Many critics like to think they are always write when they analyze a piece of writing. In reality, sometimes they read something and critique it based on whether they like it or not. They let their personal feelings cloud how they feel about the piece. In the two analyses concerning Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the anonymous critics allowed their personal feelings to dictate how they analyzed the piece: one was unsettled about the arrangement and Shelley’s lack of personal knowledge concerning reanimated corpses, while the other preferred horror stories. These personal feelings dictated a personal bias toward Shelley’s work.
In the critical analysis of Shelley’s work, entitled, “The Literary Panorama review of Frankenstein,” the author is conveniently anonymous . Whether they are male or female cannot not be offered up to scrutinize but perhaps more importantly, the reader is not privy to whether or not the critic is educated. We have no idea if the critic has a background in literary criticism, or is even educated in literary analysis, making them fit for this job. Credentials do not exist, making it difficult to take their opinion seriously. In one instance, the author admits to disappointment in their, “perusal of,” the book, suggesting perhaps they did not even read it all the way through .
Despite the lack of credentials, the anonymous author criticized the novel anyway. Their thesis was a summation of insults, which culminate to state the book was written hastily and without proper research or knowledge behind what Shelley was talking about. In short, the anonymous author accuses the material of being crude and without emotion. Having read the novel, I disagree with this thesis. To begin, Shelley was writing a science fiction novel and, therefore, was not required to have adequate information on every subject. It is laughable to assume adequate information about a monster, animated from lifelessness would be available. Moreover, her novel is about a man tormented into psychological decay as his monster torments him and a monster who learns human emotion, as well .
The anonymous critic chooses to attack Shelley based on elements of her story, such as how it begins. Essentially, the critic does not like that it begins at the end, with Walton, a voyager, picking up Viktor on the ice as Frankenstein gets away . This does little to support the critic’s assumption that Shelley knows nothing of emotion or the mechanics of what she is writing about. It only speaks to the fact that this element has displeased the critic. Moreover, Shelley did not start at the end; the novel truly ends by revisiting Walton and Viktor, as Viktor’s monster kills him before fleeing out the ship’s window . The critic goes on to call the endowment of life to Frankenstein’s monster a gross inconsistency, as the monster leaves Frankenstein’s side and unbelievably has free will after doing so. The critic seems angry that the monster does not drop dead, or is incapable of developing human emotion without Frankenstein . First, there is not enough emotion for the critic, and then there is too much.
Another critic, also anonymous, wrote, “British Critic Review of Frankenstein 1818 and appeared to have a better view of it. Reading it entirely for the mayhem, macabre, and ghost story of it all, they did not analyze the emotion or mechanics behind Shelley’s writing, and instead read for the horror. This meant bout the horror in the human condition, but also the horror at what people and monsters are capable of they are at their worst, and even their best. The critique was filled more with favorite quotes that inspired a fearful delight in the critic. They were in obvious disagreement with the previous critic.
In sum, the critiques were biased. Shelley’s novel could be considered good or bad for many reasons, though none were listed in either critique. Arguably, it is a work of horror, however, making the more relevant analysis the second one. Regardless, many literary critics let personal bias write their critiques for them. These are no exception.
Works Cited
Anonymous. "British Critic Review of Frankenstein 1818." March 1818. ttp://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bcrev.html. Web. 11 March 2016.
—. "The Literary Panorama review of Frankenstein." 1 June 1818. http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/lprev.html. Web. 11 March 2016.
Shelley, Mary. Frankentstein. Sacramento: CreateSpace Publishing, 1818. Print.
