Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein represents interplay of Enlightenment rationalism and
Romantic irrationality. Essentially, Victor Frankenstein represents the
Enlightenment’s ideas of rationalism, while his creation, the monster,
represents the irrationality of romanticism. The Enlightenment and its
rationality were focused on science, and all things that are physical. Victor
represented these ideals through his constant work in his laboratory, and
creation of the monster through research in chemistry and other sciences. Essentially, his fall into a life with no
social skills and obsession with the monster represents a condemnation of
rationalism. Shelley showed the problems with thinking completely rationally
and like an Enlightenment thinker, but also showed the issues with thinking like
a Romantic: irrationally. Romantics argued that “the
complexity of human experience could not be explained by an inhuman
rationalism,” and that is exactly what Victor attempted to do (Smith 2). By
creating life and attempting to bend the rules of nature and religion, he tried
to explain the complexity of human experience, such as creation, rationally.
This essentially caused his downfall, as he could care less about Romantic
ventures and was solely focused on rational thought.
On the other
hand, the monster represented the Romantic Movement. By relying on his
feelings, for example begging Victor to make him a female companion so he can
be happy. Essentially, he lets emotions take over his life: “I will revenge my injuries;
if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear, and chiefly towards you my
archenemy, because my creator, do I swear inextinguishable hatred” (Shelley
182). The monster even takes it so far to say he will ruin Victor’s life if he
does not create someone for him to love. Through this, it’s clear that the
monster had a very Romantic way of thought which also caused his downfall, due
to his lack of rationality. Overall, Frankenstein still has resonance for our
culture as it poses questions that are still relevant today. It questions,
initially, the question of technology and science versus morality. Just because
we can do something, does that mean we should? It brings up questions of the
moral consequences of things such as cloning, which is, in a way, done in Frankenstein. As science becomes more
and more powerful in culture and society, the idea of Frankenstein and the monster becomes more and more powerful. We
continue to question more and more, is this possible? Could something like this
truly happen? These questions make Mary Shelley’s timeless piece live on today
and continue to live on for years to come.
Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Dover Publications, 1994. Print
Smith, Andrew. Gothic Literature. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2013. Questia School. Web. 31 Oct. 2014.
(This is Casey)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote a very good post Jake. I really think that you make sound arguments about Victor representing the Enlightenment through his obsession with science and the monster representing Romanticism through his emotional nature. However, I think that you should avoid separating Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy using the term rationality. Rationalism is a sect of philosophy that believes reason is the only tool that can be used to describe the world. Romanticism, on the other hand, argues that reason is not the only tool because the senses (through the perception of nature, art, and literature) can give meaning to the world around us too. However, Rationalism also believes that every human is inherently rational and, therefore, they make rational decision when they act. Even though Romanticism argues for an appreciation of the senses and is a reaction against Rationalism, Romanticism is not irrational. Furthermore, Romanticists neither think irrationally nor do they value irrationally. Romanticists simply value the achievement of rational thought through the appreciation of nature, art, and means other than just using reason.