Numerous authors have criticized Mary Shelley's 1818 novel "Frankenstein"
over the years. To develop their argument, the authors base their thoughts on the storyline of the story and the characters, but others base their ideas on Mary Shelley's life and experiences, believing that this inspired her imagination and the plot of the novel. One of the critics of the novel available today is an article published in La Belle Assemblée.
An unknown author or writers wrote the essay in La Belle Assemblée
or the Bell's Court and Fashionable Magazine, 2d Series, 17 (March 1818): 139-142. The use of we within the article could mean that more than one person completed the critic. The La Belle Assemblée was a British Women’s magazine established by John Bell that was in existence between the year 1806 and 1837. At the time the article was produced, the magazine was used to publish poetry, both fictional and non-fictional articles, reviews on books and theatre. Mary Shelley was a notable contributor to the magazine.
Thesis of the Article
The thesis of the article focuses on the assumption that Shelley had the moral viewpoint that the works of man can be considered as vile, frightful and horrible and the ultimate end is discomfort and misery to themselves (Le Belle Assemblée 139). They believe that Shelley neglected an important part in her work by not mentioning her goal of having a moral viewpoint to the story. Shelley only implies the viewpoint through the plot of the story but fails to consider the diverse types of audience (Le Belle Assemblée 139). The critic’s thesis stresses on the idea of the author having a moral viewpoint when developing the story.
Evaluation of the Thesis
The thesis identified by the critics is true considering the plot of the novel (Le Belle Assemblée 140). Shelley starts the novel by introducing man’s own creation of life. Frankenstein is a monster created by Victor in his attempt to go beyond the accepted limits of human life and discovered the secret of life. This refers to the ruthless search for knowledge and power that human beings continuously pursue. The author focused on this character in human beings and revealed the misery and complications that the pursuit of knowledge eventually causes in the life of the humans themselves. Victor’s creation, Frankenstein becomes a source of misery to him later in life. Frankenstein starts by killing Victor’s younger brother and later on kills everyone dear to him (Le Belle Assemblée 141). Frankenstein goes on to demand a companion, and when he is not granted one, he plots and executes his revenge on Victor proving the thesis of the critics (Le Belle Assemblée 141).
Further, Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein can be considered to have a moral viewpoint
that the focus on the search for light leads to misery and discomfort to man. Based on the loss of all his loved ones, Victor seeks revenge on Frankenstein. After execution of all victors’ beloved ones by Frankenstein, Victor decides to set out on a journey and destroy his creation (Shelley 142). This obsessive hatred on the monster he created leads to his death. Victor’s continuous search for revenge leads to his ultimate destruction, which is in line with the moral idea that the creations of man are vile and atrocious and the result is usually misery to them.
Likewise, Robert Walton, the captain attempts to go beyond the previous explorations of humans (Shelley 112). He, therefore, pursues knowledge and experience by undertaking to reach the North Pole. This can be considered as a ruthless pursuit of light and fire, which proves to be dangerous for him. Walton finds himself trapped between sheets of ice perilously. This represents the results of relentless pursuit of knowledge by humans. However, unlike Victor, Walton pulls out of his two-faced mission getting his lessons from Victor and thus manages to save himself from ultimate destruction.
Evaluation of the Support
The critics provide sufficient support for the thesis they present. They provide sustenance from the text where they recount the plot of the story to provide abundant information. The article uses excerpts from the novel to provide evidence of the assumed moral viewpoint upheld by Shelley. However, the critics only focus on the point where the monster created by Victor becomes his ultimate destruction where he loses all his loved ones. Therefore, the critics fail to provide more than adequate information required to support his thesis.
The article published by the British critic N.S., 9 (April 1818): 432-38, the author who is also anonymous focuses on Robert Walton, the hero of the story (British Critic N.S.). The author commends Shelley for the work done in describing the scene. The author supports the idea that the pursuit of knowledge leads to the ultimate destruction of man. He describes the scene and the fact that the experiences of Victor stopped Walton from pursuing his ambitious need to explore further than any man has ever been before (British Critic N.S.). The entire critic is presented as similar to the one of The Le Belle Assemblée where they both recap of the story to prove their points.
Conclusion
Mary Shelley’s book is a very bold fiction that can be considered impious. However, it is right to assume that Shelley had the moral view, which can be used to presume that creations of man must be vile, horrible and unpleasant, and their ultimate end is discomfort and misery to the man himself. Shelley clearly evidences this using the characters of Victor and Walton who suffer from their pursuit of knowledge.
Work cited
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein: 1818. Intervisual b Books 2010
Le Belle Assemblée. The Mary Shelley Chronology. 2d series, 17 (march 1818) : 139-142.
British Critic N.S. British review of Frankenstein. April 1818. www.rc.umd.edu/refference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bcrev.html
