Frankenstein: The Purpose of the Frame Story

After finishing Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the distribution and unique separation of time within the novel added to the story. Initially, the novel begins with four letters that Robert Walton, an explorer, writes to his sister Margaret. Just a few pages before the book ends, we return to Walton’s point of view with the statement, “You have read this strange and terrific story, Margaret,” (Shelley, 155). However, after Walton meets Victor Frankenstein, the reader hears nothing directly related to Walton until the last few pages of the novel. Although Walton was retelling Frankenstein’s story, the entire novel takes place in a letter to Margaret. This interesting separation of events is called a frame story, or a story within a story. Shelley’s use of a frame story enabled her to form the parallelism between Frankenstein, the creature, and Robert Walton. Many similarities are present between the three characters, and the format of a frame story allowed the author to formulate these comparisons without actually requiring them to interact with each other.  Furthermore, although she is never actually met, the frame story allowed for the creation and influence of Margaret. No actual response or words from her are ever read, yet her being influences Walton’s decisions and parallels Victor’s Elizabeth. Through her use of a frame story, Shelley was able to create many different aspects and connections in her novel that might have not been possible if she had followed a tradition format.

Slave v. Master: Motif

One major motif apparent in Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, is that of a slave and his master. Throughout the majority of the novel, there is a constant battle for power between the creator and the creature. Initially, Victor had all of the power, as the creation was simply and idea. However, as it became his obsession, Victor almost became a slave to his work or to the idea of the creature. He never stopped to think about the consequences of his actions, because the prospect of what he could do had taken over his mind, leaving no room for reason. While Victor gained some of that power and control back after creating the creature from the dead and bringing him to life, but as the creature grows older and Victor loses contact with him, the tables began to turn. As the creature became more and more angry with the human race’s disgust and fear of him, he begins to deal with his anger by plotting against Victor. He begins to hold the puppet strings that control Victor’s mood, actions, and health. By murdering Henry Clerval, the creature successfully sends Victor into depression and grave illness, while also getting him sent to prison. By making the right, but morally wrong, decisions, the creature is able to control Victor, just as a master controls his slave. Towards the end of the novel, the creature even refers to Victor as a slave, commanding him to do certain things. The creature states, “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension,” (Shelley, 122). Not only does the creature call Victor a slave, but he also calls him unworthy. This change in power and role becomes quite obvious as the creature overpowers Victor.

Frankenstein: Dramatic Irony

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, a misconception about one of the creature’s comments leads to not Victor’s downfall, but that of another. After Victor refuses to create a female being for the creature, the creature explodes with anger and threats of retaliation. He exclaims to Victor, “I shall be with you on your wedding-night,” (Shelley, 123). However, Victor’s understanding of this statement gets him into trouble. While he fully expects that the creature will kill him after his marriage, dramatic irony comes into play as the reader has prior knowledge of the creature’s motive. The reader realizes that the creature is after Elizabeth, Victor’s future wife, as he hopes to bring Victor to a state of misery and desperation. In the past, the creature had killed William and Clerval – and Justine indirectly – and Elizabeth would be the fourth attack on Victor’s family. He speaks to Victor, stating, “I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour of your birth,” (Shelley, 104). This shows how the creature hopes to bring Victor emotional pain through the murder of others rather than Victor himself, leaving him with the knowledge that his own creation killed many of his loved ones. By killing off even more family members and friends, the creature has slowly whittled away at Victor’s resolve, and the death of Elizabeth would be key in breaking down Victor.

The Creature: Internal Conflict

After reading Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, the true murderer of William, Victor Frankenstein’s younger brother, is finally revealed. However, it turns out the murder was committed due to great internal conflict within the murderer, the creature. After being neglected and feared by his own creator and the DeLacey family, the creature decides that the only person on the planet who would not run in fear of him is a child. After coming across William, he reasons, “this little creature was unprejudiced, and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity,” (Shelley, 102). However, it turns out that the creature’s hopes are dashed. Not only is William terrified of the creature, he also brings up that he is the son of Frankenstein. This is then where the creature’s true internal conflict comes into play. Without realizing that William is Victor’s brother, not son, the creature believes that Victor has a family who he did not abandon. The idea that William was accepted and loved by Victor but he was ignored does not sit well with him, and the creature cannot take it. In the end, he unintentionally kills William, but it appears as though the same end might have been brought upon William at some point if the creature did not kill him then. Internal conflict plagues the creature all throughout the novel, and this instance is one time where the conflict gets the best of his temper.

Characterization of Safie

After reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, the characterization of Safie, an Arabian woman, helped the progression of the story. Within the novel, it is explained that Safie had come to live with the DeLacey’s, a family that Frankenstein’s creature had become attached to, after tragic and difficult events in her life. However, as the reader learns more and more about Safie, they learn more and more about the creature as well. Because Safie was Arabian and did not speak the language of the DeLacey’s, they taught her French so that she could communicate with them. Through this teaching, the creature was also able to learn to speak. In the novel, the creature states, “…she was endeavoring to learn their language; and the idea instantly occurred to me that I should make use of the same instructions to the same end,” (Shelley, 83). Furthermore, the novels and books that Safie was being taught from aided the creature, as he was able to learn history and manners and of governments and other civilizations. Safie’s character allowed Shelley to answer the questions of how the creature became such a fluent and eloquent speaker and why he knows so much. Safie’s character was also key in the interaction between the DeLacey’s and the creature. Although the family was not receptive of him and chased him away, the creature would have never been able to meet the family at all without the arrival of Safie.

Frankenstein: Hollywood vs. the Novel

Werewolf! Where wolf? There wolf! While reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, I began to notice some interesting differences between the monster of pop culture and Shelley’s real creation. The only Frankenstein-related movie I have seen is Young Frankenstein, which I know was intended to be comedic, but I still did not expect the film to differ from the book as much as it has so far. The classic creature from movies is usually depicted as a dead body brought back to life by Dr. Frankenstein, however in the novel, the creature is created under entirely different circumstances. Frankenstein is not the mad scientist we all expect, rather he is a young college student enamored with natural philosophy and chemistry. Furthermore, his creation is not one singular body stolen from a grave, but rather a patchwork of mismatched body parts that Victor Frankenstein somehow manages to bring to life. Also, although the monster from culture does cause destruction, death is not usually included in that destruction. In Shelley’s novel, the monster becomes responsible for the death of a small child, Frankenstein’s brother, which was entirely unexpected by me. After catching a glimpse of William’s murderer, Frankenstein claims, “A flash of lightening illuminated the object, and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect,” (Shelley, 50). It is at this point that Frankenstein realizes his own creation killed his own brother. This novel is the perfect example of how Hollywood can change the outcomes of books without anyone knowing otherwise. If I had never read this novel, I would have never known all of the misconceptions the movie I watched created.

Frankenstein! What Were You Thinking You Fool!

In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, one theme that is very apparent is the death and destruction caused by Victor Frankenstein’s creation. This idea is incredibly ironic however, since Frankenstein created his monster in hopes of cheating death and preventing it from affecting anyone else. Yet, in just a few years after the creation was made, it had both directly and indirectly caused the deaths of two of Frankenstein’s close family members, his little brother William and Justine Moritz. Because of the great number of family members who Victor had seen perish and die or his loved ones has witnessed the death of, Victor used his talent and obsession with natural philosophy to try and find a way around the grief and pain caused by death. However, after he creates the monster, he immediately knows that he has made a major mistake. This mistake continues to haunt him as it takes out more close acquaintances and loved ones, and at one point he even considers suicide because of the damage he has indirectly caused. Victor states, “I listened to this discourse with the extremest agony. I, not in deed, but in effect, was the true murderer,” (Shelley, 63). Furthermore, the irony of this situation does in fact add an element of spookiness and horror to the novel. What was made with the hope of saving lives became a cause of destruction, and because this can happen in our world today, Shelley effectively creates an ominous tone.

Frankenstein and Walton: Fast Friendship

Robert Walton

After beginning to read Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein, similarities between Victor Frankenstein, the creator of the classic monster, and Robert Walton, a hopeful explorer, became apparent. The most obvious comparison is the two men’s obsession with attaining a goal that has never before been accomplished. While Frankenstein hoped to restore life to a dead body, Walton wishes to reach the North Pole. Although both of these goals are very dangerous and could have drastic consequences, neither man can let go of the obsession they have formed. Furthermore, both men neglect their relationships with their families in order to attain their dreams. When Frankenstein leaves for college, he does not return to his family for six years because of his creation of the monster. The time it takes to study and create the creature and then the time he loses when it goes missing prevents him from communicating with his loved ones. Walton also leaves family behind for his goal, as is noted by the multiple letters he mails to his sister. Quite comfortable with the idea that he might never see her again, Walton never ceases to remind his sister, Margaret Saville, that he might die during this voyage. He writes to his sister, “I love you very tenderly. Remember me with affection, should you never hear from me again,” (Shelley, 6). Although people do put themselves at risk on a daily basis, both Frankenstein and Walton walk into the face of danger, disregarding the opinions of their families and the effect their disappearance has on them.

Frankenstein's Crazy Characterization

Mary Shelley

In Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, characterization plays a major role. The process the author uses to allow the reader to learn more about each character is quite interesting, as she consistently launches into a page and a half description about each person she introduces. When I first began reading the book, I found this strange method both interesting and quite honestly, annoying. At the mention of a new character, I immediately began to realize that I would be reading about that person for the next few paragraphs at least. However, this method has also proved to be quite effective. I have found as I continue to read that I can still recognize and differentiate characters introduced chapters ago when their names once again pop up. Although Shelley’s method is tedious, it seems as though it works to help the reader recognize each character. By explaining their whole life story in one place rather than leaking certain pieces of information throughout the entirety of the novel, Shelley enables her readers to organize the happenings of each characters life without getting confused. For example, Victor Frankenstein’s childhood friend, Henry Clerval, is introduced after a large absence from the novel when Victor states, “Nothing could equal my delight on seeing Clerval; his presence brought back thoughts of my father, Elizabeth…” (Shelley, 37). Because of Shelley’s past detailed description, I not only recognized the name Clerval immediately and associated it with Frankenstein’s friend; I also recognized the name Elizabeth. Through her unique characterization method, Shelley effectively prevents her readers from losing touch with the novel’s various characters.

Frankenstein's Foil Characters

While reading Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, her use of foil characters became apparent when the main character of the novel, Victor Frankenstein, attends college. There, he is introduced to two professors, Krempe and Waldman, who were both well versed in natural philosophy and chemistry. However, these two characters acted as the contrast to the other. Krempe is condescending and unsupportive of Frankenstein’s devotion to philosophers such as Agrippa and Paracelsus, stating, “Every instant that you have wasted on those books is utterly and entirely lost. You have burdened your memory with exploded systems and useless names,” (Shelley, 26). Waldman acts the exact opposite. He is much more appreciative of Frankenstein’s devotion to the subject and interest in the history of it. Shelley than uses these two characters to introduce the creation of what the novel Frankenstein is really known for – the creature. Because of the mutual dislike between Krempe and Frankenstein, Victor begins to spend more time under the instruction of Waldman. Waldman’s interest in the subject is then what sparks Frankenstein’s desire to create such a monster. Because of her use of these two foil characters, Shelley was able to effectively set the path of the novel. Krempe and Waldman’s contrasting personalities were what led Frankenstein to choose a side, which in the end led to the creation of Frankenstein’s monster.

“APO 96225” by Larry Rottman

After reading Larry Rottman’s poem, “APO 96225,” the attitude of the American public toward the war in Vietnam was very clearly revealed. The letters sent home by the soldier in the poem are initially vague and pleasant, but when the mother instructs her son to finally send information on what is really happening, his statements shock his family. The brutality and inhumanity of what was actually happening in the war was not what the family wanted to hear, and the father responds to his son’s letter with the message, “Please don’t write such depressing letters. You’re upsetting your mother,” (Rottman, 846). This is the phrase that really represents the American view of Vietnam. During the war, most people did not want to hear the details of what was really happening; they wanted the information that had been combed through and toned down. The son in the poem shares trivial details about the weather and scenery with his family rather than the actual information because he knows they do not want to hear it. This is confirmed with the father’s response above. Through his poem, Rottman clearly portrays the American’s refusal to know the truth of what was happening during the war, as it was not what they wanted to hear. The son’s return to discussion of the weather in the last stanza of the poem proves that he was correct in his decision to not originally share any reality with his family.

“I felt a Funeral, in my Brain” by Emily Dickinson

In the poem, “I felt a Funeral, in my Brain,” by Emily Dickinson, a literary technique commonly utilized is imagery. In each stanza, Dickinson uses imagery to paint a picture of what is happening to her. She has created a scene of a funeral through and through, beginning with the procession and ending with the burial. All the while, she portrays herself as within the coffin. However the imagery she uses adds to the depressing tone and topic of the poem. The photograph of “mourners to and fro kept treading – treading…” creates the idea of gloominess (Dickinson, 776). Mourners of the dead are often upset and crying, and the word treading creates the image of a person moving along as though they are being held back by some resistance, in this case, the death of a loved one. Furthermore, the line, “and creak across my Soul,” creates the sense of finality the author was focusing on (Dickinson, 776). As the reader pictures the coffin burying the deceased person, it closes of their soul from the world. As Dickinson successfully portrayed, her soul was being cut off or separated from reality by some force; in the case of the poem, a coffin.

“Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville - A Degree of Autism

In the story, “Bartleby the Scrivener,” by Herman Melville, the idea that Bartleby might have some degree of autism is recognized. His personality and many of his actions imply this conclusion, in particular his struggle with social situations. As Bartleby is living in the lawyers office, he one day opens the door undressed and asks the lawyer to come back later. This is a strange way to act, as the office does in fact belong to the lawyer and Bartleby is simply being allowed to live there. Furthermore, Bartleby avoids responses to emotional stimuli. When the other office workers verbally attack him, Bartleby simply does not respond at all. This avoid of confrontation also leads to the conclusion that Bartleby might have autism. Another factor in this determination is Bartleby’s repetition of the phrase, “I would prefer not to,” (Melville, 649). Repetition of phrases and facts can often be linked to autism, further promoting this idea. Because he might not know how else to respond, Bartleby takes the easy way out by repeating a phrase he knows well and that prevents him from having to respond. Because of these reasons, there is a chance that Bartleby the scrivener has some degree of autism which could have lead to his peculiar character.

“Bartleby the Scrivener” by Herman Melville - An Unlikely Comparison

After reading “Bartleby the Scrivener,” a short story by Herman Melville, an unlikely comparison became apparent. Although unexpected, the narrator of the story, or the lawyer, turned out to share quite a few similarities with Bartleby. A few paragraphs into the tale, the lawyer states, “I am a man who from his youth upwards has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best,” (Melville, 642). Because of this attitude, the lawyer has accepted a rather passive career dealing with the finances of the wealthy. This way, he avoided the confrontation and arguing that often comes with being a lawyer. Bartleby the scrivener is very similar in his passivity. All of the rude and insolent comments made towards Bartleby by the other workers, Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut, were completely ignored by Bartleby. He simply responded to their attacks by saying nothing, further proving his non-confrontational and detached personality. Furthermore, the lawyer is appalled that Bartleby refuses to leave the office and rather stays inside permanently, yet he himself only ever leaves his work to go home for the evening or to go on a walk. Bartleby and the lawyer also share a similarity in the idea that both reveal nothing about their pasts. Bartleby denies the direct requests for personal information, while Melville crafts the character of the lawyer to be void of this information. Additionally, any time a detail regarding the lawyer is about to be revealed, Melville cuts off the response to exclude any personal information. Although it seems unlikely at first, Bartleby and the lawyer are similar to each other in more ways than one.

"Miss Brill" by Katherine Mansfield

After reading “Miss Brill,” a short story by Katherine Mansfield, the theme of isolation becomes very apparent. However, it is not revealed until the end of the story. Throughout the tale, Miss Brill, an old woman, and her daily actions are discussed. She is described as watching life go by as though it is a play and she is the audience, first hinting at the isolation theme. Although she seems to enjoy that idea, it does isolate her from the others. Her joy of people-watching and experiencing the lives of others sets her apart from her community, alienating her as the “strange one” or “oddball.” Furthermore, the story continues to the rude comments of a young man and his girlfriend. He states, “Why does she come here at all – who wants her?” (Mansfield, 186). This only further isolates Miss Brill from the rest of her society. It becomes apparent that she lives alone and has no friends or even acquaintances, and it separates her from the others, sparking the hurtful comments like those of the young man. Miss Brill, although no one really knows her, is seen as a nuisance because she is always in the background, always in the way. This attitude towards her drives Miss Brill to leave the common grounds and go home, where it seems as though she begins to cry due to her isolation.