Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is a novel that was written during the romantic era, and is regarded to as one of the first science fiction stories. Mary Shelley tells a story about a scientist by the name of Victor Frankenstein, who managed to create a ridiculous creature during a scientific experiment. The creature exhibits absurd behavior throughout the novel which may be attributed to the neglect that it received by its creator and society altogether. The text incorporates various literary elements and has been studied for many years. One unique attribute that the literature contains is the idea of ecocriticism, which was analyzed by Siobhan Carroll in her paper “Crusades Against Frost: Frankenstein, Polar Ice, and Climate Change in 1818.” The text also shares certain similarities to Lord Byron’s poem “Darkness.” The novel incorporates a total of 3 volumes, and this blog post will focus specifically on the 3rd volume.
Volume 3 of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” begins with Victor and Henry Creval traveling in London. Victor later decides to part ways with Henry in Scotland, fearing that the monster will kill Henry. In a quiet and uninhabited area in Orkney Islands, Victor continues with his plan to create a mate for the monster. In the process, Victor becomes ashamed with himself and fears a threat to civilization that this new creature may bring. At this time, the monster appears near the window of Victor’s workshops to see his soon to be mate. Feeling very dissatisfied and angry with himself, Victor destroys the half-finished creation, and tells the monster that he refuses to continue. Evidently, the monster becomes very displeased and begins to question Victors intentions, and states “I shall be with you on your wedding night.” The monster then disappears, and Victor assumes that the threat was toward himself.
Victor dismantles the workshop and travels off on a boat to dispose the remaining body parts. He dumps the remains in to the deep water and becomes carried away in his boat on a quest to England as requested by Henry. On his journey, Victor is taken into magistrate on accusation of murdering Henry whose remains were found on that very shore. Victor notices the black finger marks on the neck of Henry, and is certain that the monster is responsible of this wrong-doing. Victor is later taken to court and is imprisoned. In prison, Victor becomes extremely ill and Kirwin, the magistrate sends a doctor to return victor to good health. Victor is later released on proof that he was on the Orkney Islands at the time of the murder, and is set free to travel home with his father, Alphonse.
Victor becomes very determined to marry Elizabeth as quickly as possible to encounter the monster once more and to end the battle. When the wedding night finally arrives, Victor becomes nervous and Elizabeth notices his odd behavior. He assures her that he will explain his behavior the next day and sends her off to bed. While awaiting the monster in the outer chambers, he hears a scream from his bedroom. Victor quickly rushes in to the bedroom and finds his wife dead, laying across the bed. The monster remained outside the room waiting for Victor and grinned at him through the window. In attempt to kill the monster, Victor pulled out a pistol and shoots at the monster, however the monster escapes woundless. When Alphonse learns of the death, he dies in grief.
A crowd of local authorities soon begin a quest to capture the monster but fail to do so. As Victor vows for vengeance at the grave of his loved ones he hears the voice of the monster: “I am satisfied, miserable wretch! You have determined to live, and I am satisfied.” Victor leaves his home and chases for the monster through Europe and Russia and to the North Pole. The weather progressively becomes worse, and food becomes very scarce. The monster is seen by villagers with a dog sled team and fear is scattered throughout the village. Victor eventually gets very close to the monster, however the two are separated due to a breakage in the ice. Victor floats away on a piece of ice to the side of Walton’s ship. Here, Victor confesses of what he has done and urges Walton to search for and kill the monster. Shortly after, Victor passes away.
Towards the end of the book, Walton enters a cabin where the body of victor lies and witnesses the monster hovering over Victors dead body expressing his grief. The monster reveals the misery and struggles that he has been facing to Walton. He mentions that in the early stages of his life he was a happy being and was filled with affection and love. He goes on to say that he was rejected by humans: “Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me?” The story ends on a very gloomy note.
In “Crusades Against Frost: Frankenstein, Polar Ice, and Climate Change in 1818,” Siobhan Carroll focus on the idea of ecocriticism. This idea suggests that literature if affected by the natural environment on earth during the period that a certain piece of literature was composed. As proposed by Siobhan Carroll, 1818 was a period of climate change. Specifically, Romantic climatic fears regarding polar ice was a major concern at the time, and Siobhan Carroll believed that poets expressed their concern through poetic schemes. Mary Shelly portrays her concern through the characters of Walton and Victor in their desire to tame nature. When conversing with Walton’s crew, Victor insists that the human race can and will overcome the empire of ice because it is mutable. Here, Siobhan Carroll is attempting to provide a reference toward the desire for ecological change. Siobhan Carrol also believed that Mary Shelly depicted this idea of climate change metaphorically through the monster. The monster’s rejection by society suggests that Europeans are similar in that they are not willing to embrace and render cosmopolitan responses to ecological crisis’s.
Although it is not evident whether Mary Shelly is in fact providing a reference toward ecocriticism, I certainty believe that it is highly likely. The year 1816, just a couple years prior to the release of Frankenstein, was dubbed “the year without a summer.” For the next several years, Britain was concerned with climate change. There were references in the text eluding to the cold winter and scarcity in food products which made the chase after the monster a highly difficult task. When first reading “Frankenstein,” I did not sense this idea of ecocriticism, but after reading Siobhan Carroll and analyzing the text, it seems reasonable to believe that Mary Shelly along with other poets of the period were illustrating a need for climate change.
I found Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” very similar in certain aspects to Lord Byron’s poem “Darkness.” Although the two texts vary drastically in format and plot, they both portray a very gloomy story. “Darkness” was written in 1816, just two years prior to “Frankenstein” and as illustrated by Siobhan Carroll, the two may share a similarity in reference to the climate. In his poem, Lord Byron presented graphical imagery on his prediction of earth’s future. He and many others during the time believed that the world was going to end. The gloomy and cold world depicted in the “darkness” made men forget about their passions and only want to survive. Animals were not able to sustain their lives and died. People began to turn on one another and began resort to cannibalism in order to survive. Darkness conquered all. It is noteworthy to mention that the behavior portrayed by the animals, in a sense demonstrate the distinction between human and inhuman responses to the apocalyptic climate change seen in the poem. In “Frankenstein,” Mary Shelly created a monster character that received no nurture, love, and was neglected by its creator along with society. Dissimilar to the animals in Lord Byron’s poem, the monster behavior display’s no distinction between the idea of the human and inhuman. The variation between the human an inhuman can we thought of on the basis of ecocriticism as proposed by Siobhan Carroll. The two authors differed in views on the climate, hence their characters portrayed a variation in behavior. The monster was capable of good, as is the earth, but both resulted in a catastrophe. The two texts share a very gloomy plot of aspects that are capable of good, but ultimately result in the worst.
- Do you believe that Mary Shelly was eluding to climate change in her text?
- Do you believe that it was the right decision not to create a mate for the monster?
- How would you describe the monsters character? Was he a good creature or an evil one?
Mary Shelly could not have been commenting on climate change in the sense that we know it at this point, as in 1818, anthropogenic contributions to climate change had not been sufficient yet to have an effect. However, this could very easily have been influenced by the Summer of 1816, where summer failed to come.
I don’t think it would have mattered whether or not Frankenstein ended up making a female mate for the Creature, any involvement other than killing his Creature would probably have just had other downstream consequences. The mistake Frankenstein could not undo was guiding his Creature from the start and preventing all of this. Now that it’s started, the pandemonium to come was probably inevitable.
As for the monster, it’s hard to say the monster is good or bad because we do not do well even applying “good” or “bad” to people. Creature, as I’ve said in an earlier blog post, deserves the blame for the gruesome deeds he’s committed, but he was shaped by the confusion and fear of the early childhood where he suffered without a parent to guide and protect him. The Creature, like many people, is complicated.
While the human-caused climate change we are now experiencing had not yet begun in earnest in 1818, the volcanic eruption in 1815 that plunged the world into darkness in 1816 did produce a climate event — and an ecocritical reading of Frankenstein and “Darkness” can help us better understand how writers of the period situated human pursuits in relation to climate and nature. We’ve talked a lot about the sublime in class this semester, which Edmund Burke has defined as the experience of the terrifying from a place of safety — and I wonder if the climate event of 1816 made that “safety” less secure than it had been when, say, Mary Wollstonecraft was writing her Letters Written during a Brief Residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Do you think that the “sublime” of the 18th century verged on full-blown terror in 1816? And what might that tell us (if anything) about shifting relationships to the natural world and humanity’s place in it?
The correlation between climate change and Victor’s relationship with the creature is not evident at first. Taking a look back at the reading you can see a connection in the idea of responsibility. Victor created the creature and had a responsibility to show the creature the way to survive and thrive in this unknown world. He failed to do so and as a result the consequences were deadly. Victor was even warned of the effects his decisions would have and he failed to acknowledge the severity of his decision. Although the idea of global warming was probably not claimed as loudly as it is today I feel that anyone with a scientific background had the capability to understand what putting chemicals into the world would do. The industrial revolution in Europe began in the late 1700’s. The idea that our decisions to destroy the planet that gives us life with the selfishness of our actions can definitely be connected to Frankenstein.
Regarding “Crusades Against Frost: Frankenstein, Polar Ice, and Climate Change in 1818,” by Siobhan Carroll, I totally disagree that 1818 was a period of climate change because there are no scientific facts that can prove this statement. Therefore, climatic change regarding polar ice was not a major concern for romantic writers.
Marry Shelly as others romantic writers, for instance, her mother Marry Wollstonecraft, picked these polar ice and cold weather scenarios to increase the feeling of the reader towards these characters. The characters endeavored sorrow and misery and I tthink Marry Shelley wanted to show us that they are trying to find themselves and find a solution for their problems even though the weather is inhospitable. Marry Wollstonecraft in her letters, and Victor together with Frankenstein ran away from the situations that caused them pain and traveled to these cold places.
These sad and cold scenarios represent the sublime because that is the place where they find their inner peace and redeem themselves. The characters overcame their fears in the beauty of these cold places.
While it’s true that the aesthetic interest in the sublime Arctic landscape predated the precipitous global cooling of 1815-1816 (as you note, Wollstonecraft used icy imagery in much the same way as Mary Shelley), there was undeniable concern about a changing climate when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. The climate change was caused by a volcanic eruption (although that wasn’t known at the time) rather than by human activity as we are accustomed to thinking about climate change in our own era. It must have been terrifying! Do you think it changes the way that authors dealt with images of climate change, to not know the cause?
The creature was a good character but he ended up mutating into evil qualities because of his creator. There is no one to fault besides Victor. Victor could have molded the creature anyway he wanted. He started with innocence of not knowing anything. He tried to learn and be able to do what everyone else does. But, Victor didn’t help me feel acceptance and love.
But doesn’t it deny some of the Creature’s humanity to assume that his personality is entirely shaped by his creator? If we refuse to assign any blame to the Creature, are we also refusing to acknowledge his ownership over his own decisions?
The decision to not create a mate for Monster, and whether Monster was good or bad falls in a very gray area. There is no black or white answer to these questions. Each audience member who reads the tale of Frankenstein, has their own personal opinions and morals.
Some may empathize with the Monster and believe he deserves a life of happiness after his tragic upbringing. In our current society, we believe in giving people second chances. The Monster was not a human, we define it as a creature. How can Victor and society expect the creature to understand the human morality structure and norms? Yes the creature is capable of murder, but the Monster did not know the gravity of what death puts upon a human. If Victor had any intention of recreating life, which is essentially giving the deceased a second chance at living, the Creature has every right to live a normal life with love.
There is no way of actually clearly defining whether the monster was good or bad. He committed detestable acts of murder in sake for revenge. The monster as stated earlier made mistakes, but he deserves every opportunity to amend its mistakes. I believe we see a transition from the Monster being innocent, evil, and having the chance to develop into a good character. If Victor allowed the Monster to be in love and happy with a mate, we can see growth of the Monster. The Monster is full of unknown potential, it is capable of a lot as we clearly saw in the text. It can recognize, has self awareness, and even linguistic capabilities. The monster can be molded if taught properly. This all falls back on Victor and how he is the true antagonist who committed multiple sins.
Frankenstein did not create a mate for the monster since he feared they may reproduce and create more of them. I think it was probably the best idea to not create another monster, it is not fair for the monster, but for the sake of humans it is since he does not fit in society. I think as an alternative to creating another monster, Frankenstein should’ve taken responsibility and taken the monster under his wing. But, perhaps after already abandoning him in the beginning, maybe it is too late.
Frankenstein’s monster is a lonely, disfigured character with society rejecting him and even his creator. He is a misunderstood creature who just wanted to belong, but in the end, he gives up and turns for vengeance against the scientist. I think in the beginning, he was good, but after all of the neglect, he switched sides.
I don’t think the creature can be labeled as either good or bad. I believe he was originally a well intentioned but is a product of how he was treated by everyone he encountered. As the creature explained himself, he did understand how he looked and how people would react. Which is why he tried to talk to the blind man so he could explain himself without judgement. He was a being that craved contact but was continuously rejected. I believe that this is one of those cases where nurture is the defining factor in how creature acts. Though his actions are definitely bad, I see him more as mistreated and misunderstood.
I wouldn’t say she was influenced by climate change. But like many before I have said, I do think the darkness and gothic tone of the summer of 1816 did plague the overall population with eerie, melancholic, and fear emotions.
We can’t force ourselves to consider the creature bad or good. in terms of the character itself, we see how much depth there it to him and how much we can relate to him. But we can not fully judge his actions because we can see similar actions be committed by our own kind. We have to take into consideration his harsh and horrific upbringing. He was just a victim of the worst part of the human experience, even though he was not a human himself. We can relate that to how other living things today suffer the consequences of our actions.
Do you believe that it was the right decision not to create a mate for the monster?
I completely believe that it was the right decision for Victor Frankenstein to not create a mate for the monster, because of the monster’s actions. The monster was trying to get love and attention from Victor, but went about it in all the wrong ways. Victor was not going to teach this monster anything and wanted no ties to it. So what was the monster going to teach it’s mate? He would’ve shared his problems with this mate and fall in love with her, then one day when she understands the world more because of their ability to learn at a faster pace and she realizes Victor Frankenstein did wrong to her mate, then what would both monsters do, go and kill Victor together in cold blood? After that, they could potentially have a vendetta against humanity.
Humans were not willing to accept the monster—they weren’t sure if they should be afraid of him because of his appearance. Society is mainly focused on appearances, so if they saw something scary, they wouldn’t think twice, but may just act to hurt the monster in ‘self defense’. These monsters together could’ve gotten together to really try to hurt people, if they never received the appreciation from humans that the first monster longed for. One could believe that they would be happy together and go off into the sunset abandoning society and not causing any harm to anyone, but that would be a far belief from what could really happen.
I think it was the wrong decision that not create a mate for the monster, because there was a chance that if you create a mate to him and he can learn how to love each other and make him better. It’s hard to say if the monster is a good creation or a bad one because it was good at the beginning ,the thing that changed him were how people treated him and what happen to him, I don’t think it was all his fault.
I think that it was almost unfair for Frankenstein to not create a partner for him. The monster wanted that to feel loved and for another thing to understand him better. I understood Frankenstein’s concern about making more creatures, but I’m not sure it would have even been possible to make a baby creature with the two new creatures. I felt bad for the monster because it was almost like he was promised something and didn’t get it. the monster also didn’t chose to come into the world, he was a creature that happened to come alive. He also didn’t get to chose or change the way people viewed him. So to have someone else like him in the world would have been helpful to his growth and development.
The monster started out as good. He then learned from the evil and insensitivity that was around him to be cruel and scary. But also the people around him made him feel like a monster even when he was helping someone out.