Frankenstein: Understanding Shelley's Vision and Its Enduring Questions
Introduction
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein remains one of literature's most powerful examinations of scientific ambition, moral responsibility, and what truly defines a monster. Published in 1818 when Shelley was just twenty years old, the novel emerged from a ghost story competition but grew into something far more profound - a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked knowledge and the consequences of abandoning our responsibilities. While various film adaptations have interpreted her work, Kenneth Branagh's 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" takes considerable liberties with the source material, often missing the nuanced psychological depth that makes Shelley's original so compelling. The novel forces readers to grapple with uncomfortable questions about scientific ethics, social responsibility, and the nature of evil itself - questions that feel increasingly urgent in our current age of rapid technological advancement.
Major Differences Between the 1994 Film and Shelley's Novel
Branagh's adaptation fundamentally misunderstands Victor Frankenstein's character as Shelley conceived him. In the novel, Victor is introspective, guilt-ridden, and psychologically fragile. After creating his creature, he immediately flees and spends the next two years in a state of nervous exhaustion, refusing even to return home. Shelley's Victor is a man consumed by internal torment who repeatedly chooses avoidance over action. Branagh's Victor, by contrast, is passionate and physically confrontational - he fights his creature multiple times and pursues it across landscapes with almost superhuman determination.
The creature's appearance differs dramatically between the two versions. Shelley describes her being as eight feet tall with flowing black hair, pearly white teeth, and proportioned features, but with yellowed skin and watery eyes that create an unsettling effect. The horror comes not from obvious deformity but from something subtly wrong - an uncanny valley effect that makes him simultaneously beautiful and repulsive. Branagh's creature is covered in obvious scars and stitches, making his rejection by society seem inevitable rather than tragic.
Shelley's narrative structure creates layers of meaning that the film abandons entirely. The novel opens with Captain Walton's letters to his sister, establishing themes of isolation and dangerous ambition before we even meet Victor. Victor then tells his story to Walton, and within that narrative, the creature tells his own story to Victor. This nested structure - story within story within story - creates psychological depth and moral ambiguity. Each narrator has their own perspective and potential biases, forcing readers to actively interpret rather than passively absorb the tale.
The creature's eloquence represents perhaps the most crucial difference. Shelley's creature educates himself by reading Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives, and The Sorrows of Young Werther. He develops sophisticated language skills and can engage Victor in complex philosophical debates about justice, responsibility, and revenge. His famous declaration - "I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel" - demonstrates literary sophistication that makes his arguments genuinely compelling. The film's creature lacks this articulation, reducing him to a more conventional monster figure.
The novel's ending also differs significantly from Branagh's version. Shelley never has Victor attempt to resurrect Elizabeth - a plot device the film adds to create visual spectacle. Instead, after the creature murders Elizabeth on their wedding night, Victor pursues him to the Arctic where both creator and creation are trapped in an endless cycle of hunter and hunted. The novel ends with the creature disappearing into the Arctic darkness, promising to destroy himself but leaving his fate deliberately ambiguous.
Most importantly, Shelley's novel maintains moral complexity that the film simplifies. Her Victor is neither hero nor clear villain but a flawed human being whose good intentions and scientific curiosity lead to catastrophic consequences through his own character weaknesses. The film tends toward more conventional horror movie dynamics, losing much of what makes Shelley's work philosophically rich.
Who Is the Real Monster?
This question strikes at the heart of Shelley's moral vision, and the answer becomes less obvious the more carefully you examine both characters. Initially, you might assume the eight-foot creature who strangles innocent people deserves the monster label, but Shelley constructs her narrative to challenge this assumption.
Victor's monstrosity lies in his profound selfishness and refusal to accept responsibility for his actions. He brings a conscious being into existence, then immediately abandons it without any consideration for its needs, emotions, or survival. When you think about it, this represents perhaps the most fundamental violation possible - creating life and then refusing to nurture or guide it. A parent who abandons their child commits a terrible act, but Victor abandons a being who has no understanding of the world, no knowledge of human customs, and no framework for interpreting the rejection he experiences.
What makes Victor particularly monstrous is his consistent pattern of avoidance and self-pity. When his creature begins killing people close to him - first his brother William, then his friend Clerval, and finally Elizabeth - Victor never seriously considers that his own actions created this situation. He sees himself as the primary victim rather than recognizing his role as the cause. Even when the creature explicitly tells him "I will be with you on your wedding night," Victor somehow fails to understand the threat or take adequate precautions.
Victor's refusal to create a companion for his creature represents another profound moral failure. The creature makes a reasonable request - if human society will never accept him, then he deserves someone like himself for companionship. Victor initially agrees but then destroys his work out of fear that two creatures might prove even more dangerous. While this concern might seem rational, it ignores his fundamental responsibility to the being he's already created.
The creature's monstrosity develops quite differently. Shelley shows us a being who begins with genuine innocence and curiosity. His first experiences involve wonder at natural phenomena - sunlight, bird songs, the changing seasons. When he discovers fire left by travelers, he tends it carefully and even leaves wood for them, showing innate benevolence rather than destructive impulses.
His education through observing the De Lacey family reveals his capacity for love, loyalty, and self-sacrifice. He secretly gathers wood for them and feels genuine affection for these people who don't even know he exists. His attempt to approach the blind father De Lacey represents a moment of tremendous hope - here is someone who might accept him based on character rather than appearance.
The crucial turning point comes with his violent rejection by the family. After months of preparation and emotional investment, Felix beats him with a stick while Safie faints and Agatha falls unconscious. This experience teaches him that physical appearance determines social acceptance regardless of character or intention. His transformation into a deliberate killer begins at this moment.
What makes the creature's evil particularly chilling is that it's conscious and calculated rather than impulsive. He doesn't kill randomly but targets people Victor loves, creating a mirror of his own isolation. His words to Victor - "I am malicious because I am miserable" - show complete self-awareness about his transformation. He chooses to become what society has labeled him, but this choice emerges from systematic rejection rather than inherent evil.
Both characters become trapped in a cycle where each justifies escalating violence through the other's actions. Victor refuses responsibility, so the creature takes revenge. The creature kills innocents, so Victor sees him as irredeemably evil. Neither can break this pattern, making their dynamic itself monstrous.
Is the Search for Knowledge Dangerous and Destructive?
Shelley's treatment of knowledge reflects both Enlightenment optimism about human reason and Romantic concerns about its limits. The novel doesn't condemn scientific curiosity itself but rather the pursuit of knowledge without wisdom, ethics, or consideration for consequences.
Victor's initial motivations seem admirable - he wants to understand life and death, potentially to benefit humanity by conquering disease and mortality. His university studies in natural philosophy represent legitimate scientific inquiry. The problems begin with how he pursues his research and what he does once he succeeds.
Victor's approach to knowledge is fundamentally isolated and secretive. He doesn't collaborate with other scientists, consult with philosophers about the ethical implications of his work, or seek guidance from anyone else. This isolation stems partly from pride - he wants sole credit for his discovery - and partly from growing awareness that his experiments push beyond acceptable boundaries. His secrecy compounds every mistake because he has no external perspectives to challenge his assumptions or warn him about potential problems.
The novel suggests that knowledge pursued without corresponding increases in wisdom and moral development becomes dangerous. Victor gains the technical ability to animate dead matter but lacks the emotional maturity, ethical framework, or social support necessary to handle what he's accomplished. He's like someone who learns to split atoms without understanding radiation, international relations, or the psychology of power.
Captain Walton's parallel story reinforces this theme. Like Victor, Walton is obsessed with pushing boundaries - specifically, finding a northern passage through Arctic ice. His letters to his sister reveal similar isolation and ambition. When his crew threatens mutiny rather than continue the dangerous voyage, Walton faces a choice between his obsession and his responsibility to others. Unlike Victor, he chooses responsibility and abandons his quest. This suggests that wisdom sometimes means knowing when to stop rather than pursuing knowledge at any cost.
The creature's self-education presents an interesting counterpoint. He learns about human nature, history, and literature through books, and this knowledge makes him both more sympathetic and more dangerous. Reading Paradise Lost gives him vocabulary for his suffering and models for understanding his relationship with his creator. Plutarch's Lives teaches him about virtue and heroism, while The Sorrows of Young Werther shows him the depths of human emotion. This literary education enables him to articulate his grievances eloquently but also to plan sophisticated revenge.
Shelley seems to argue that knowledge itself is neutral - the danger comes from pursuing it without corresponding development of moral reasoning and social responsibility. Modern parallels make her warnings particularly relevant as we grapple with artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and other technologies that could fundamentally alter human existence.
Was the Creature Inherently Evil or Made Monstrous by Society?
This question goes to the heart of debates about human nature that continue today. Shelley's careful construction of the creature's development provides compelling evidence for the "nurture" side of this argument while acknowledging the complexity of moral development.
When Victor first animates his creation, the being shows no signs of inherent malice or destructive impulses. His earliest experiences involve basic sensory learning - distinguishing between light and darkness, heat and cold, hunger and satisfaction. These initial responses seem purely instinctual rather than moral, but they lean toward self-preservation rather than aggression.
The creature's first significant moral choice comes when he discovers fire left by travelers. Instead of destroying their belongings or using the fire destructively, he tends it carefully and even leaves additional wood for them. This represents pure altruism from a being with no social conditioning toward helpfulness. He receives no reward for this action and expects none - it emerges from what seems to be natural benevolence.
His months of secret observation of the De Lacey family provide crucial evidence about his moral development. Through watching them, he develops understanding of family relationships, learns spoken and written language, and begins to comprehend abstract concepts like loyalty, sacrifice, and love. His desire to help them by secretly gathering firewood shows that he's capable of sustained selfless behavior when he believes it might lead to acceptance and connection.
The creature's literary education through reading demonstrates his capacity for moral reasoning. Paradise Lost gives him frameworks for understanding creation, rebellion, and the relationship between creator and created. He identifies with both Adam and Satan, seeing himself as both the first of his kind and as a being rejected by his maker. Plutarch's Lives provides examples of virtue and civic responsibility, while The Sorrows of Young Werther introduces him to the idea that intense suffering might justify extreme actions.
The crucial transformation occurs with his rejection by the De Lacey family. This scene represents the novel's most tragic moment because it destroys the creature's last hope for natural integration into human society. After months of preparation and emotional investment, his attempt at peaceful contact results in immediate violence based solely on his appearance. Felix strikes him with a stick while the women faint or flee in terror.
This experience teaches him that physical appearance determines social acceptance regardless of character, intelligence, or intention. Society judges him as a monster before he's committed any monstrous acts. His conscious choice to embrace this label represents a rational response to systematic rejection rather than the emergence of inherent evil.
His demand that Victor create a female companion reveals sophisticated understanding of social needs and isolation. He recognizes that without acceptance from existing society, his only hope for happiness lies in creating a new society with someone like himself. The reasoning behind this request demonstrates moral insight - he doesn't ask to be made acceptable to humans but rather asks for someone who might accept him as he is.
When Victor destroys the partially completed female, the creature's transformation into a calculating killer becomes complete. Yet even in revenge, he shows strategic thinking rather than random violence. He kills people Victor loves rather than striking indiscriminately, creating a mirror of his own isolation and abandonment.
The creature's final words to Walton after Victor's death suggest that his evil was learned rather than inherent: "My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy, and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture such as you cannot even imagine."
Should There Be Limits on Scientific Exploration?
Victor's story raises urgent questions about scientific ethics that feel particularly relevant as we face rapid technological advancement in areas like artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and biotechnology. The novel suggests that some form of limits may be necessary, but determining where those boundaries should fall remains complex.
Shelley doesn't seem to oppose scientific inquiry itself - Victor's initial studies at university receive no criticism, and his professors are portrayed as dedicated scholars rather than dangerous meddlers. The problems begin when Victor moves beyond established scientific methods and institutional oversight. His creation of life occurs in secret, without collaboration, peer review, or consideration of consequences.
Modern scientific institutions have developed various mechanisms to prevent the kind of reckless research Victor conducts. Institutional review boards evaluate proposed experiments for ethical implications. Medical research requires informed consent from subjects. Environmental regulations prevent research that might cause ecological damage. International treaties ban certain types of weapons research. These systems aren't perfect, but they represent society's attempt to maintain scientific progress while protecting against obvious harms.
Victor violates several principles that modern scientific ethics would consider fundamental. He conducts research that affects others without their knowledge or consent. He refuses to share his methods or findings with the scientific community. He takes no precautions against potential negative consequences. He assumes no responsibility for the results of his work. Most importantly, he gives no consideration to the welfare of the conscious being he creates.
The question of whether reanimating dead tissue represents an inherently forbidden boundary is more complex. Many medical procedures that seem routine today would have appeared to violate natural law to earlier generations. Organ transplants, in vitro fertilization, genetic therapies, and even vaccinations all involve manipulating biological processes in ways that once seemed impossible or impious.
Perhaps the more relevant issue is Victor's complete lack of preparation for success. He never considers what his creature will need for food, shelter, education, or emotional development. He doesn't think about legal frameworks that might apply to artificial life or how society might react to his creation. This recklessness, rather than the research itself, creates the tragic outcomes that follow.
The novel suggests that collaboration and transparency offer better protection against dangerous research than outright prohibitions. Victor's secrecy compounds every problem he faces. If he had worked with colleagues, sought institutional support, or consulted with philosophers and ethicists, he might have anticipated and avoided many disasters.
Some areas of research do seem to demand special caution - particularly those that could create new forms of consciousness, develop autonomous weapons systems, or permanently alter the human genome. These areas affect not just immediate participants but future generations and society as a whole. They might require broader democratic input rather than leaving decisions solely to researchers and immediate institutions.
Captain Walton's subplot provides a model for responsible limits. When his crew refuses to continue the dangerous Arctic voyage, Walton faces a choice between his personal obsession and his responsibility to others. His decision to turn back demonstrates that sometimes wisdom means accepting limits rather than pushing forward regardless of consequences.
The key insight from Shelley's novel is that danger lies not in knowledge itself but in pursuing knowledge without corresponding development of wisdom, ethics, and social responsibility. Victor's tragedy isn't that he learned too much, but that he learned without thinking about what his knowledge meant or what obligations it created.
Conclusion
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein endures because it addresses fundamental questions about responsibility, knowledge, and human nature that remain as pressing today as they were in 1818. The novel's moral complexity refuses easy answers, forcing readers to grapple with uncomfortable truths about scientific ambition, social responsibility, and what truly makes someone monstrous.
Victor Frankenstein and his creature represent different types of moral failure. Victor's monstrousness lies in his selfishness, irresponsibility, and refusal to accept the consequences of his actions. The creature's evil develops through systematic rejection and abandonment, transforming natural benevolence into calculated revenge. Neither fits neatly into categories of hero or villain - both become trapped in a cycle of violence and retribution that destroys everyone around them.
Shelley's treatment of knowledge suggests that scientific curiosity itself isn't dangerous, but pursuing it without wisdom, ethics, or consideration for others certainly can be. Victor's real failure isn't his success at creating life but his immediate abandonment of what he created and his persistent refusal to take responsibility for the results.
The question of whether the creature was inherently evil or made monstrous by society reveals Shelley's sophisticated understanding of moral development. Her careful documentation of the creature's transformation from innocent curiosity to calculated revenge suggests that evil is learned rather than innate - a conclusion with profound implications for how we think about justice, punishment, and social responsibility.
As we face our own era's scientific challenges, the questions Shelley raised remain urgent. How do we balance curiosity and progress with safety and ethics? What responsibilities do we have for our creations and discoveries? When does the pursuit of knowledge become destructive rather than beneficial? Shelley's masterpiece doesn't provide easy answers, but it reminds us that ignoring these questions entirely leads to tragedy.
The novel's enduring power lies in its recognition that the greatest monsters are often not supernatural creatures but ordinary human beings who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and their consequences. In our age of rapid technological change, this lesson feels more relevant than ever.
Works Cited
- Branagh, Kenneth, director. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. TriStar Pictures, 1994.
- Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Word Count: 2,386 words
No comments:
Post a Comment