A Response To Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

1485 Words6 Pages
Let’s entertain something for a minute. If Frankenstein really didn’t know what his creature would do when he first gave it life, why did he create the creature in the first place? Is a blind pursuit of science something that Shelley thought could only lead to ruin and despair? In order to understand her perspective, it’s probably a good idea to know what Shelley was dealing with during the time of the industrial revolution. Most people at that time believed that, much like the incredible growth of factories during the revolution, people’s social lives would become organized and structured by the growth of social dictation. Like the contracts of workers, the idea was that soon people would have contracted ways to go about their lives; commands…show more content…
Shelley would obviously be terrified of this ever occurring, and thus probably took a radical stance on the ideas of science and progress. In response, she birthed a story about the worst possible outcome of science going wrong. But what other concerns did Shelley include? There has to be more to a story than just the manifest context. Frankenstein, one of the most recognized science fiction stories ever published, is full of warnings that should be entertained. Frankenstein has portrayed an incredible story of damaging knowledge, futile resilience, and scientific creation and destruction. Shelley, while a figure of the past, brings about ideas that are incredibly important to contemplate. These ideas are embodied in her two main characters- Victor, and the creature that he creates. Shelley heavily stresses the emotional toil that occurs throughout Frankenstein. Victor, whose perspective is followed throughout most of the novel, is a man obsessed with science. Not only is Victor obsessed, however- Victor also excels at all things scientific. He has the remarkable trait of grasping new concepts with both ease and passion. This leads Victor to become easily engrossed only in his scientific endeavors, and to shrug off the…show more content…
During the industrial revolution, machines were commonly taking the place of people in factories. As one might suspect, the workers did not take kindly to this situation, and started a revolution called Luddism. The Luddists believed that in order to take back their rightful jobs, they needed to destroy the machines that had taken their positions. The destruction of these machines caused a lot of problems, including damage to factory property, inefficient production of products, and damage to actual workers in the factories. While the relationship here isn’t quite as obvious here as the Atomic Energy controversy, the relationship is just as strong and very similar. The introduction of new machines, while causing greater production of goods, also caused many people to lose their jobs and become desperate enough to extract revenge on thoughtless, emotionless machines. The Luddites did this even though it could (and did) hurt other people in the process. Each of these technologies mentioned have had benefits, but they have also had tremendous negative consequences. The creature can be seen in the same light. While a nice guy for some of the time, when the creature becomes desperate or angry, he lashes out and causes destruction to many people around him. “I had cast off all feeling… Evil thenceforth became my good” (Shelley, 218). Just like nuclear bombs don’t think about the
Open Document