Peretti Through the Lens of Dr. Frankenstein

2023

The subtitle of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus, draws an immediate connection to Greek mythology and the Titan Prometheus. The “Modern Prometheus” is generally considered to be Dr. Victor Frankenstein; however, in this paper, I argue that Frankenstein’s Creation can also be recognized as a Promethean figure. To identify a Promethean figure, I discuss the varying nature of Greek mythology and how Prometheus is portrayed throughout the ancient literary canon; for example, as Prometheus pyrphoros in Hesiod and Aeschylus, and Prometheus plasticator in Ovid and Pseudo-Apollodorus. Specifically, I compare Prometheus pyrphoros as he appears in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus to the Creation in Frankenstein. I examine both through themes of humanism, rebellion, and suffering, culminating in the idea that the Creation carries Promethean traits less obviously but more profoundly than Dr. Frankenstein. With the theory of Polyprometheism introduced by Brett M. Rogers (2018), I argue that Dr. Frankenstein and his Creation can exist simultaneously as Promethean figures, with Dr. Frankenstein as a problematic Prometheus plasticator and the Creation as the suffering, rebellious Prometheus pyrphoros. I also suggest, with notes from Genevieve Liveley (2018), that Mary Shelley augmented Frankenstein with conceptions from ancient myths she had read—Prometheus Bound, for example—but especially creation myths from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, such as Prometheus plasticator, Asclepios & Hippolytus, and Deucalion & Pyrrha. Therefore, I suggest that Mary Shelley successfully interpreted ancient mythology to create a bifurcated “Modern Prometheus,” applying it to her creator and creation.

The purpose of this research project is to prove that Mary Shelley’s progeny, the son of Victor Frankenstein, is an example of an identity that is within all of us. Also, it is argued here that the given examples of identity within the novel lend themselves to the ethical notion of authenticity. The overarching themes of Mary Shelley’s work are found within a movement from innocence to deprecation. The movement of these themes happens through the phenomenon of experience. During the first half of the novel, during the creature’s early life, an example of innocence is given; the latter example, a life of denunciation and scorn, is given through the second half of the novel, when the creature turns resolutely towards hatred and is transformed into the commonly known identity of the monster. The title of creature or monster is debatable, but here it is believed to be inaccurate to title Shelley’s progeny entirely as a monster, for he is not inherently evil. This thesis is built upon the premise that Shelley’s progeny goes under an intentional transformation from being a creature to a monster. This transformation is Shelley’s intention for two reasons; it represents man’s inherent fear of the unknown – e. g., the novel’s society and its fear of her the progeny. The intention also shows the inevitable behavioral, psychological, and emotional effects of rejection and scorn – also seen in her progeny. Despite the transformation, it is wrong to conceptualize her progeny as purely a monster. The title of monster is merely a perception given to the creature by the society within the novel. The identity of an evil monster is forced upon him. He carries no notion of original sin. The creature is inherently benevolent and seeks for the good in his life. It is because of his presumption in there being a good nature found within others that he is forced to commit evil acts. This concept of presumption is the author’s intention as well. With this intention, Shelley aims to critique and expose an inherent malady – a common vice of hasty judgments. It is through her progeny’s act of presumption that he takes on the title of monster. This is due to the fact that his search for the good in others is predicated on an impossibility of him being socially accepted by others. The condition of his acceptance from others is never met. Thus, his search for the good in others is in vain. All he finds is the evil, the scorn, and rejection which lead him to commit the evil acts. Mary Shelley uses the plight of her progeny as an analogy which speaks for the wretched in all of us. She intentionally targets the disdain and abhorrence of what is considered socially ostracized. She dredges up an unwanted desire to abandon all faith in humanity and – just as the monster – vow to keep no terms with our enemies. Therefore, these titles of creature and monster are pre-determined parts of a larger process of change within the identity of Shelley’s progeny, which develop both intrinsically from the progeny himself and extrinsically from the society surrounding him. As for this hideous progeny being an ubiquitous example of identity, there exists between him and his reader a shared aspect of life: the constant existential struggle to obtain, if not for only an instance, a substantially authentic identity. Shelley’s novel and this thesis does not exclude those who claim not to seek the virtue of authenticity. They will equally find themselves in the novel. This is the beauty of her novel. Mary Shelley gives us a plethora of modes and functions of the human being. There is the vicious wretch; the humble cottager; the eager student; the vengeful daemon; the prodigal son; the idealist; the un-sheltered one; the rejected one; the unloved one; all of these names fall under the two previously discussed categories: creature and monster. The two are abstractions of the themes of innocence and deprecation. Also, whether or not authenticity is reached by the progeny in the novel is one question among many which the novel leaves unanswered – and it is here in these pages that such questions are attempted to be answered. I will demonstrate that Shelley’s progeny reaches an authentic identity within two distinct modes: (i) of the creature and (ii) of the monster. Other questions of this paper’s focus deal with the motivations behind Shelley’s progeny – those considered virtuous during the beginning half of his life and those considered vicious during the latter half of his life. Are these motivations purely sociological? What do these motivations have to do with any sense of, or lack thereof, faith in some sort of God? What is that ominous force behind the demise of Dr. Frankenstein? Along with the answers to these questions, the text gives a cursory view into almost all schools of philosophical thought Shelley was familiar with. Of course, we experience these vicariously through characters of the novel, especially Victor and his creation. Within the novel we see alchemy, that first philosophy of nature, through Victor Frankenstein’s studies at Ingolstadt. Also, the reader gets a clear view into Lockean empiricism, through the creature’s cognitive development through sensual experience and reflection on that sense experience. The most present school of philosophical thought – one which the entire novel is surrounded by – is the thought of Existentialism. It is this reason alone which drives my inquiry here within these pages. I am driven to understand the existential struggle that is involved in obtaining an authentic identity. Shelley’s progeny is the exemplar for this. His plight is universal. It gives a view of existential struggles that are inevitable in the life of all people, such as the struggle for society, rejection of that society, adaptation, and self-reliance within a world that is merciless and un-agreeable. To relate the progeny’s struggle to that which is found in developing an authentic identity, I must articulate, as fully as possible, what exactly authenticity is. In order to do this, before all else, one must clearly define authenticity. The struggle which subsists within the process of obtaining such an ideal must also be surfaced. Identity, authenticity, and its development must be broken up into individual components, as to be understood in a light which shows their inter-workings. With the concept of authenticity, comes other, subsequent, topics which work with authenticity and are essential to it. These subsequent topics are disenchantment, instrumental reasoning, and dialogicity. There is a method to reaching the ideal of authenticity that involves all of these topics. The sequence of that method is as follows: (i) disenchantment, (ii) instrumental reasoning, (iii) dialogicity, and the product is authenticity. All of these come out of Charles Taylor’s work The Ethics of Authenticity. It is important to note here that (ii) instrumental reasoning is taken by Charles Taylor as a kind of objectivity. It is my aim to design this paper as an explicative process of reaching authenticity. To explain disenchantment, I will draw upon the works of Charles Taylor, Kevin W. Moore, Ravi Chopra, and H. C. Greisman. To explain instrumental reasoning, I will take from the works of Charles Taylor and Martha C. Nussbaum. To complete the task of understanding authenticity well, I will mainly draw from Taylor; other scholars such as Victoria Fareld and Yeuk-shing Mok will also be used as secondary material. In efforts of understanding dialogicity, I will draw from the work of Taylor, Matti Itkonen, and Robert MacGilleon. The fact that Taylor’s concept of authenticity is an ideal is important, for to confuse it with an end that is attainable is a mistake. Such a mistake would render the Monster’s struggle as temporal and of less meaning. Because the ideal of authenticity is never attainable, the Monster’s struggle is an infinite choice of perseverance. This endless struggle makes the attainment of authenticity rich and demanding of a strong commitment. This enables his struggle to become sacred, a question of temperament and will. The fact that Shelley’s Monster chooses to never end his struggle in search for an authentic identity makes his plight one of moral value – one which creates a universal ethos with its reader. All of this is written as a necessary requisite to obtain a clear understanding of Mary Shelley’s work. After discovering what is meant by authenticity – and understanding what sort of identity comes out of a life in pursuit of that ideal – one is finally able to apply this to the novel. To apply this to the novel, one must present an analysis of the novel as one would explicate a poem, pointing out every aspect of the said intention, i.e., the struggle and development of an authentic identity.

ELH, 2014

International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 2019

Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 2022

Humans have an inquiring mind. Throughout history, one may find documentation that shows on human curiosity, and our drive to stretch boundaries to satisfy it. Thus, this is not something that characterizes our time in any particular way. Sources, for instance, from the 13th century can serve as good examples that support such an assumption. Mary Shelley’s novel from the 19th century, “Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus,” might perhaps be the most known commentary to that boundary stretching, which continues in a slightly new form in the ongoing debate and the popular culture within the scientific community. Shelley’s narrative about the scientist Frankenstein and his Creature has continued to interest the audience. Through adaptations to film, the story has reached many new generations of cinema goers. However, new interpretations have altered some aspects the original message. Shelley’s conception of the monstrous was more complex than today when parts of the narrative have b...

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus-conceived by the author in Geneva in June 1816 in a literary contest also involving P.B. Shelley, Lord Byron and John Polidori, and published in 1818 ̶ was celebrated in 2018 by many conferences and seminars as an incomparable work of gothic, dystopian, feminist and science-fiction imagination. My paper, moving from an overview of the critical reception of the novel, aims to contribute to these celebrations by paying particular attention to Mary Shelley's reconceptualization of the body, with regard to its meaning in the societal structure of the time and, more generally, in power relationships.

Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies, 2020

The hypothesis that there is an inextricable link between comic book superheroes and suffering would, to anyone with a cursory knowledge of superhero characters found in DC, Marvel, Image, Wildstorm and other houses, and their histories, ostensibly seem valid. This validity depends on which character one is applying said hypothesis to; the psychological and physical suffering of a Batman being more acceptable as such than that of a Plastic Man, for example. However, using DC Comics character Superman as a case study, this paper explores the inextricable link between Otherness, power, and suffering within the remit of the character's mythos. In order to do so, this paper refers to psychoanalytic concepts elaborated by Sigmund Freud in his text Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1922) as a way of demonstrating that despite the character's conventional appraisal as a positivist humanistic symbol of pure altruism, an insuperable, unimpeachable symbol of selflessness and good moralit...

The tool for Mary Shelley to criticize and satirize Romanticism is her famous character, Victor Frankenstein, or as the subtitle of the novel suggests: The Modern Prometheus. In Romantic beliefs, Prometheus was the symbol of limitless ability and freedom to whom many Romantic Poets pay tribute. In contrast, in Mary Shelley's opinion, this 'metaphysical revolt' cannot go unpunished. The aim of this paper is to examine, through a Foucauldian reading, the mythic character of Prometheus in Romantic era, and the differences existing between Marry Shelley's presentations of the modern version of the character and the Romantic version, and to show how Mary Shelley, belonging to other discourses rather than the dominant one, opposes the Romantic-related ideas. As Foucault believes there exist other discourses along with the dominant one all of which are in a constant struggle over power in a hierarchy. Mary Shelley follows some marginalized discourses, and her opposition to Romantic ideals stems from her relationship with other major Romantic Poets, and also from getting influence from some scientific experimentations of her day. She witnesses the harshness in her relationships with Romantic Poets, and their doomed aspirations, which agonizingly affect her life.

Caietele Echinox, 2018

With a view to exploring the relationship between DC Comics' Superman's engagement with posthumanism and science fiction, as well as posthumanism and planetarity, this paper will provide an analysis of various xenological aspects of the character, as an uncanny alien, in order to explore a range of conclusions that can be drawn from my central hypothesis that Superman is a character that is simultaneously a representation of onto-existential familiarity as well as Otherness and power that ultimately disrupts anthropocentric and geocentric frames of reference.