Common Mistakes In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

The story of a Swiss scholar who creates a man-like creature which then proceeds to haunt him is extraordinarily well known. Frankenstein has become a cultural phenomenon since its first publishing in 1818, and its subsequent republishing in 1831, functioning as the inspirational material for many films, theatre plays and more. It is interesting to see how a story that is as popular as Frankenstein can be so misrepresented in popular culture and in everyday conversations. Calling the novel’s creature by its creator Victor Frankenstein’s name is still an error commonly committed. However, there seems to be a growing awareness of that mistake, as it is, rather comically, usually immediately corrected by a listener or even a passer-by. This may seem like a hopeful transition towards a greater general and public understanding of Mary Shelley’s novel. Yet, there are still misconceptions and common mistakes revolving around Shelley’s most famous novel. For instance, Daniel Cabrera uses Frankenstein’s creature and Rabbi Loew’s Prague Golem as an analogy to modern technology. He does not confuse Frankenstein and his creature, but he describes the creature as a “nameless monster made by a Dr. Victor von

In order to sustain the claim that the composition of the creature reflects its composed nature within the narrative, it must be composed of different materials. Those materials do not need to be human remains. Determining what the used materials are, is rather important, as a large diversity of materials better supports the notion of a patchwork character. Victor Frankenstein claims to have found a way of “bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.” (Shelley 34) At this stage, Frankenstein only speaks of lifeless matter, he does not yet speak of bringing the dead back to life. Very few lines further, Frankenstein says he wants to build a human