Eng 102 - When Man Overreaches Their Potential

Sarah Owens

ENG 102

Evaluation Essay

March 27, 2017

When Man Overreaches Their Potential

There has been much debate over the years as to how to interpret the message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Naomi Hetherington would argue that Victor Frankenstein overreached his potential and the result was catastrophe and misery. Hetherington points to the fact that Shelley incorporates the lessons of the bible and Greek mythology. In one manner Victor is likened to that of Prometheus who defied the Gods to bring fire to humans, while the monster is compared to that of Adam who laments his fate that was forced upon him by his creator. Conversely, Sherri Ginn would argue that readers should view this book as science fiction that was based on the trials and tribulations of Mary Shelley’s personal life but not as far as to call the book an autobiography. Hetherington uses “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” to sufficiently argue that Victor Frankenstein was not merely an overzealous scientist playing God but a man striving to reach his full potential.

Hetherington criticizes Mary Shelley’s work from different angles. However, the underlying theme, or rather the main thesis that she addresses in her critical analysis is that Frankenstein is not an overzealous scientist who wanted to play God. Rather, Hetherington suggests that Frankenstein was a man who strived to reach his full potential. Hetherington’s thesis places emphasis on the belief that man’s potential was rightfully limited by God to prevent him from engaging in self-destructive acts. Shelley portrays Frankenstein as an evil force that strives to fight Jesus Christ and God (186). This portrayal of Frankenstein by Shelley is in line with Hetherington thesis. To be precise, while Naomi does not consider Frankenstein as evil, the fact that she portrays him as scientist who refuses to conform to human limitation is an indication that Frankenstein rebelled against his creator. In essence, Frankenstein rebelled against the being that deliberately limited his potential and thus suffered. In this Hetherington would be correct, Shelley makes this almost blatantly obvious jus by titling the book, Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus.  Additionally, Hetherington is keen to point out that Frankenstein motive was not to rebel, but rather simply to exceed his potential. This argument by Hetherington is in line with Ginn’s argument that Frankenstein’s motive emerged from vanity. According to Shelley, Frankenstein simply endeavored to be greater than his nature permitted. He could not grasp the gravity of his goals until he achieved them and hence abandoned his creation at the fear of what he had done.

According to Ginn’s thesis, Frankenstein should be considered science fiction that is closely link to the author personal life. Given what is known in regards to how Shelley created the story this is largely accurate. For starter, Frankenstein was a scientist and applied some principle of science that existed at the time to develop a creature.  A genre is considered a science fiction if it highlights the possibility of future science advancement. At the time, scientist arguably contemplated on ways life could be developed. Shelley painted this idea quite vividly in her novel. Similarly, the rejection and isolation the creature suffered is a representation of the suffering Shelley underwent in own her life. For example, it can be surmised that Shelley’s frustration of being in the shadow of her husband bled through at times; such as, when Victor is helpless to prove that he is responsible for his brother’s murder because no one would believe what he had created. Indeed, for many years people believe her husband Percy had been the true author of Frankenstein.

Additionally, Hetherington uses a number of sources to support her thesis. Like Ginn, she states that autobiographic critics such as Barbara Johnson have provided evidence to suggest Frankenstein’s story is a story of Shelley’s feelings and experiences. However, her focus however is not on the autobiography connection between Frankenstein story and the Mary’s life but rather pointing out that overstretching of one’s potential can result in catastrophic events. Hetherington cites Shelley (34) to demonstrate her argument that Frankenstein overreached his abilities when Victor declares, “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley, 51)

In similar fashion, Ginn also cites several sources that indicate that Frankenstein is a science fiction that is linked to Mary Personal life and highlights areas that Shelley’s life failed to develop appropriately. Ginn and Naomi agree that the book contains both science and science fiction elements.  Ginn points to a lack of maternal and paternal care as what led Shelley to imagine such a monster.  Left without a mother since birth and a father with little idea as to how to raise children Ginn infers that Shelley lacked a sense of identity and allowed herself to be shaped into the woman Percy Shelley felt she should be. Just as with Frankenstein’s monster both were shaped and molded by their so called creators.

Hetherington uses “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” to sufficiently argue that Victor Frankenstein was not merely an overzealous scientist playing God but a man striving to reach his full potential. Both Hetherington and Ginn make the point that this book should be considered a work of fiction. Yet where Ginn believes this book was based on the trials and tribulation that Shelley was dealt in her own life, Hetherington argues this book was a testament to the arrogance of man and his desire to surpass the limitation set by God. Both critics make good points but in many ways Hetherington is more effective in her arguments. Not many readers would know Shelley’s personal history where as it seems she went out of her way to draw parallels between her characters and that of Prometheus and Adam. Such tales are known to most readers and it is more believable that Shelley would draw on knowledge already instilled in her audience.        

Works Cited

Ginn, Sherry. "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, Or Autobiography?". Clas.ufl.edu. N.p., 2017. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.

Hetherington, Naomi. "Creator And Created In Frankenstein"". Knarf.english.upenn.edu. N.p., 1997. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.

Shelley, Mary W, and Marilyn Butler. Frankenstein, Or, the Modern Prometheus: The 1818

Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print