Frankenstein Modern Society Analysis

Frankenstein: Does this Story Reflect Modern Society?
This book is just that. A story. There has been no indication that an “inanimate” object can be given the power of human life. However, this novel by Mary Shelley is a very entertaining piece of work that painstakingly resembles modern day society. “From our expectations having been raised too high beforehand by injudicious praises; and it exhibits a strong tendency towards materialism.” (Anonymous, 1998) The first critique that was published in the Literary Panorama, and National Register strongly critiques that the development of the monster is entirely unrealistic and based upon the sense of greed that comes with materialism.
The whole basis of this novel is fantasy. Very little

This was evidenced by Frankenstein rejecting the creature due to its physical appearance. He was also afraid that the creature resembled how he felt on the inside. Frankenstein tried to run from his emotions while the creature was discovering his. Mary Shelley described this encounter with the De Laceys after observing the family for a considerable time. “I felt sensations of a peculiar and overpowering nature: they were a mixture of pain and pleasure, such as I had never before experienced, either from hunger or cold, warmth or food.” I do not believe that Frankenstein was a bad person, but one that was irresponsible and afraid. He did want power like God and to have others be envious of him being able to have the power to create life. Frankenstein failed in the cliché of “with great power, comes great responsibility.” Things could have turned out differently if better decisions were made. Could he have saved the lives of Justine, William, and his friend Clerval? A big reflection of modern day society is the lack of taking ownership of ones decisions. Frankenstein could have saved Justine from execution by standing up and confessing about the creature he created, but was more worried about what people thought of him instead of doing the right thing. Is the creature entirely to blame for the murders or should society take some

“For traditional Christians, the novel belongs typologically with tales of human presumption, in which the protagonist is duly punished for overstepping human boundaries laid down by God.” (Hetherington, 1997) Whether this statement is true is up for a never-ending debate. It is absurd to know without a doubt that the development of the monster is unrealistic and that the story was based upon greed. The first thought that comes to mind is our space program and hearing statements about whether a planet discovered can sustain life. What assumptions can we truly make on this topic? Does an unknown creature (the monster?) have to breath oxygen, drink water and need a certain atmospheric temperature to survive? There is nobody truly qualified to make this determination. The same would apply to the creature. As for Frankenstein, his motivation was based upon power and curiosity. He was deemed a “modern day” mad scientist. This statement is inaccurate as no evidence suggested that he had planned on using the beast for evil purposes. He had also tried to correct his mistake after discovering what an error he had made by not creating another monster in addition to his first one. However, did he make the right decision? Would the creature have changed his ways if he had a companion? These are details we will never know the answer