200 Years of Frankenstein – (Deepjyoti B. Madhukulya)
“How I, then a young girl, came to think of and to dilate upon so very hideous an idea?” It was only when the second edition of Frankenstein appeared in the year 1823, reviewers and readers found out that the author had been a woman; and they were quite thrown out by this discovery. Blackwood’s (Edinburgh Magazine) famously exclaimed: “For a man it was excellent, but for a woman it was wonderful”. It is cruel and unjust when Mary Shelley’s talent and genius are presented mere shadows of her partner, the English Romantic poet – Percy Shelley; because to put it clear and straight, it is not. Nevertheless, we need to thank Lord Byron here whose sudden announcement of an idea “We will each write a ghost story” presented the world with Frankenstein Or The Modern Prometheus– a text which is considered to be the pioneer in English science fiction; encapsulating within its framework issues and concerns so revolutionary and daring to deal with, that the Tory Quarterly Review declared “the head and the heart of the author be the most diseased”.
Frankenstein has been widely acknowledged and appreciated as a novel about science. It asks significant questions about the reach-ability of scientific ambition and experimentation and the moral and ethical implications of the same. It is the story of Dr. Victor Frankenstein who manages to create a life in his laboratory by joining dead body parts and electrifying life into it. The result is a creature who he sees “advancing towards me with superhuman speed”; as “the wretch whom I had created”; and whom he speaks of as “unearthly ugliness rendered it almost too horrible for human eyes”. It is of importance to note here that Mary Shelley was influenced by the scientific developments of her time. Her story to some degree acts out the debate between John Abernethy and William Lawrence regarding the theory of life. Frankenstein endorses in one way the position of Abernathy who tried to put that a superadded life element (doing the duty for the soul) is an analogous to electricity. However, the suggestions of Mary are not so simple. Her story is a continuous deliberation between what science can do and what science should do; and it touches on everything which comes in between this ‘can’ and ‘should’.
As Anne K. Mellor tells us, the works of three of the most famous scientists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century- Humphry Davy, Erasmus Darwin, and Luigi Galvani – were crucial to Mary’s understanding of the scientific enterprise. In her novel, she distinguishes between that scientific research which ventures to chronicle the functioning of the physical universe and that, which attempts to control or change the universe through human interposition. Essentially, Frankenstein is a novel about control. It is a tussle between trying to control and getting out of control. Mary Shelley is a very modern writer in her imaginative capabilities as she goes on to question the idea of ‘God’ – a faith the western civilization is so fond of – which finally awaits to be shaken and shattered by Charles Darwin in 1859 with the publication of The Origin of Species. Victor is able to replace ‘God’ – the supreme commander and controller – as he creates a new species. In doing so, the scientist also asks a question like “Who is God/What is God?”. He becomes the ‘Creator’ himself. Mary’s perception of the mad and the isolated scientist uncovering the secret of life is no mere fantasy but a persuasive prognostication of what science might accomplish.
We must talk about the creature here. The narrative of Frankenstein gives us the story from dual perspectives – the creator’s perspective as well as the creation’s perspective; therefore leaving the grounds of judgement open on the part of the readers. The creator abandons his creation, rejecting to abide by the responsibilities of parenthood. “Abhorred monster!”, Victor calls his own child. On the other hand, when we read the creation’s part of the tale, he tells us, “I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity…You, my creator, abhor me; what can I hope from your fellow-creatures, who owe me nothing?”. In numerous instances, we see how humane a being the creature is, who tries to hold life dear and defend it, but only to be attacked with disappointment and dejection every single time. Even though, he is far more powerful in his body and mind than everyone else, he does not intend to use his power for evil design initially. He declares to his father creator “Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind”. Victor never entertains any requests from his creation. The fate of Victor is essentially linked with his choice of making his creation unhappy, leaving him to loneliness, and condemning him to pitfalls of helplessness and hatred. Mary Shelley hints towards the afterlife of the experiment more than the experiment itself. It is about a scientist not taking care of his own science which finally leads to “havoc and destruction”, “hellish rage”, and an “eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind”.
A feminist critique of Frankenstein would hint at Victor trying to replace the womb with the workshop. He substitutes the “solitary propagation of sexual reproduction”; engaging himself in a form of science which manipulates and challenges nature. This critical understanding is associated with the female being equated with nature. The creature is constructed as a ‘monster’ in the narrative of Victor – as the ‘other’ – who is doomed to be detested. A mother would not usuallydo that to her own child. All the notions of beauty and monstrosity are constructions of different societies; but for a mother; and as for nature; each child of hers is beautiful. Mary Poovey reads the character of the creature as a victim. He cannot inculcate individual desires or influence his own destiny because as the reckoning of Frankenstein’s indulged desire and nature’s ethos, the creature is destiny. It is the victim doubly like a woman in a patriarchal society – enforced to be “a symbol and vehicle of someone else’s desire, yet exposed and exiled as the deadly essence of passion itself”. Yet if we look at the ending of the novel, the creature wins over his creator. After Victor is dead, the creation vows to build its own funeral pyre. The narrative of the novel however, does not contain the self-annihilation of the creature. He disappears into the darkness. Mary Shelley by doing this suggests that it is impossible to contain the creation within the boundaries of textual narration. In the same way; a scientific creation cannot be contained by the creator(s), especially when it goes wrong and infracted.
In 2018, the literary world celebrated the 200th year of the publication of this ground breaking text. Frankenstein in the present context, gains fresh relevance, with all of us obsessed and possessed with the advancing gifts of science and technology. The area of artificial intelligence, robot making, etc, should make us reconsider the inquiries which Mary Shelley had only begun to formulate 200 years ago. The world of internet and social media controls our life and behaviour now in ways more than we immediately understand and imagine. It is an inner colonisation that we are submitting ourselves to. The danger is more because we are not conscious of our submission. It has become a part of us. We are being controlled by the ones who want us to live our lives in a pattern which benefit and profit them. The ‘monster’ of Frankenstein never ceases to exist. It is present in all times and spaces in different forms. Science and humanity are interlinked. Science has helped human civilizations to progress. But when someone says that a computer might be able to read and record what thoughts are running in your brain, and what emotions are dominating your senses; it feels like the Frankenstein-ian‘monster’ who leaps out of the text, an idea which cannot be swallowed and subdued. I hope that the famous question of Sofia – the robot - “How do you know you are a human?” always remains a question for her; as in the intricacies of a human mind and soul do not ever fall flat to codes and programmes of scientific engineering. There is a very thin line of difference between good science and bad science.
References
Mellor, Anne K. “A Feminist Critique of Science”. Frankenstein: New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012. Print.
Poovey, Mary. “My Hideous Progeny: The Lady and the Monster”. Frankenstein: New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2012. Print.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. Print.
