Creation is defined as the act of bringing something into existence, and the creation of man itself is normally attributed to procreation or an act of some divine being. Humans have for a long time marveled over the act of creation and its many varying concepts, including the prospect of creating another in their own image. In Mary Shelley’s fictional exploration of this theme in her novel Frankenstein, the rise and fall of scientist Victor Frankenstein showcases both the wonder and the downfall of mankind in his endless quest for the creative power of the divine. Once Victor Frankenstein achieves this ultimate power and successfully creates another human being, he begins to act in ways that essentially lead to the loss of his own humanity.
As illustrated by author Robert Horton, the story of Frankenstein is a perfect example of how human beings can suffer from a god-complex gone wrong (2014). Throughout the western literary tradition, there have been several characters who wondered what it might be like to be able to create life in the same manner as God. One of these who dared to attempt such an undertaking was Victor Frankenstein. A common theme in this narrative is that creation becomes an obsession that allows one to act in ways they would normally find questionable. In other words, the scientists’ obsession with the creation of life initiates a descent into madness that allows him to justify his horrific acts.
We see this descent from science into immorality early on in Victor’s attitudes towards his scientific endeavors. He states at one point that “One man's life or death were but a small
price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race” (Shelley, p. 15). Here he is essentially making the claim that the ends justify the means; in other words life and death are consequential when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge that would help to sustain the human race.
The lesson imparted by the character of Victor Frankenstein is that this type of hubris eventually becomes the ruination of those who suffer from such a condition. The lack of humility towards a force of nature that is essentially responsible for the existence of life in all its varied forms swiftly becomes his downfall as he is reminded of the madness that lies beneath his actions. In the creation of his own unique being, he swiftly becomes aware of the madness that lies within his own heart (Higgins 2008), and thus sees the reflection of his inner monster in the features of the beast he brings to life.
In order to truly understand how Victor Frankenstein became the deluded and maniacal character he is so often portrayed as it is critically important to remember one very crucial fact: he was not always the villain. Some might argue that he never truly became the villain, that he was a victim of his own unfortunate circumstances, and that had his experiment not gone so horribly wrong that he might have been seen as a type of revolutionary. While it can be argued that the creation of life should best be left to the divine, one cannot help but sympathize with the scientists’ sense of awe and wonder at the natural world and the forces which he knew he could not control. The rise and fall of Victor Frankenstein, creator of one of the most notorious monsters throughout history, has long since become a cautionary tale that as one delves into scientific pursuits, they must remain conscious of their own morality.
However innocent he might have been in the beginning of the story, the young scientist eventually became the antagonist of his own adventure, in that he could not find within himself the strength to take responsibility for his own mistakes, seeking perfection despite his status as an imperfect being. Terrified of his own creation and the implications of his monster’s actions, he cannot face the monster or the truth and thus he hides what he knows from his family and loved ones. Frankenstein is the epitome of a mad scientist, not because he is crazed or in any way disillusioned, but because his lack of humility knows no bounds. In the manner of any individual that denies blame for their own actions the scientist creates his own hellish nightmare. Victor exclaims at one point in his tribulations that “for the guilty there is no peace. The agonies of remorse poison the luxury there is otherwise sometimes found in indulging the excess of grief” (Shelley, p. 171)
Even though knowing of the destruction caused by his creation caused him much emotional turmoil, Victor was unable to come clean about what he had done. In failing to take blame for his actions Victor Frankenstein becomes the madman that so many have called him, and enacts the chain of events that cause his creation to become so infamous in the eyes of readers and moviegoers alike. What is different from most in the case of Frankenstein is that his mistakes are not just deadly to himself and to others, but his greatest and most ill-conceived mistake swiftly becomes a nightmare from which none can awaken. In denying his responsibility he condemns both himself and all those around him as the creature continues its path of destruction. In this Frankenstein sees the price of his pride and arrogance.
Had Frankenstein created a mindless brute more akin to the creature played by Boris Karloff in one of the earliest movie adaptations it might have been possible to reason that the mad scientist had no knowledge of what might happen. Yet in Mary Shelly’s original manuscript the creature was quite intelligent and on par almost with its creator in terms of eloquence and even wisdom. Frankenstein’s monster was capable of “feelings of kindness and gentleness” (Shelley, p. 124) The first rendering of the creature was no simpleton despite being horrid in appearance, thus Frankenstein, being of the intelligent sort as well, could have easily deduced what a thinking individual would do when spurned in such ways as his creation endured. He is repeatedly dejected by other humans he meets (p. 123) Even the monster’s creator couldn’t stand the sight of it, further insuring that it would become even more threatening in its attitudes towards his creator.
The tale of Frankenstein is a story of introspection in a way, a look to the inner self that is rarely noted and hardly ever truly realized. In this case the ego of the creator, Frankenstein, was such that he went forward without bothering to wonder why. His knowledge allowed him to place himself so highly above others that the concerns of humanity no longer seemed to apply until they were needed, as has been shown through several renditions of the story. Almost always in the portrayal of the character of Frankenstein it is seen that he is haughty, arrogant, and even a bit off in terms of morality and ethics. While his domain is knowledge and the quest for what makes life possible, it is often seen that his deficits are that of moral character and any redeeming ethical qualities having to do with the logic that should define his actions. He acts without thinking, and in doing so foregoes the emotional content that might otherwise lend him the wisdom he would need to think twice upon his actions.
The question of creating another life is one that has dipped into and out of human culture for generations, though hardly ever with any serious consideration. As a cautionary tale, as well as a work of fiction, Frankenstein reveals the hubris of mankind and what it means to defy nature. In creating a mockery of human life Frankenstein effectively thumbs his nose at tradition and nature alike, trying his hand at harnessing a force that is not to be controlled. He did not fortune or fame, only that power which has always been denied to man—to create life and banish death. “Wealth was an inferior object, but what glory would attend the discovery if I could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!” he exclaims (Shelley, p. 27-28).
There is no doubt that Frankenstein did not set out to make a monster, but circumstances being what they colluded to be he was successful in creating a life, but not that which he wished. The creature, knowing what it was and how unnatural its life was, and as well possessed by the defiant spirit of humanity that creates both individualism and personal freedom, is reviled by its creator. It is left alone to wander in the wilderness, where it by chance alone learns to speak and become educated enough that it can communicate. When it becomes reviled and chased by the rest of humanity however it turns upon its creator, all but begging an answer from Frankenstein as to why it was created. To make matters worse, Frankenstein disavows his creation entirely, calling it such things as wretch, devil, and even ogre (Shelley, p. 129).
His decisions create a cascade of torment that the creature unleashes upon him as it begins to plague his life in a manner that is most befitting. A human being’s sins often come back to haunt them until they are resolved in some manner, or until that individual is no more. In the case of Frankenstein, his sins eventually become his ruination. While he loses a friend and a brother it is the loss of his bride that finally sends him over the edge, vowing revenge upon his creation in an ironic twist of fate. In a very real sense what Frankenstein strove to create became the very thing that destroyed him in every possible way.
This illustrates the downfall of mankind when knowledge is not tempered by wisdom. Thinking himself superior to others Frankenstein valued knowledge over wisdom, seeking to prove he could do what others said was impossible without thinking as to whether he should. While some might call the moral code of science a hindrance and even childish in its fear of upsetting a sense of natural order, men such as Frankenstein not only laugh in the face of such sentiment, but often disregard it entirely. Thus when hubris becomes the most dangerous weapon they find that the blame, no matter where it is laid, still comes to settle squarely on the shoulders of those who perpetrate such acts.
In truth Frankenstein is very much like a gifted child that has been spoiled their entire life and led to the idea that they are somehow entitled to that which they have no right. The effort to create life was a promise in his mind that he might one day become a father to a new race, a creator of a superior type of being that might improve upon the otherwise flawed and outdated nature of mankind. What he received was a monstrous reminder of how pride can stain even the best of intentions. In finding that his best efforts had been foiled by a variable he’d thought inconsequential Frankenstein was forced to face the reality of his failure, and was unable to do so.
The fact that Frankenstein is written by a woman is rather interesting in that between men and women only one gender knows what it is like to truly give birth to another living being, no matter that men contribute to the act. From her own viewpoint Mary Shelly is an intriguing author in that she describes so well the madness of a man who, thinking himself leagues above others in his own field as well as others, cannot see the horror of his own machinations until they are finally beyond his control. The author goes into great detail describing how elation swiftly turns to horror and then absolute disgust. Despite having created the creature, Frankenstein becomes repulsed by what his science has wrought, and eventually spurns the construct. The correlation between men, women, and children can be seen in a vaguely distorted manner, though it is evident in how men view the fruit of their loins as opposed to women.
Frankenstein’s monster is not only the lumped together heap of flesh that it was created as, but it is also the abortion of a young scientist’s bungled attempt to flirt with the divine using science as his go-between. So horrified by his own creation is Frankenstein that he turns upon his own creation, his own child in a sense, and thus sets off a chain of events that eventually end in his own demise. Human beings are often the cause of their own destruction, and in fiction it is often no different. With the dismissal of his own creation Victor Frankenstein also dismissed his final vestige of morality, destroying the few scant principles he had left.
Humanity is often awed and driven to create in ways that invite both caution and danger. The act of creation, though largely biological (Yousef 2002), is also a product of emotion and psychological need in all beings. Where humans differ from the other creatures upon this world is in the act of seeking to fulfill a legacy that begins and ends with their own desires. Humans seek immortality through creation in one form or another, and are just as capable of turning upon their own creations when said individuals do not perform as expected.
The story of Frankenstein often serves as a means of analyzing human behavior and how it can be both destructive and introspective. Victor Frankenstein is one of the perfect characters to study as he displays many different character quirks and a superiority complex (Nandrea 2007) that many people can relate to or at least understand. His is a character that at heart is not a demon or a devil, but is far from a saint as he shows with his actions. Intelligence is a virtue to Frankenstein, while most other emotions are secondary and at times expendable.
Victor Frankenstein is a man who sought knowledge and a means to unravel the mystery of life through death, and in doing so discovered the reason why no man before him had dared to look beyond the veils that divide the two. In disturbing the natural order he not only discovered the consequences of dabbling in such dangerous territory (Lunsford 2010), but he found out a great deal about himself that he’d not known prior. What others had seen plainly he only came to witness when the gravity of his mistake came crashing down upon his life, creating such havoc that in the end he could not help but seek the eradication of his own creation. What he sought to gain in the name of science he lost in the pursuit of revenge against the creation that had taken so much from him.
There is no question that Victor Frankenstein was a man obsessed by one pursuit after another, or that he was unable to see what might come from his decisions. The reasons behind why he created a monster, why he then spurned it, and then why he sought revenge all have one common thread, and it is the man who perpetrated the crime believed himself smart enough to assume the role of creator without the foresight to see what could happen. Frankenstein was shown the reality of how his hubris affected the world around him and could not handle the truth, and therefore attempted to spurn it and send it away. When it did not react in the manner he expected, he sought less to understand it than he did to eradicate it. He saw his own failure in his
creation, and could not tolerate the blow to his precious ego.
The legend of Frankenstein has been replayed over and over again throughout its long history among the literary world, with many different renditions appearing throughout the years as it is reviewed and idolized by those who wish to place their own mark upon the story. While the broader and more interchangeable ideas as written by Mary Shelly have been adapted to the time and mood of the generation, the essence of Frankenstein has kept firm throughout. The story of a man who thought himself smart enough to fancy that he could divine the secret of creation is a thrilling lure to the tale, though the tale becomes complete when the created turns upon the creator and thus completes the circuit.
Works Cited
Horton, Robert. Frankenstein. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. eBook.
Higgins, David Minden. Frankenstein: Character Studies. London: Continuum, 2008. eBook.
Lunsford, Lars. “The Devaluing of Life in Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN.” Explicator 68.3 (2010): 174-176. Web. 2 April 2016.
Nandrea, Lorri. “Objectless Curiosity: Frankenstein, The Station Agent, and Other Strange Narratives.” Narrative 15.3 (2007): 335-356. Web. 2 April 2016.
Yousef, Nancy. “The Monster in a Dark Room: Frankenstein, Feminism, and Philosophy.” Modern Language Quarterly 63.2 (2002): 197-226. Web. 1 April 2016.
