Because of the creativity and consistency in the prose, Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein is arguably one of the most read books of literature. As a consequence, the novel has been subjected to scholarly review from a variety of literatures, with a variety of scholars describing their perspectives on the novel. Critical reviews have frequently focused on a thematic assessment, with the emphasis on Shelley’s claim and the way in which the characters are frequently presented. The novel depicts the life of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who contracts his theme in a straightforward manner to explain the life in the light of the role of science, conciseness, and vengeance. The author of the critic article titled “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography” is a learned scholar who is a graduate from the Wingate University implying that she is a creditable author who is well-versed on the subject. Through an analysis of critics’ views on the writing of the novel, it is apparent that Sherry Gin’s article seeks to address the issues related to femininity in a male dominated world which that by Hetherington is centered on the more versed theme of science and religion.
From the assessment of the critic author’s thesis, it is apparent that the Ginn focuses on the minor themes of the novel. I, however, agree with the thesis that Ginn brings out because while reading the novel, I was appalled by the way the author presented the Creatures’ female companion. The Creature has requested Victor to make a similar creature like him of a female gender so that she could be her companion. When Victor was almost done, he decided to destroy his second creature creation at will without considering the interest of his male creature (Shelley 22). The inferences as pertaining the theme of the inequality in gender are thus valid but it is still not justified for the author to focus on a theme that is sparingly addressed in the novel. In fact, it is apparent that there are not many critics who have focused on the theme of femininity in Mary Shelley’s book.
The author of the critic article, however, justifies and provides in-depth coverage to support the claims made. The article is subject to extensive research as the author seeks to make a strong case of her claims about the concept of women and the female gender being undermined in the book. For example, Ginn begins the review by assessing the kind of life that Mary Shelley lived including the experiences of being motherless and being abandoned by her fathers (Ginn). The critic even argues that there is change that Frankenstein constitutes an autobiography based on the experiences that the author underwent as a young girl. The justification is centered on the biography of the authors personal life and early exposure to education where she would engage in many experiments. The article thus bases on the author’s experiences as the primary source to justify other sources. I believe that the critic’s idea of focusing on other works that unravel the mystery surrounding the life of Mary Shelly that prompted her to write about the supposedly controversial topic is valid. Furtherer, the author uses the support information in a proper manner because in the end, at the sources that are states and referred in the citations are referenced appropriately.
However, from a broader perceptive, the other critiques published on the book are focused more on the relevant themes as opposed to the subject of gender disparity. The article by Hetherington is centered on the theme of the religion and creation and how such factors influence the writing of the novel by Mary Shelly titled Frankenstein. The similarity in the two critics is that they are both based on the background of the author and how such features influenced the authors’ writing and the central thesis of the novel. Meanwhile, the critique by Hetherington is founded on the fact that all the descriptions that Mary Shelley highlights in her book can be interpreted from a religious perspective. For example, the effect where Victor decided to create a female creature for his male ghost is interested as a situation where God saw that the work was good but it betrayed the creator hence the need to eliminate the shame by creating another of a similar type. There are varied other type of evidence that are referred that are described from a religious point of view.
In summary, it is worth emphasizing that Mary Shelley’s book titled Frankenstein has been subject to wide critical analysis. One such critic by Ginn is centered on the theme of femininity, which is arguably a minor issue. The concept of awareness and science is, however, the central theme of the novel and that critic author Hetherington bases her assessment of the worth of the novel in covering the thesis. Overall, it is apparent that while one author is focused more on a minor thesis on gender, the other critique is centered on the interplay of religion and science, which is more include to Mary Shelley central focus.
Ginn, Sherry. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography?” Wingate University (2003): n. pag. Web.
Hetherington, Naomi. “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Keats-Shelley Review 11 (1997): 1–39. Web.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1st ed. London: N.p., 1818. Print.