercise our human will and our ability to remake human nature to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires.
Give people some unethical freedom, and they will want more to gratify their selfish interests. Such is the nature of humankind. Unfortunately, despite the ethical dangers associated with this subject, the interest gradually increases among couples and scientists throughout the world. The caveat of Shelley and other professionals is silenced by the glamour of scientific exploration and creative irresponsibility. The societal repercussions these ethically precarious actions will engender are still to be seen, but one hopes that the fate of Frankenstein can be prevented in our world by those who see the threats and fight against their proliferation.
After delving more deeply into the two issues of parental and scientific responsibility and comparing them with the life of Shelley, Frankenstein and modern society, one can better perceive that indeed, there is a significant correlation between these three latter subjects with the two former ethical issues. The question of what Shelley wants to express to her reader can, therefore, be said to express the dangers that threaten society when ethical responsibilities are not upheld, and how Frankenstein’s character speaks to this danger. In truth, people must be accountable for the actions they make and must recognize that individuals cannot act in ways that do not respect the dignity of the human person which all innately deserve. As Frankenstein rightly cautions, “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example” (Shelley 31). Learn from Frankenstein not to do that which humanity should not, for indeed the world and society are better for it, as Shelley would rightly agree.
(References available upon request)
