Frankenstein
Clerval and Frankenstein
May 14, 2019 by sampler
In their formative years, Henry Clerval and Victor Frankenstein lead parallel lives; they share
experiences, morals, and a love for knowledge. When Frankenstein leaves for Ingolstadt,
however, their once-similar traits and values diverge. Clerval remains generous and humane
while Frankenstein becomes self-absorbed and irresponsible. Throughout Mary Shelley’s
Frankenstein, Clerval’s role as compassionate caregiver contrasts with Frankenstein’s selfish
personality, enhancing Frankenstein’s negligent nature.
Clerval acts selflessly upon his arrival at Ingolstadt, choosing to care for Frankenstein instead
of attending his own classes. Clerval drops everything to help Frankenstein, even after
struggling for months to gain permission to attend the university. Frankenstein says, “Henry
was my only nurse. I afterwards learned that, knowing my father’s advanced age and
unfitness for so long a journey, and how wretched my sickness would make Elizabeth, he
spared them this grief by concealing the extent of my disorder. He knew that I could not have
a more kind and attentive nurse than himself; and, firm in the hope he felt of my recovery, he
did not doubt that, instead of doing harm, he performed the kindest action that he could
towards them.” (Shelley 64). Clerval’s attentiveness to Frankenstein juxtaposes
Frankenstein’s negligence in caring for his monster. Shelley paints a picture of irony as she
describes Frankenstein, ill because he failed to take care of his monster in the very way that
Clerval is taking care of him. Additionally, Clerval’s choice to withhold Frankenstein’s
health problems from his family plays into the theme of secrecy. Clerval keeps this secret
with benign intent; his sole goal is to protect Elizabeth and Alphonse from distress.
Frankenstein is also secretive, but unlike Clerval, his suppression of information is putting his
loved ones into danger. Frankenstein’s and Clerval’s uses of secrecy exhibit their differing
priorities and levels of compassion.
Upon meeting his professors, Clerval feigns ignorance to reduce Frankenstein’s discomfort,
even though Frankenstein refuses to tell him the real reason behind his poor health and
depression. Frankenstein says, “Clerval, whose eyes and feelings were always quick in
discerning the sensations of others, declined the subject, alleging, in excuse, his total
ignorance . . . he never attempted to draw my secret from me; and although I loved him with
a mixture of affection and reverence that knew no bounds, yet I could never persuade myself
to confide to him that event which was so often present to my recollection but which I feared
the detail to another would only impress more deeply.” (Shelley 72-73). First, Clerval delays
his schooling to take care of Frankenstein, and then, while being introduced to his professors,
he tiptoes around the subject of science to minimize Frankenstein’s stress. Clerval will
clearly go to great lengths to protect Frankenstein, fulfilling his role as caregiver. The
dichotomy between Frankenstein and Clerval grows stronger as Frankenstein fails to
reciprocate Clerval’s sensitivity, leaving him in the dark about his dilemma.
Frankenstein’s negligent nature ultimately causes the death of Clerval. By insisting that they
part ways in Scotland, Frankenstein greatly increases Clerval’s chances of becoming another
of the monster’s victims. Frankenstein is well aware of the danger, saying, “I feared the
effects of the daemon’s disappointment. He might remain in Switzerland and wreak his
vengeance on my relatives. This idea pursued me and tormented me at every moment from
which I might otherwise have snatched repose and peace . . . Sometimes I thought that the
fiend followed me and might expedite my remissness by murdering my companion. When
these thoughts possessed me, I would not quit Henry for a moment, but followed him as his
shadow, to protect him from the fancied rage of his destroyer.” (Shelley 197). Frankenstein’s
self-interest outweighs his fear for Clerval’s safety. In hoping to rid himself of his own
problems, he disregards the companion to whom he owes his life. Because he is ashamed of
his creation, he does not warn Clerval about the monster’s presence and thirst for revenge.
Though it is tragic, Clerval’s death is essential to the impact and message of the novel. It
secures his role as a foil, showing how two men with near identical upbringings can end up
with divergent understandings of right and wrong. At the time, Frankenstein believed he was
doing the right thing by trying to deal with the monster by himself. However, after Clerval’s
death, it is clear that Frankenstein’s moral compass is skewed by selfishness and shame.
Clerval’s death also strengthens Frankenstein’s story to Walton, adding a layer of tragedy
that further influences Walton’s decision to return home.
Clerval brings optimism, complexity, and balance to Frankenstein. He is one of the few
characters who remains in good health and high spirits while he is alive, offsetting
Frankenstein’s constant misery. He has a way of bringing out the best in Frankenstein; their
experiences together in nature are some of the only times the reader sees Frankenstein in a
good mood. That being said, for the most part, Clerval’s care and thoughtfulness are not
matched by Frankenstein, thus illuminating Frankenstein’s egotistical personality.
Categories FrankensteinLeave a comment
A Science of Limitation
March 12, 2019 by sampler
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a novel laden with comparisons and allusions to religion,
folklore, and philosophy. Frankenstein’s creation of a monster showcases a man doing what
only deities had done before: giving life to something dead. This obviously raises questions
about morality, responsibility, and many other philosophical issues. Because the creation of
life is generally considered a deific act, we cannot help but wonder what the novel says about
humans creating other life. Through writings by Dion, John Locke, John Wesley, and others,
we can ascertain the prevalent philosophies of the time. These would have in turn influenced
the novel. However, the novel does more than simply regurgitate the perspectives offered by
contemporaries. Rather, it adopts them into the plotline of the creator and created, in a
synthesis of ideas which presents its own assertions about creation. Exploring the context
around the novel leads us to wonder why the monster appears to possess inherently evil traits,
just like mankind in Christianity, but also possesses innocence and curiosity sometimes, such
as during his observation of a family living in the woods. The answer is ultimately a case for
the limitations of science carried out by mankind. Because Frankenstein focuses so much on
the dynamics of creation stories and the nature of human life at its beginnings in people, it is
most probable that Victor Frankenstein himself plays God in his work. Similar to the
Christian traditions of the time, Frankenstein as God creates a being after the image of
himself. However, unlike the Christian creation story, the creator himself is a flawed being,
thereby producing a repulsive creation. We see, at the moment the monster comes to life, that
the scientist looks upon him with disgust, describing him as “shriveled”—a “catastrophe”
(Shelley 36). This is a stark parallel to the Christian God’s assessment of His created people:
“and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31 ESV).
Another major influence on Frankenstein was likely the work of John Locke, who famously
advocated for the tabula rasa, or blank slate. Essentially, this view of psychology and human
nature stated that people directly after birth are blank slates, without any innate behavioral
characteristics. Everything about a person’s behavior comes from their experiences and
interactions with their environment. This applies to moral principles, as well, as John Locke
states in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “No innate practical principles…they
lie not open as natural characters engraven on the mind…” (Locke 51). Frankenstein interacts
with this concept as well, as we see through the monster’s curiosity about his world, his
questions for his creator, and his attempts to learn what is right and wrong throughout the
plot.
Because Frankenstein bears the influences of Christianity’s creator-nature attribute
inheritance alongside John Locke’s tabula rasa theory, the work is some sort of evaluation of
the two, and commentary on the real workings of human nature from a post-creation
standpoint. Throughout Frankenstein, we see the monster not as a complete villain, but a
curious being invested in learning about the people around him and trying, at times, to be a
force for good in the world of the humans (Shelley 77). At the same time, however, we see
the monster endowed with inherently repulsive traits, such as his unnatural lips, sunken,
milky eyes, and a behavior so easily turned to malevolence and revenge (Shelley 140). It
follows therefore that the novel asserts that sentient created beings inherit an aspect of
absolute good or evil from their creators, but circumstances and environment have the power
to shape that product over time.
From this standpoint, the novel can go on to make further assertions about the nature of
humanity through the nature of the monster and its relationship to its creator. The poet Dion,
a contemporary of Shelley, published a poem on “The Progress of Life” in 1812. Firstly, this
poem solidifies the parallel between the scientist and God, stating that “…science, gift of
Heav’n, which lifts man up, and purifies his nature, makes him almost a God, and teaches
him to wing his thoughts along the upmost verge of vast creation…” (Dion). Because of this,
the monster’s early existence represents the initial state of man in the universe.
Another contemporary of Shelley’s, one of the most prominent figures in the intellectual
community at the time, was John Wesley, founder of the Methodist church. In A Review of
Wesley’s Notions Respecting the Primeval State of Man and the Universe, Joseph Barker
summarizes Wesley’s stance that “the world in its primeval state, before the first
transgression…was good. The whole surface of it was beautiful to a high degree” (Barker 2).
Enamored with his monster during the creation process, Frankenstein too believed it to be
perfect, beautifully proportioned, and a form of a man, perfected. When we consider this in
light of the two creators and their original states as stated by the church at that time, we can
see the dialogue between the novel and the greater picture of creation. According to the
nineteenth-century church, the God of the Bible defines absolute perfection, while his posttransgression people have been defiled by sin, without any merit aside from the grace of
Christ. In his state of total depravity then, Frankenstein can only create a creature equally
depraved or more so than himself.
Seemingly, John Locke’s tabula rasa and the philosophy of the church cannot combine
harmoniously with each other. If Shelley’s work were purely from Locke’s standpoint, the
monster would be at most visually repulsive, and without any inclination to do anything
violent or malevolent. On the other hand, from the church’s perspective, the monster should
have awoken with an instant desire for self-gratification, with nothing but evil intents. The
monster would not have lived beside the family for a spell, chopping wood and learning to
read. The synthesis of these two points of view in Shelley’s novel seeks to establish an
accurate view of creation.
Establishing a view of creation is rather pointless without a more relevant application to realworld philosophy, however. What does the monster’s initial creation ultimately say about our
world? Let us return to Dion’s poem about life. His assertion that science almost makes man
a God draws a comparison between science and God. As the novel establishes a perspective
of God and creation, it also compares science to creation. Frankenstein makes the bigger
assertion through this parallel, stating that science is limited by human nature. Science, a type
of creation—perhaps that of knowledge—can only become as perfect as the people who
practice it. Just like the monster, scientific findings can be incredible but will always be
flawed, like the researchers who find them. Evaluating Frankenstein in relation to the
writings and thoughts contemporary to its author reveals a striking commentary on the
limitations of science as carried out by humans. Through a masterful use of parallels and
comparisons, the novel asserts that while science can accomplish monumental tasks, the
findings are only as perfect as the men who find them—and the men, while almost gods in
their studies—are restrained by their depravity according to Christian beliefs. On a less
absolute standpoint however, scientists remain free to develop their art and moral values
according to their environments, as represented through John Locke’s influence. While
Frankenstein is a fantastic novel for pleasure reading, it is also addresses the heavy parts of
life. The monster’s creation serves as a stark warning to scientists who would try to play God.
Works Cited
Barker, Joseph. A Review of Wesley’s Notions Respecting the Primeval State of Man and the
Universe. 1800. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/60202937.
Dion. “The Progress of Life.” The Belfast Monthly Magazine, vol. 9, no. 49, 1812, pp. 130–
131. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/30074159.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. 1689. Google Books,
https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding.html?i
d=J0sdAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q=blank%
20slate&f=false.
Categories FrankensteinLeave a comment
Fear of Childbirth in Frankenstein
February 5, 2019 by sampler
In Frankenstein, the stated purpose of Victor Frankenstein is to end death by reanimating
living flesh in a way that would mean that no one ever have to die again, or at very least stay
that way. Yet, throughout the book, the fear of childbirth becomes a major undercurrent in
the book. In this book, I will explore the ways that Frankenstein uses childbirth as the
underlying horror of the characters.
The Birth of the Creature
Victor Frankenstein could possibly be one of the most nervous characters in fiction. Even in
horror fiction, which is full of characters who are running away from ghosts and trying not to
get eaten by vampires, Victor is particularly nervous well before he sees his creation coming
alive for the first time.
Yet, in the creation of the creature, Victor is perfectly calm up until the moment of birth. He
is stealing body parts and putting them together. Yet once the monster is alive, Victor is
horrified. “His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his
hair was lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances
only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same
colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight
black lips” (53).
One has to ask why Victor is suddenly afraid of the sewed up corpse just because it opens its
eyes. Victor had months to become accustomed to the monster. Yet somehow the act of
giving it life has unsettled him. This is similar to the post-partum depression experienced by
mothers who cannot deal with the time after birth and resent their children. It is also
underscores the fact that newborn babies at least are ugly. After a few months, they get
personalities and they look cute, but right out of the womb they are screaming poop monsters.
Victor Frankenstein is so frightened of his creation that he runs away and then spends the
next two years in a nervous fever. There is considerable chaos surrounding Mary Shelly at
the inception of the book – somewhat romanticized in her essay to the 1834 – which included
several individuals who were suffering from the same anxiety. For example, Byron’s “wife,
Annabella, had fled with her newborn child from the marital home and returned to her
parents in order to begin separation proceedings from Byron, whom she thought mad”
(Wilson 41). Mary Shelly was also fleeing with Percy Shelly from her angry father. “It was
on her mother’s grave that Shelley seduced her when she was 16” (Britton 3).
Social Implications of Childbirth
Until the late 19th century, childbirth was a death sentence for many women. Infant mortality
was high and women could die of everything from bleeding to sepsis to infection from
doctors who did not wash their hands in between handling dead bodies and attending to the
birth. It was only with improved hygiene and medical knowledge that childbirth stopped
being something that was likely to kill women and children.
Mary Shelley’s mother died 11 days after her birth and she was traveling with Lord Byron’s
mistress who was pregnant with his child. Mary Shelley would give birth to an infant shortly
after the writing of the book, who would also die shortly thereafter. Furthermore, Lord
Byron’s bitter ex-wife was running away with his child in order to keep her away from his
influence.
Another aspect of childbirth that comes through in society and life is the masculine view of
childbirth. As mentioned above, Lord Byron’s wife made sure to keep her daughter away
from him. While women can die and are expected to fall instantly in love with their children,
men are encouraged to make children without taking care of them. A man can run away from
his family and even in a social order where men are expected to stay, there is a patriarchal
tradition where the father figure is a distant individual who spends all of his time working.
Thus Victor Frankenstein as a man who give birth to a fully grown individual can suffer from
both an anxiety that mirrors post-partum depression and a feeling of being trapped within his
own actions. “Victor Frankenstein doesn’t value life in the absolute. Instead, he places a
higher worth on his reputation. He wants to join the new class of learned men that has
replaced the landed gentry as the upper society in Europe.” (Lunsford 174). The class
ambitions of Victor belie his nervous disposition, but it is quite telling that after the death of
his brother and his servant he goes mountain climbing with his friend Henry. Victor is so
individualistic that he cannot conceive of a family and his son’s move to confront him on the
mountain is an appeal to meet Victor where he is at instead of expecting Victor to come to
him. Infertility
The concluding chapters of Frankenstein are characterized by the end of the Frankenstein line
in two very dramatic ways. In the first way, Victor is induced to create a mate for his
creation, a woman this time. This is the one that would keep the creature company and make
his loneliness in the world less lonely. Victor is ready to do it until he sees the creature and
has a nervous breakdown. Victor destroys the monster’s intended bride under the belief that
the bride could have children and he could be creating an army of monsters like his creature.
At this point, the motivation for Victor’s destruction seems cruel. A less sympathetic writer
could have pushed the narrative into a consideration of the creature’s actions. The creature
did murder several people by this point. Yet, his story indicts Victor and Victor’s lack of
maternal and paternal feeling. Even though Victor’s fear of his creation is somewhat justified
at this point, his action comes down to destroying his creature’s future and thus hope for
grandchildren in this line.
In turn, the creature kills Victor’s wife on her wedding night. Victor’s response to the
creature’s threat that he will see him on his wedding night is to run away from Elizabeth. A
Freudian interpretation could suggest that Victor knew what the creature was talking about
and left Elizabeth defenseless in order to allow his creature to kill her.
Thus, the novel ends with two men chasing each other through the arctic weather with Victor
taken to pursuing his creation to end him. At this point there is enough revenge to go around,
but more importantly Victor has placed a value on destroying the abandoned child that he has
neglected throughout the book. In this way, the entire Frankenstein family can be destroyed
with the last two members of Victor and his creation dead in the barren wasteland.
Conclusion
The topic of childbirth is a frightening topic for many people and for a 19th century daughter
of a feminist who died shortly after she was born, it would have been an even more terrible
possibility. In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley depicts a man who managed to give birth
to a creature without labor pains or fear of infection (which is rather ironic considering that
the morgue was the source of many of the post-partum killer infections). Yet, Victor
Frankenstein suffers the same fears that a new mother would experience and he responds by
abandoning his son. The narrative of neglect and revenge creates a space where neither
creator or creation will ever have children.
Works Cited
Britton, Ronald. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: What Made the Monster Monstrous?”
Journal of Analytical Psychology. 60(1). 2015.
Lunsford, Lars. “The Devaluing of Life in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” The Explicator.
68(3). 2010.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: Complete and Unabridged Classic Edition. Mnemosyne Books.
(March 11, 2016).
Wilson, Frances. “How Frankenstein Became a Monster: Two Hundred Years of a Prolific
and Horrible Creation.” New Statesman. (September 9-15, 2016)