Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Part 2: Romanticism, Feminism, and the Ethics of Science
Defining Romanticism: Context and Philosophy
Romanticism was a cultural and intellectual movement originating in the late century. It is typically understood as a reaction against two major historical forces: the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution was seen by Romantics as devaluing the individual human spirit and embracing a soulless assembly line. In contrast, the Enlightenment was viewed as over-emphasizing scientific certainty and rationalism. Romanticism prizes intuition over rationalism, and nature and wildness over classical harmony. Within this movement, difficult and intense emotions—such as horror, awe, terror, and passion—are preferred over pure intellect. There is a significant emphasis on the unconscious and irrational aspects of human existence, often explored through the discussion of dreams and the inner life.
Frankenstein as a Romantic Novel and a Critique of Romanticism
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is frequently cited as the definitive Romantic novel. It is deeply interested in the wonder, awe, and horror of encountering the radically other, which aligns with Romantic interests in difficult emotions. However, the novel can also be read as a stern critique of Romanticism itself. While Romanticism preaches a radical self-involvement that privileges an individual’s pursuit of knowledge and glory, the novel depicts this as disastrous. Both Victor Frankenstein and Robert Walton follow their intuition and encounter nature, yet their “going with their gut” leads to catastrophe rather than enlightenment.
Biographical Readings and the 1831 Introduction
A popular method of interpreting the novel is through an autobiographical lens, a reading heavily encouraged by feminist criticism. This approach views “Frankenstein” as a tale of monstrous birth, rooted in Mary Shelley’s traumatic experiences with maternity. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, died while giving birth to her, and Mary and Percy Shelley’s first child, a daughter, died when she was only a few weeks old. In her journal, Mary recorded a poignant dream: “Dream that my little baby came to life again; that it had only been cold & that we rubbed it before the fire & it lived.” The idea of reanimating the dead was on her mind well before she heard Percy Shelley and Lord Byron discussing developments in electricity. In the introduction to the edition, Shelley explicitly refers to the book as her child, stating: “I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper. I have an affection for it, for it was the offspring of happy days.” While compelling, this biographical reading can be reductive, as it risks the “intentional fallacy”—the belief that readers can know exactly what an author was thinking based on their life experiences.
Feminist Critiques: Gender, Nature, and Reproduction
Feminist critiques of the novel highlight the harm that occurs to women and families when men pursue single-minded, ego-driven goals. Due to Victor’s lack of work-life balance, nearly all female characters in the novel perish. His creation of the monster leads to the hanging of the servant Justine and the murder of his bride, Elizabeth, on their wedding night. Furthermore, Victor’s pursuit of science is often described in gendered terms; he refers to nature as female, noting how with “unrelaxed and breathless eagerness, I pursued nature to her hiding-places.” This language suggests a violation of the feminine. Victor also displays a profound distrust or devaluation of women. When the creature asks for a mate, Victor initially agrees but later destroys the female creature while the monster watches. He justifies this by fearing she might be “ten thousand times more malignant than her mate” and might delight in “murder and wretchedness.” He specifically worries about a “race of devils” being propagated. Victor’s attempt to create life without an egg or a womb is seen as an attempt to bypass the feminine entirely, playing God without the moral concern required for such a power.
Scientific Context: Erasmus Darwin and Luigi Galvani
Mary Shelley’s narrative was influenced by the scientific debates and discoveries of her era. Chief among these influences were Erasmus Darwin and Luigi Galvani. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin, published “The Temple of Nature” and proposed the idea of “spontaneous generation,” where life at a microscopic level could be restored to dead matter or created from inert matter. Luigi Galvani became famous for his experiments with electricity, demonstrating that electrical impulses could animate the muscles of dead creatures, such as the legs of a frog. In , followers of Galvani even conducted experiments where electrodes were attached to the body of an executed murderer in an attempt to restore life. While they only succeeded in making the muscles convulse, these real-world events directly informed Victor’s goal to “renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.”
Victor’s Motivations and the Toll of Study
Victor’s pursuit of knowledge is consistently portrayed as selfish and physically damaging. He describes his decline: “My cheek had grown pale with study, and my person had become emaciated with confinement.” He “dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave” and “disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame.” His motivation was not the universal good but personal gratification and the desire for absolute paternal power. He claimed: “the creatures he makes ‘would bless me as its creator and source…. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.’” This selfishness is finalized in his reaction to his success; despite carefully assembling the creature, he responds to its life with utter horror and runs away, abandoning his creation immediately.
The Consequences of Abandonment and Modern Relevance
The monster blames his subsequent murderous path on this initial abandonment. Percy Shelley supported this view, writing that while the creature was initially moral, “the circumstances of his existence were so monstrous and uncommon, that… his original goodness was gradually turned into the fuel of an inextinguishable misanthropy and revenge.” This raises the question of whether the tragedy lies in the scientific pursuit itself or in the creator’s inability to love and take responsibility for what he created. These themes remain relevant today in discussions regarding stem cell therapy, genetically modified foods (often called “Frankenfoods”), and cloning. The novel does not necessarily condemn science outright but asks whether experiments are driven by an ego that ignores morality.
Questions & Discussion
John Green poses several questions for consideration regarding the failure of the experiment: Is it because Victor’s aims are unnatural and evil? Is it because he cannot love the creature he created? Or is it because he let his ego run amok and dictate his motivations? He also notes that Frankenstein’s monster and the Hulk are similar in that both are monsters created by failed scientific experiments who only become truly monstrous when rejected by society. He offers a “rule of thumb” for scientists: “Anytime you’re doing any kind of experiment, ask yourself the question, ‘Could this create a monster?’”