Angelina Lanza
14 December 2024
In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein’s relentless pursuit of scientific knowledge leads him to disregard the very emotional connections that define his humanity. In his obsessive endeavor to create life, he alienates his family, fiancée, and ultimately himself. The novel explores the consequences of unrestrained ambition and the dark side of the masculine ideal of creation. At the heart of the story is Victor’s magnum opus of the Creature, a symbol of the dangers of playing God and the cost of forsaking personal connections for intellectual triumph. In her essay, “Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity,” Bette London argues that the novel serves as a “spectacle of masculinity,” where the male creator and his monstrous creation represent both the anxiety and contradictions inherent in masculine identity. According to London, the novel marginalizes female characters and presents masculinity as an unstable construct. While London’s feminist reading offers important insights into gender dynamics, it misinterprets the primary themes of Frankenstein. The novel is not a feminist work but a Dark Romantic exploration of the destructive consequences of unchecked scientific ambition and the dangers of attempting to surpass the natural order. London’s arguments, though valuable in their critique of gender, overlook the deeper thematic focus on the cost of masculine creation and mastery.
Victor Frankenstein’s obsessive endeavor to create life exemplifies the immense pressure placed on men, particularly creators, to achieve greatness. His relentless focus on his work consumes him entirely, both mentally and physically. He describes, “Every night I was oppressed by a slow fever, and I became nervous to a most painful degree … But I believed that exercise and amusement would soon drive away such symptoms; and I promised myself both of these, when my creation should be complete” (Shelley 37) illustrating how Victor sacrifices his health, relationships, and humanity in the name of his scientific ambition, embodying the Romantic ideal of the tortured genius. Yet, Victor’s ultimate failure to achieve his goal reveals a deeper anxiety surrounding masculinity and creation. As Professor Hardie notes, “Victor tried to make the Creature look like himself and failed,” (Hardie) emphasizing the futility of his attempt to project perfection onto his creation. Bette London’s observation that Victor is “…the male creator making a spectacle of himself” (London 474) further underscores how Victor’s obsessive drive becomes a destructive performance of masculine ideals. His inability to replicate himself in the Creature, coupled with his self-destructive fixation on mastery, reflects the societal expectation that men must achieve greatness at any cost—sacrificing their emotional and physical well-being. This aligns with modern societal norms, where men are often expected to suppress emotion and endure hardship without vulnerability. By presenting Victor’s physical and mental collapse as the inevitable result of his ambition, both Frankenstein and London’s analysis critique the dangerous consequences of these unrelenting ideals placed upon men, particularly those in creative or intellectual fields.
Femininity plays a minor role in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. When Victor initially begins to construct the Creature’s female counterpart, he makes the decision to destroy it, towards the end of the book. This reflects his internal conflict about the consequences of his own actions, rather than serving as a commentary on female monstrosity or a perpetuation of sexist ideals. In Frankenstein, Victor justifies his decision by expressing fear that the female creature “…might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate, and delight, for its own sake, in murder and wretchedness” (Shelley 124). Bette London interprets this moment as emblematic of the novel’s underlying gender dynamics, asserting in her essay “Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity” that “[Victor] Frankenstein’s account of creating monstrosity sustains the visible paradox that supports masculine identity: for it is only when Frankenstein speculates on female monstrosity … that he considers the threatening presence of the monster’s male sexuality” (London 473). London’s argument implies that Shelley’s decision to frame Victor’s destruction of the female creature is rooted in a broader societal anxiety about female power and autonomy. This interpretation overlooks the deeper psychological and thematic dimensions of Victor’s choice. His actions do not stem from a fear of female monstrosity but rather from his realization that his attempt to create life has already unleashed chaos and destruction. The female creature, in this context, becomes a symbol of Victor’s guilt and failure, a tangible reminder of the consequences of his hubris. Victor’s internal struggle underscores his acknowledgment that his first creation, far from being a triumph of scientific mastery, has only perpetuated suffering and despair. The destruction of the female creature reflects Victor’s desire to prevent further catastrophe, not a commentary on gender or a fear of female power. Frankenstein is not concerned with feminist critique but instead explores themes of creation, responsibility, and the moral consequences of human ambition. London’s argument that the destruction of the female creature reflects anxieties about feminine monstrosity overlooks the broader narrative focus on Victor’s confrontation with the consequences of his own actions. By reading Frankenstein primarily through a feminist lens, London misinterprets the scene as reinforcing sexist ideals, when it instead serves to deepen the novel’s critique of unchecked ambition and the burdens of creation.
Throughout her essay, London employs detailed descriptions of sculptures by artists such as Edward Onslow Ford and Henry Weekes, who depict Mary and Percy Shelley in a beautifully tragic way. Onslow Ford’s sculpture “…exhibits a full-length figure of the drowned Shelley executed in white marble” (London 479), with Mary seated below, her head down in dismay. Weekes’s sculpture is slightly more intricate, capturing Mary cradling Percy’s lifeless body in her arms after his accidental drowning with Edward Williams (Greenblatt 766). These powerful artistic representations not only evoke the depth of Mary’s grief but also serve as a critical foundation for London’s argument that Mary Shelley drew inspiration from Percy’s physicality in the creation of Victor Frankenstein. Percy’s influence on Frankenstein is undeniable, shaping both the novel’s content and its critical reception, as well as its portrayal of Victor’s tortured body and psyche. Percy’s anatomy resonates in Victor’s description, when Walton recalls him in a letter to his sister, “His limbs were nearly frozen, and his body dreadfully emaciated by fatigue and suffering, I never saw a man in so wretched a condition” (Shelley 16). This haunting imagery could reflect Mary Shelley’s experience of seeing Percy’s body after his drowning, channeling her grief into the physical and emotional torment of her characters. London critiques Mary Shelley’s decision to draw inspiration from Percy’s physique and editorial assistance, dismissing it as an unoriginal choice as she states:
For like her excessively deferential acceptance of her husband’s editing, Mary Shelley’s unorthodox citational strategies—her insistent literary allusions and indiscriminate textual borrowings—may expose not so much her lack of originality as the material conditions that constitute textuality as a form of grafting. Writing in a hand not distinctly her own, Mary Shelley opens to question the copied status of the text she copies into her own (London 477)
This criticism overlooks the deeply personal and symbolic nature of Mary Shelley’s creative process. A key element often overlooked in discussions of authorship is the preface of Frankenstein, written by Percy Shelley, which adds another layer of complexity to the narrative. In it, Percy asserts, “The circumstance on which my story rests was suggested in casual conversation” (Shelley 7). The use of the phrase “my story” feels pretentious, given that Frankenstein is undeniably Mary’s creation. While Percy’s editorial role and physical influence on Victor’s form are significant, they also underscore Mary’s capacity to transform personal tragedy and external contributions into a singularly original work. London’s dismissal of these aspects as unoriginal fails to recognize the nuanced ways in which Mary Shelley’s lived experiences, alongside her collaborative environment, enriched the novel’s depth and emotional resonance.
In Frankenstein, women are often marginalized, but they are not entirely absent, as Bette London suggests. Rather, the female characters in the novel, such as Justine and Elizabeth, are critiqued for their roles within a male-dominated society. London argues that the female subject “…drops out of sight…” (London 481) in Frankenstein, but this perspective overlooks the subtle yet powerful moments where the women’s voices and frustrations emerge. For example, Justine’s false confession upon the killing of William reveals her internal conflict, as she explains, “I did confess, but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution … Ever since I was condemned, my confessor has besieged me; he threatened and menaced, until I almost began to think that I was the monster that he said I was” (Shelley 60). This moment highlights how Justine, although victimized by her circumstances, is not absent but instead critiqued by the male figures around her. Her guilt and frustration are not her own but are imposed upon her by a male confessor, emphasizing the conflict between her feminine identity and the oppressive forces of patriarchal judgment. Similarly, Elizabeth’s powerful declaration, “I would I were in peace with my aunt and my lovely William, escaped from a world which is hateful to me, and the visages of men which I abhor” (Shelley 61), reveals her anger with the world of men, further illustrating that her critique is not an absence but a rejection of the male-dominated environment in which she lives. While women in the novel are critiqued through their relationships with male figures, they are far from passive victims. Instead, they are portrayed as complex characters whose frustrations with masculinity speak volumes about the power dynamics of their world. This debunks London’s idea that women are not present throughout Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In contrast, the novel’s male characters, particularly Victor and the Creature, embody a masculinity fraught with contradictions and anxieties. London’s assertion that masculinity in Frankenstein is “…not fixed” (London 481) is evident in the characters’ unstable identities. Both Victor and the Creature struggle to assert control over their lives and their actions, leading to destructive outcomes. This instability of masculinity mirrors the critique of feminine identity in the novel: both are constructed in relation to oppressive forces, but neither is static or entirely submissive. Thus, the complex presentation of both gender roles in Frankenstein challenges London’s claim of female absence, revealing instead a nuanced narrative that critiques both masculinity and femininity within the context of societal expectations.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a profound exploration of the complexities of gender, creation, and the consequences of unrestrained ambition. Bette London’s feminist reading suggests that women in the novel are marginalized or absent, but this perspective overlooks the more subtle critiques of femininity embedded in the text. Characters like Justine and Elizabeth are not passive victims but are actively critiqued within a patriarchal society. Justine’s internal conflict, as she wrestles with guilt imposed by a male confessor, and Elizabeth’s rejection of a male-dominated world reveal the presence of women, though their roles are shaped by external forces that limit their agency. These moments highlight how female characters are critiqued—not absent—underscoring the novel’s commentary on gender dynamics. Furthermore, London’s assertion that masculinity is an unstable construct in Frankenstein resonates with the text’s portrayal of both Victor and the Creature. Victor’s obsessive pursuit of knowledge and his inability to control his creation reflect the anxieties surrounding masculine ideals of mastery and creation, ultimately leading to his mental and physical breakdown. The Creature, too, grapples with the complexities of masculinity, struggling with rejection and the desire for acceptance. Both characters embody an unstable masculinity that is deeply tied to their actions and fates, illustrating the destructive consequences of striving for control over life and identity. While London’s analysis offers important feminist insights, it misses the broader thematic focus of Shelley’s novel, which critiques both masculinity and femininity within a societal context that forces characters into restrictive roles. The destruction of the female creature, far from reflecting Victor’s fear of feminine monstrosity, symbolizes his internal conflict and realization of the consequences of his unchecked ambition. Shelley’s critique of creation, responsibility, and the moral cost of scientific hubris resonates more deeply than any feminist critique alone. Frankenstein ultimately reveals the dangers of attempting to transcend natural boundaries—whether through science, gender, or creation—arguing that true mastery cannot be achieved without profound moral consequences. By focusing on both the anxieties surrounding masculine creation and the subtle critiques of femininity, the novel offers a rich, nuanced exploration of human ambition, identity, and the costs of forsaking human connection.
References
London, Bette. “Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the Spectacle of Masculinity.” Frankenstein, 3rd ed.,
Norton Critical Edition, edited by J. Paul Hunter, W. W. Norton & Company, 2022, pp.
470-481.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Edited by J. Paul Hunter, 3rd ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2022.
Greenblatt, Stephen, et al. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 10th ed., vol. D, W. W.
Norton & Company, 2018.