For my honors English 4 class, I wrote an essay examining the existential nihilism of the classic novel Frankenstein. I believe the final product captures my writing style and passion very well: Faithful Flaws The Consequences of Man’s Search for Meaning The story of mad scientist Victor Frankenstein and the monstrous result of his ill advised experiments haunt the imagination of generation after generation. With the survival rate of Hamlet and the horrific imagery of the vengeful undead, it is no doubt a cautionary tale of great evil. But in the original novel from which the Halloween monster was born, Shelley presents a surprisingly sympathetic and moving account from the creature himself of the series of miseries that led to his horrific crimes. Frankenstein’s creation commits multiple acts of selfless kindness in his initial interactions with the world. This leads many readers to question what is responsible for the plot’s dark turns. Many cite the creature’s difference and exclusion from mankind as the motive for his crimes. However, Shelley’s true message is that, as is paralleled by the human condition, it is the unfulfilled desire for a god that drives his actions. Shelley and her novel are both icons of the Romantic movement, a time in literature when the nature of man was a central topic of debate. In response to the Enlightenment era’s values of knowledge and learning, the romantic philosophers put an emphasis on innocence and youth. They believed that “goodness” is not acquired through learning but rather is an inherent state of all things natural, tragically degraded by negative societal influences. Leading Romantic philosopher Rousseau popularized this idea; “Man is good, he argued, but society … corrupts us all” (Boeree). Their religious views reflected this shift. The concept of religion was expanded, challenging the societal status quo of organized religion, and expanding the idea of God to take form in nature. Transcendentalist and Romantic Henry David Thoreau illustrated this liberalized understanding of the greater power, writing “Heaven is under our feet as well as over our heads” (Thoreau). All things natural were held in great reverence and esteem by the Romantics, even considered extensions of divinity itself. As man is a product of nature, it follows that the pure or instinctive state of man’s conscience is good, and that any evil acts or temptations are the product of nurture, or society. This Romantic belief in the initial goodness of man is expressed through Shelley’s portrayal of the creature. Victor Frankenstein is immediately repulsed by his creation, anguished that he has not succeeded in making the creature beautiful. Frankenstein recollects, “the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 34). However, the creature does nothing to justify this hatred in the first solitary period of his life. At his first glimpse of other people, the creature is inclined toward “goodness.” He tells Victor, “the more I saw of them the greater became my desire to claim their protection and kindness; my heart yearned to be known and loved by these amiable creatures” (89). It is clear from the creature’s time eavesdropping on the interactions and stories of the villagers that he is fully capable of empathy as well as desire to be loved. As he learns of their joys and troubles he confides that their “story excited in me such various feelings of indignation, delight, and wonder, but which all terminated in additional love and reverence for my protectors (for so I loved in an innocent, half painful deceit, to call them)” (81). The use of the word “innocence” here draws on Shelley’s romanticism of the creature’s primary, unbesmirched soul. These mental virtues guide his actions throughout the beginning of his life and seem to be the dominant force of his will even after he is spurned by his beloved villagers. As he wanders rejected and dejected through the woods, he sees a young, laughing girl fall into a river. She is the archetypal symbol of innocence, and his actions are poignantly indicative of his good nature. He moved instinctively to help her; he “with extreme labour from the force of the current, saved her, and dragged her to shore” (95). Given the extent to which the novel establishes the creature’s inherent goodness, as a metaphor for the Romantic belief in the inherent goodness of man, the cause of the creature’s many unforgivable actions is a natural question. Furthermore, the reader is left to wonder what is responsible for man’s flaws if our inherent nature is wholly good. One could consider the result of the creature’s altruistic act of rescuing the drowning girl emblematic of the cause of his downward character arc. In a heartbreaking turn of events, the man accompanying the young girl shoots the creature upon finding him holding her. This undeniably has a great impact on the creature, as he explains in recollection, “‘This was then the reward of my benevolence! … Inflamed in pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” (96). This violent rejection, combined with his traumatic spurning at the hands of the villagers, are evidence that his exclusion from mankind is the cause of his crimes. This is in accordance with Romantic philosophy on the cause of evil in humanity, “Everything is good as it comes from the hands of the Maker of the world, but degenerates once it gets into the hands of man” (Rousseau). However, there is a thematic metaphor in Shelley’s Frankenstein that adds an additional message to the creature’s crimes and misery. Shelley emphasizes this metaphor when the creature tells Frankenstein of his hurtful exile, “I ought to be thy Adam but I am rather thy fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded” (66). The obvious allusion here is to the Bible, and this Christian imagery is prominent in all interactions between Frankenstein and his creation. In that quote and many others, it is clear that exclusion drove the creature to evil. Yet even in his rejection at the hands of the villagers, there are religious undertones. The creature chooses to make his appeal for acceptance to De Lacy, the elderly and blind father of the family. He hopes to be judged by this father for his virtues rather than his appearance. This dynamic mirrors the desire of religious individuals to be judged and accepted by a god, or “Father” who is blind to such traits as race, wealth, or appearance. In addressing the old man as his “best and only benefactor” and asking him to “save and protect me” (91) the creature makes clear his surrogate worship of the old man in the absence of his own God. Like his creator, De Lacy is unable to fulfill the creature’s expectation of power and grandeur, and his disappointment leads him to misery and hate. Furthermore, shallow exclusion in itself does not explain mankind’s descension to hate or evil. The creature’s horrific appearance is the sole and unjust cause of his exclusion, as it is the only real difference between the creature and the humans it longs to be accepted by. In his first interaction with a human being, the creature approaches devoid of malice (and in fact relates to their hunger and admires their technology), but as he remembers, “I had hardly placed my foot within the door, before children shrieked, and one of the women fainted. The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me” (70). The application of the creature’s metaphor for mankind to this scene is initially puzzling, as one could not claim that evil in humanity is only found in those who look unusual. However, the exclusion is not the sole cause of the creature’s misery and anger; it is not even the first thing to spark his longing for acceptance. The absence of his creator is his first anguish. The deeper metaphor of the creature as mankind exposes the additional message that it is our general exclusion at the hands of God that leads us to betray our good nature. When we examine Frankenstein’s relationship with his creation, these overt religious comparisons are constant. Although Victor Frankenstein did bring the creature into life, their dynamic is not that of parent and son. For one thing, the creature was created both consciously and purposefully, his features selected for beauty, but more or less in Frankenstein’s “own image.” Furthermore, Frankenstein’s failure to take responsibility for the creature or show him any affection establishes him as a distant creator rather than a parental figure in the creature’s mind. One of the leading sources of misery for the creature, even before it is spurned by the villagers, is this obscurity of his creator. His confidence in being one day included in that family is punctured even before they reject him, as he gains the ability to read. He applies this new talent to examining the journal that Frankenstein kept while working on his creation. This is when he begins to feel misery at the absence of love or purpose given to him by his creator, “‘Cursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?” (88). Here the creature grapples with the fact that there is no God/creator in his life to explain the reason for his creation, and he internalizes the abandonment. Unlike the creature, we do not have notes from a god on the reason for our existence, nor are we able to confront our creator as the creature will. However, humankind shares the creature’s sentence to a life without God, at least in physical form. Just as the creature turns to violence and hatred as a means of drawing at least Victor’s attention, if not his love; humankind is prompted to evil by the lack of proof of God. Shelley’s Romantic message is that by appreciating nature and the nature of man in a more Thoreauvian sense of religious worship, this pull towards evil can be abated. The creature does attempt to do just this: to abandon his efforts to invoke any kind of feeling or attention from Victor and to instead abandon society for an unexamined life, wherein he swears “neither you nor any other human being shall ever see us again: I will go to the vast wilds of South America. . . We shall make our bed of dried leaves, the sun will shine on us as on man and will ripen our food. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human” (99). He offers this on his first meeting with Victor, after having recited his life’s story to him. Being moved by his history, Victor accepts this suggestion, along with the condition of building a mate for his creature. In the wording of the creature’s request, many Romantic values are at play. His focus on the connection to nature is of kindred philosophy to Thoreau, who believed in “the tonic of wildness” and a life based simply in the “influence of the earth” (Thoreau). The creature’s equation of peacefulness and humanity is also very Romantic, displaying a belief in virtuous human connection to nature. This use of the term “human” as a positive adjective also displays the creature’s willingness to abandon his animosity towards humans along with his need for Victor’s love or attention. However, in the terms of this proposal the creature calls once again for Victor to act as a traditional God. The creature demands that Victor create a female companion for him. In the Christian Bible, God does this for Adam out of love and concern for his happiness, “The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:4). In a starkly different interaction, the creature must appeal to his unloving creator for this kindness, and Victor ultimately breaks his promise out of regret and fear of his power. It is in this final disappointment, where his last vision of a meaningful existence dies, that the effect of his creator’s absence is clearest. Disillusioned of any remaining faith in Victor’s superiority of power, or purpose, the creature addresses Victor without reverence, “Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power. . . You are my creator, but I am your master, -- obey!” (116). Christianity acknowledges the human instinct to search for proof of God, the character Moses demands this, asking of God, “‘Now, please show me your glory his manifest presence” (Exodus 33:18). The difference is that in the Bible, God grants this request. Like the rest of mankind, however, the creature is denied any physical confirmation of divinity. In response to this, the creature forgets the prospect of life in nature and instead kills both Victor’s best friend and his bride, ultimately outliving Victor and resolving to commit suicide. Shelley shows the reader, though the creature’s subsequent abandonment of morals or elucidation, the dangers of taking one’s life value and meaning in the confirmation of a greater power. Early Romantic philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, in criticism of the Enlightenment movement’s search for scientific understanding of religion, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” (Nietzche). In her novel, Shelley presented this criticism through the creature’s ruinous quest to find love, purpose, or at least confirmation of power from his own God. Frankenstein is a cautionary tale that urges the reader to overcome the loneliness of our rejection or abandon at the hands of our maker and to instead find joy and meaning in the natural beauty of ourselves and our world.
Works Cited Boeree, C. George. Romanticism, 1999, webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/romanticism.html. Nietzsche, Friedrich W, and Walter Kaufmann. The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. New York: Vintage Books, 1974. Print. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile: Or, on Education. New York: Basic Books, 1979. Print. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft,Hunter, J. Paul, Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York : W.W. Norton & Co., 2012. The Bible. Authorized King James Version, Oxford UP, 1998. Thoreau, Henry D. Walden, Or, Life in the Woods. London: J.M. Dent, 1908. Print.
For my physics class, I completed the annual science fair with a first place prize. My project was estimating pi using the pattern of rainfall. My project won first place, but it is not the science fair I enjoyed the most. My second science fair project was a mathematical analysis of the flow rate of sand through a funnel as a function of funnel shape. The project did not do as well (second place), but I am more proud of my method, ideas, and enthusiasm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZj5BpN5G0w9sEg0vba57lq4gL-GxzhJqxm8VXcI7zA/edit?usp=sharing.
My favorite project in all of high school was the filming of The Hanging Frame, a cinematic adaptation of a story that my best friend wrote in fifth grade. The film can be seen on YouTube under this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTXwlMTb7Ac