Essay on Frankenstein Fate

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris and scientific advancement however I will also be discussing an interpretation of the text as a commentary upon the debates surrounding slavery at the start of the 19th century. The essay begins with a close analysis of Frankenstein in regard to the debates surrounding slavery, particularly a view that Mary Shelley may have held; the sudden emancipation of slaves would be dangerous as they could seek revenge on their slave masters. Subsequently, I will discuss an alternative perspective of Frankenstein as a warning about scientific advancement and conduct a reading of the text in regard to Rousseau’s theories of the social contract.

Frankenstein can be read in relation to the debates surrounding slavery at the time that Mary Shelley was writing. Britain passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807 which prohibited the slave trade in the British Empire although it did not abolish the practice of slavery. One of the debates of the time was that the sudden emancipation of slaves would lead to freed slaves seeking revenge upon their captors and therefore the amelioration position was put forward which would allow time for slaves to be educated and prepare for freedom. There are parallels that can be drawn between the plot of Frankenstein and common occurrences on plantations. One example is that Frankenstein chases his creature through Switzerland and Italy, all the way to the Tundra in a similar way that slave owners were known to chase down escaped slaves. However, Victor’s pursuit of his creature leads to both their deaths which could be read as Shelley’s critique of the mistreatment of slaves. Other ways the plot echoes events that occurred as a result of slavery are through the monster's acts of rebellion for example he burns down the De Lacey cottage. Slave rebellions were feared among slave owners and Mary Shelley can be seen to present the brutality of the monsters rebellion in order to incite fear and warn against the mistreatment of slaves whom Shelley empathized, which is shown by her abstinence from sugar as part of an effort to distance herself from the institution of slavery. One of the most famous slave rebellions that Shelley would have been familiar with was the Haitian Rebellion of 1791 in which slaves challenged and defeated the French rule resulting in Haiti becoming an independent country. It can be argued that Shelley was making a case against the sudden emancipation of slaves in case they took revenge in a similar style to the Haitian revolution. Evidence for this comes from George Canning, Bristol’s abolitionist and a meliorist MP, who brought up Shelley’s novel in Parliament in 1824 as an argument against the immediate emancipation of slaves. His speech includes an observation of Victor Frankenstein that he relates to the effects of emancipation, commenting “Being unable to impart to the work of his hands a perception of right and wrong, he finds too late that he has only created a more than mortal power of doing mischief, and himself recoils from the monster which he has made. Such would be the effect of sudden emancipation before the negro was prepared for the enjoyment of well-regulated liberty.”

The creature in Frankenstein is made up of dead and inanimate matter that has been crafted by Victor Frankenstein in order to create life which echoes a comment made by prominent early abolitionist Granville Sharp, whom Shelley would have been familiar with, that slavery divests a person of their humanity “as if such a person was naturally dead” (p.206). The creature’s composition from separate body parts establishes his alienation as even the parts of his body have no shared background, similar to the rejection of slaves' backgrounds as they were made to change their surname and cultural practices but were still rejected as ‘human’. The language used to describe the creature suggests that he is mixed race for example Victor describes his “yellow skin”, “lustrous black” hair, and “straight black lips” (F, p. 39) and there are references to “its gigantic stature” (F, p 19) which was a desirable feature for slaves after the Slave Trade Act which it made it illegal to import slaves and therefore started the practice of breeding slaves in the Southern states of America. Another way in which Frankenstein can be read in regard to slavery is through the actions of the narrative frame for example critic Mulvey Roberts states in Dangerous Bodies “Framed by a sea voyage, the story can be seen to evoke the horrors of the Middle Passage” which suggests that Frankenstein can be read as an allegory for the slave trade. This is supported in the text through the narrative of Frankenstein’s creature as he describes the first moments he remembers coming into being, saying: “Before, dark and opaque bodies had surrounded me… but I now found that I could wander at liberty (F, p.76) which reflects the living conditions inside the slave ships as often people were allotted only ten inches per person as Mulvey Roberts continues “Not surprisingly, the mortality rate was extraordinarily high. As a living being made from dead bodies, Shelley’s creature provides an apt metaphor for how the living and dead could sometimes be chained together in the hold of a slave ship.” (p.63). The creature also expresses concerns that those upon the slave ships would have thought such as ‘But where were my friends and relations?’ (F, p. 124). Olaudah Equiano wrote as an ex-slave of the conditions on board the slave ships describing his arrival on board a slave ship “When I looked round the ship too and saw a large furnace of copper boiling, and a multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer doubted of my fate, and, quite overpowered with horror and anguish, I fell motionless on the deck and fainted.” (55) which carries similarities to passages in Frankenstein for example the quote in chapter nineteen “For an instant I dared to shake off my chains and look around me with a free and lofty spirit, but the iron had eaten into my flesh, and I sank again, trembling and hopeless, into my miserable self.” (F, p.151)

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

However, this reference to chains can be read from an alternative perspective than part of a commentary upon the debates and controversies surrounding slavery. The quote from chapter nineteen also echoes the first line of Rousseau’s The Social Contract which is “Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.”. Rousseau describes the ways in which the “chains” of society suppress the birthright of freedom for man, from the ruling class to parents and Mary Shelley would have been familiar with his theory as critic Beenstock comments “The Shelley’s consider Rousseau as an immediate part of their reality, in continuation with the writings of Godwin and Wollstonecraft, both of whom directly engaged with Rousseau’s political theory.” The aspirations of Victor Frankenstein echo the aspirations for Rousseau for example in The Social Contract, Rousseau states “What can make it legitimate? I believe I can answer this question” which shows a sense of self-assurance similar to Victor’s. Other parallels can be made between the two for example both were born in Geneva and both start their projects in a state of isolation, with Victor stating “Two years passed in this manner, during which I paid no visit to Geneva, but was engaged, heart and soul, in the pursuit of the same discoveries which I hoped to make” (F, p. 34) while Rousseau recalls his isolation in Reveries of the Solitary Walker in which he states “I clamber up rocks and mountains, I go deep into vales and woods in order to slip away, as much as possible, from the memory of men.” (14). In Rousseau’s The Social Contract, the concept of the natural man saw tensions between society and human nature as Rousseau comments that returning to nature is impossible because “men like me … can no longer nourish themselves on grass or nuts, nor do without Laws and Chiefs,”. However, the creature can be read as a version of natural man when he is first created for example he tells Victor “You need to make me a companion in my image– like me. And then we’ll go off to South America and live in the wilderness and eat nuts and berries. And we’ll be happy forever,”(F, PAGE NUMBER). However, as the creature’s request is rejected, he changes from innocent to corrupt, just as human society changed from a state of nature to form a societal community that is at odds with their natural desires. The creature is made up of many parts has been commented on by Beenstock in regard to social contract theory: “Through her creation stories of the creatures’ respective bodies, Shelley forms a detailed critique of social contract theory. The creatures expose the elements of society left out of the social contract, but—more important—they question the concept of social coherence altogether.” This suggests that Frankenstein can be read as a critique of the Social Contract theory as the disjointed creature is seen to represent all of the divisions of society left out from Rousseau’s theory, including women through the female creature who doesn’t come to life, and therefore represents a “social body that fails to cohere”. Another way in which Shelley can be seen to be critiquing social contract theory is through the expression of the creature’s and Victor’s private needs and aspirations and their inability to cooperate which “forms a criticism of the self-interestedness of social contract theory, which does not provide a significant ground for sociability.”. Although, Victor doesn’t only act upon his own interests as he believes when he destroys the female creature, that he is saving humanity from “a race of devils” (F, 138) which can be interpreted in regard to slavery as expressing a 19th-century attitude over fear of miscegenation.

Frankenstein can be read in other ways rather than as a commentary upon the debates, controversies, and campaigns surrounding slavery. One popular reading of the text is that it serves as a warning against hubris and the advancement of science. Victor’s original intentions were good, he planned to eradicate death and disease in the world, however, it was his god-like single-minded ambition that resulted in the creation of death-bringing life. Shelley herself was familiar with the scientific community through a friend of her father’s Sir Humphry Davy who was a Cornish chemist famous for conducting experiments using electricity. Although the novel doesn’t describe Frankenstein’s coming to life as a result of electricity, it is adapted in the 1910 film adaptation a bolt of lightning brings the creature to life. The fascination with electricity and the possibility that it was the basis of life was immensely popular toward the end of the 18th century after the 1751 Murder Act made its law that the bodies of executed murderers could be used for experimentation. The alternative title of Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, highlights the view that the novel is a commentary upon ambition. Prometheus, in Greek mythology, is credited with creating humanity from clay and defying the Gods by stealing their fire and giving it to humanity. There is a clear parallel between the ambitions of Frankenstein and Prometheus both creating life. Critic Maurice Hindle comments on Victor Frankenstein that “his Romantic Prometheanism produces a paradoxical self whose driven, mission-like condition urges him on, for reasons he cannot explain, to the pursuit of wonderful adventures and glory.” (p.14), however, also similar to Prometheus’ fate, Frankenstein is tortured for his ambition which eventually leads to his death. There are also many references to fire in Frankenstein as light connotes discovery and enlightenment however unlike Prometheus’ gift of fire, Frankenstein’s enlightenment, the secret of life, remains a secret to humanity and therefore never contributes to society. A comparison can be drawn between Victor Frankenstein playing God and the figure of Satan in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, a poetic retelling of Genesis which is referenced throughout the novel, for example in the epigraph, and it is also read by the creature as part of his education. Satan’s ambition in Paradise Lost is similar to Victor’s as they both use their pride to try to displace God and are doomed to suffer similar fates as Victor explicitly states “Like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell.”( F, PAGE NUMBER). Another character in the novel whose ambition is criticized is Walton and his over-ambitious voyage. Walton notes when he rescues Frankenstein that he “appeared to despise himself for being the slave of passion.” (27) however Walton is just as much a ‘slave’ to his ambition as he is willing to risk the lives of his shipmates to seek scientific fame claiming “You cannot contest the inestimable benefit which I shall confer on all mankind to the last generation, by discovering a passage near the pole to those countries” (F, PAGE NUMBER)

Another reading sees Frankenstein as a novel expressing fears about childbirth and parental neglect. Victor recounts his childhood at the start of the novel and says of his parents “I was their plaything and their idol, and something better — their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me.” (F, PAGE NUMBER). In this extract it is interesting that he uses the words ‘plaything’ and ‘creature’ to describe himself as a child, foreshadowing the objectification of his own ‘creature’. Victor saw the creation of the creature as more important than the responsibilities of raising it, and therefore Victor’s rejection is the reason for the creature’s evil wrongdoings which is similar to Rousseau’s theory that all children are born inherently good. It seems that Victor is familiar with this theory as he comments that his future “was in their [his parents] hands to direct to happiness or misery” (F, PAGE NUMBER) however he fails to fulfill his own duties toward his childlike creation. Frankenstein’s creature is aware of his neglect as he compares himself to Adam from Milton’s Paradise Lost but without any of the advantages that Adam was given, for example, he states “Like Adam, I was created apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the special care of his Creator … but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition” (F, p 105). The creature articulates effectively proving his capabilities for socialization however he has been forced into the role of Satan due to abandonment by his creator. Maurice Hindle comments that the text is about “the wilful determination to overcome a desire thwarted by fathers” (13) which is further reinforced through the character of Walton who ignores his father’s dying wish against his seafaring career. Mary Shelley has experience of parental neglect for her sister was pregnant with Lord Byron’s child at the time she was writing Frankenstein however Byron, unsurprisingly, didn’t step up to be the father. In addition, the creature lacks a mother figure just as Mary Shelley did. Shelley herself has lost children as she writes in her diary that she: “Dream[t] that my little baby came to life again; that it had only been cold, and that we rubbed it before the fire, and it lived” which is also interesting as it shows Shelley exploring the ideas of fire and electricity as the basis of life.

To conclude, this essay has discussed a few of the key controversies and debates surrounding slavery in the nineteenth century, such as the amelioration position, in regard to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Alternative perspectives against a reading of Frankenstein in regard to these debates have also been discussed concerning Rousseau’s social contract theory, particularly the importance of parenting and the dangers of ambition.