Prompt: Compare your own prior reading of Frankenstein to the Critical History. How have you interpreted the novel? Where might you position yourself within the critical history? Do you seem to follow one perspective or to work among many critical approaches? Is there anything in the history that surprises you?
Response: In my history as a student, I have looked back at this novel many times. However, I’ve always had the idea in my head that Frankenstein was about subjects surrounding bioethics. Shelley, to me, writes in a time where science seems to be quickly developing with new discoveries each day. Nowadays, there are several different medical procedures to create a life in an unnatural way. These include things from artificial wombs to sperm banks. These are still some controversial topics and I feel like Shelley was writing Frankenstein in order to bring this conversation into the light more. I believe this idea I have is talked about alongside cultural studies criticism on page 279 of “A Critical History.” People around the world in different cultures, religions, and even levels of education have different views on “the creation of artificial life” (Smith 279). Now, I wouldn’t go as far as saying the book is representing a feminist view of “masculine science” taking control of the female body. That part of the article really surprised me even though it makes sense. However, I do believe this book is definitely questioning the ethics of creating artificial life.
Earlier in the article, Smith mentions the question of who is at fault for the actions of the monster. Mary Shelley’s first critic, her husband, says that nobody can really take fault for the monsters actions. On one hand, the monster’s actions did not come from a place of pure evil so it can’t be held responsible. That is a little confusing to me; people nowadays commit killing crimes like this and are sent to prison for the rest of their lives. The creator cannot be held responsible according to Percy Shelley because the actions are, “the children, as it were, of necessity and human nature” (Smith 268). I’ve always thought the actions of the monster were the fault of the creator or of society. On the one hand, if the creator didn’t create the being, this would’ve never happened, but how could he know? On the other hand, it’s society’s fault because they neglected to know the monster before treating it poorly.
