<a href="http://jeanatacc.com/2011/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Frankenstein_engraved.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-3624 aligncenter" alt="Frankenstein_engraved" src="http://jeanatacc.com/2011/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Frankenstein_engraved-211x300.jpg" width="211" height="300" /></a>

&nbsp;
<p style="text-align: center"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cMdbfkl3Rz4/Rq_WmHeQuLI/AAAAAAAAADE/d7WsNkjXOUk/s1600/frontispice.jpg">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cMdbfkl3Rz4/Rq_WmHeQuLI/AAAAAAAAADE/d7WsNkjXOUk/s1600/frontispice.jpg</a></p>
Few works of genre fiction can claim to be as influential and important as Mary Shelley’s <i>Frankenstein</i>. Originally published in 1818, the novel originated from a contest between Shelley and three other writers to see who could come up with the best horror story. [1] Eventually, she settled on a story about a scientist who manages to defy God and create life, only to reject his creation afterwards. Its if often cited not only as a work of gothic horror, but also credited as the first work of true science fiction, and has been adapted into and influenced countless other works. It should not only be preserved for its sheer influence, but also because it’s a thrilling and provocative work that rings true for all scientific discovery.

<!--more-->

While not terribly typical of its era at all, the novel was published during a time of scientific and technological curiosity. With the Renaissance already behind the world, and the American Revolution over, world politics had settled down for a bit, allowing for creative and innovative thinking to take place again. It could be inferred that Shelley was inspired by this new wave of innovation, and decided to write a story about the ethics and responsibility of discovery. It is generally agreed upon that she drew from Humphry Davy’s book, <i>Elements of Chemical Philosophy</i>, in which Humphry wrote about how science has changed the way man can interact with and shape the world around him. [3] Most importantly, the subtitle of Shelley’s book, <i>The Modern Prometheus</i>, is derived from the Greek myth of Prometheus, an immortal whole stole the power of fire from the Gods to bestow it upon mankind, and thus elevate them out of the Neanderthal age. Within the context of her novel, Dr. Victor Frankenstein steals the power to create life where there is none from God, or simply nature, and is punished for it.

More importantly, however, is how the novel is groundbreaking for its time. As opposed to most fiction involving scientific elements, which were fairly fantastical and lacking realism, <i>Frankenstein </i>focuses on a scientist who deliberately uses “modern experiments in the laboratory” to achieve a fantastic result. Brian Aldiss argues that because of this, it should be regarded as the first true work of science fiction. [2]

At the time of publication, the novel was widely panned by most literary critics and scholars, and for various reasons. Sir Walter Scott commended the expressiveness of the novel, but criticized the lack of credibility in the monster’s development. [4] Publications, such as The British Critic, that learned that the novel was written by a woman, it was dismissed nearly immediately and without much reason. [5] Nevertheless, it was a hugely popular success with the public.

Since publication, it has gone on to become a hugely successful and influential work. Adapted into numerous films, stage productions, and other works of fiction, it has become an icon of popular culture, although the depiction of the monster has changed drastically over time. Originally envisioned as a grotesque and hulking creature sewn together from various body parts of corpses, its currently accepted appearance was popularized in the 1931 film by James Whale.

Having been mostly familiar with the story through other adaptations, I was relieved to find a much more thoughtful and evocative story in the novel than I had encountered previously. I found myself moved but also disturbed by the tale of a man who, in the words of Ian Malcolm in <i>Jurassic Park</i>, was so obsessed with whether or not he <i>could</i> do something that he didn’t stop to think about whether or not he <i>should</i>. This contrast between the thrill of discovery and the responsibilities of science struck a chord with me I did not expect to find so intellectually engaging.

Compared to a work like <i>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</i>, this monster tale is far more concerned with sparking a philosophical discussion about ethics and our place in the natural world than with thrilling the audience with provocative imagery. One could argue that <i>Dracula</i> makes a case for sexual liberation, but that appears to be primarily an inferred argument. Primarily, Stoker’s novel has a simple goal of thrilling the reader, and while that doesn’t make Shelley’s novel somehow boring by comparison, it illustrates a difference in both textual and sub-textual goals.

As we race towards an age of rapidly evolving technology and innovation, it is important to remember that we are yet mere mortals in a vast universe that we can barely comprehend. We should consistently strive not only to take responsibility for the discoveries we make, but also to keep our own hubris in check, lest we suffer the same fate as Victor Frankenstein.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
<p align="center"><b><span style="text-decoration: underline">Works Cited</span></b></p>
<p align="center"><b><span style="text-decoration: underline"> </span></b></p>

<ol>
	<li>British Library, <a href="http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126765.html">http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item126765.html</a>, accessed 10/31/2013</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;
<ol>
	<li>Aldiss, Brian, <i>The Detached Retina: Aspects of Science Fiction and Fantasy, </i>(1995), p.78.</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;
<ol>
	<li>Davy, Humphry, <i>Elements of Chemical Philosophy, </i>(1812)</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;
<ol>
	<li>Scott, Walter, <i>Review of Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus, </i>(20 March/ 1 April, 1818), Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine.</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;
<ol>
	<li>"Review of Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus." <i>The British Critic</i> [London] 9 Apr. 1818: 432-38. Print.</li>
</ol>
&nbsp;