Critical Analysis Evaluation
Jane Smith is a faculty member for the University of Sheffield’s Institute for Lifelong Learning. An author and writer, she holds several degrees and has taught at numerous colleges across England. Smith’s gender and BS in Religious Studies from Newton University give her a unique ability to analyze and interpret Mary Shelley’s literary work. Smith’s essay entitled “Religious Aspects in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” effectively and adequately argues that Shelley’s work reflects the traditional Christian belief in the spiritual origin of man in favor of a materialistic worldview, pointing to Shelley’s overarching use of contrast between her own Frankenstein myth, and Milton’s Paradise Lost and the Greek tale of Prometheus.
In sections one through three of her essay, Smth presents three theological interpretations of Frankenstein, all of which complement each other and point towards Shelley’s Christian theme. While many critical readers prefer to take Frankenstein at mere face value, Smith prefers to analyze the powerful theological symbolism of Shelley’s famous work. Smith offers plentiful direct literary evidence for her argument, heavily referencing the numerous contrasts made by Shelley between Frankenstein and Milton’s classic Paradise Lost with direct quotations, and also between Frankenstein and the ancient Greek myth about Prometheus. These literary contrasts, Smith argues, are the “keys” Shelley gives her readers with which to “unlock” her book. Smith adeptly utilizes these keys and strongly confirms her argument of Shelley’s central secularist theme.
In her first theological interpretation from Frankenstein, Smith introduces the theme of the “over-reacher” and points out how Shelley morphs the traditional view of the proud, rebellious Satan into a humble, yet noble being through the opposing characteristics she gives Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein is traditionally the mad scientist who reaches beyond God’s will to create life. Smith points out that Shelley directly compares Frankenstein to Milton’s Satan and the Greek Prometheus, both classic over-reachers: Satan aspired to overthrow God’s authority in heaven, and Prometheus stole fire from the gods. The Prometheus comparison is not difficult to make because it is contained in the alternative title of Shelley’s book: The Modern Prometheus. As for the comparison with Milton’s Satan, Smith quotes what Frankenstein tells Walton, “All my speculations and hopes are as nothing; and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell” (Shelley 261). But Smith notes that while Frankenstein is compared to Satan, he is also elevated to the role of tragic hero. Walton writes in Frankenstein, “What a glorious creature must he have been in the days of his prosperity, when he is thus noble and godlike in ruin” (Shelley 260). This new twist turns the conventional view of the egotistical over-reacher on its head, combining the two traditionally incompatible extremes of good and evil into one. In this way, Shelley is painting an overarching parody of classic Christian theology, presenting secular materialism as a replacement.
Next, Smith addresses the theological theme of “creation mythology,” arguing that Frankenstein’s characterization is a direct counter to Christianity’s (and hence, Milton’s) “divine grace.” She stresses that Shelley takes the three main characters of Paradise Lost, God the Father, Adam, and Satan, and combines the three into just two of her own: God the Father and Satan both represented in Frankenstein, and Adam and Satan both represented in the monster. Shelley portrays Frankenstein (the God/Creator figure) as an imperfect being creating another imperfect being with imperfect motives. She paints him as a type of Satan, the opposite of what he should traditionally be. Frankenstein describes his self-absorbed motives to Walton,
“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley 51). Smith argues that by placing the character Frankenstein in God’s place as the monster’s creator, yet giving him the same motivations as Satan’s, Shelley pokes fun at the idea of either one’s actual existence. Truly, Smith is not alone in her claim, for an offended contemporary reviewer of Frankenstein wrote in March of 1818, “We are accustomed, happily, to look upon the creation of a living and intelligent being as a work that is fitted only to inspire a religious emotion, and there is an impropriety, to say no worse, in placing it in any other light” (Edinburgh Magazine). As for the monster, he directly calls himself both a type of Adam and of Satan: “Like Adam, I was created apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect…Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him,…the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (Shelley 153). Once again, Smith utilizes her evidence well—Shelley’s intertwining of classic opposites into single characters strongly supports her claim that Shelley was in fact questioning the very foundation of their reality.
The third theological theme Smith offers is Shelley’s presentation of “the human condition:” creatures without a holy creator, possessing a “creative-creaturely dichotomy” which bars us from reconciling ourselves to self-acceptance. Smith argues that when seen as representing two sides of the same person, Frankenstein and the monster combined show the irreconcilable, inner turmoil of secular humanity. As proof of her argument, she points to the way Shelley has both Frankenstein and the monster go through many of the same mental and physical experiences with nature, and how Frankenstein seems to be able to know what the monster has done or will do. Following the murder of his own brother by the monster, Frankenstein knows in his heart the true perpetrator. He tells Walton, “I considered the being whom I had cast among mankind…nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave, and forced to destroy all that was dear to me” (Shelley 81). Yet in their seemingly uncanny union, Frankenstein and the monster will never be reconciled, for each blames the other for their wrong actions, viewing themselves victims of each other. This depiction of humanity eternally at war with oneself is a poetic expression of man without a Creator. Given Smith’s evidence, Shelley’s work takes on a frighteningly hopeless and secularist worldview.
In conclusion, Smith’s arguments come from numerous angles. Shelley’s depiction of the classic over-reacher merges the traditional embodiment of the two separate entities of good and evil into one. The portrayal of Frankenstein as a creator and the monster as his Adam turns the traditional Christian view of a Creator and his creation upside down, questioning its truth. In the end, Shelley’s humanity is unhappily able to reconcile all the conflicting identities, and settles into an eternal enmity with itself. Each argument’s angle comes together to form a complete whole, leaving Smith’s reader no doubt as to the overarching theme of secularism: humanity without the holy and divine Creator.
Works Cited
The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany: A New Series of “The Scots Magazine” 2 (March 1818): 249-253. rc.umd.edu. U of Maryland. Mar. 1998. Web. Sept. 14, 2015.
Smith, Jane. “Religious Aspects in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Keats-Shelley Review 11 (1997): 1-39. knarf.english.upenn.edu. Web. UPenn. n.d. Web. Sept. 14, 2015.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Ed. Brantley Johnson. New York: Simon, 2009. Print.
Helpful source: http://umanitoba.ca/student/academiclearning/media/Writing_a_Great_Title_NEW.pdf
Create a thesis statement for this paper that explains (1) the critic’s thesis (claim), (2) if you think the critic effectively or ineffectively supports his or her claim, (3) how (evidence), and (4) why (broad novel example). For section (3), focus on one major reason that you and the critic share in support of the critic’s claim. For component (4), include a broad example from the novel to explain why the critic’s evidence best represents his or her claim, and be sure to choose an overall scenario from the novel that you can break down into specific scenes from the story as support.
To determine whether or not you agree with the critic’s claim, focus on the quality of evidence he or she provides but not the quantity.
Take a look at the sample thesis: “John Smith uses “Frankenstein Critique Essay” to (2) adequately argue that (1) parental influence drives a child’s behavior through adolescence because (3) Victor’s parents create the first monster, which is evident by the way (4) they coddle Victor as a boy.” Here, I agree with John Smith’s thesis (claim) that (1) parental influence drives a child’s behavior through adolescence, and I think Smith’s evidence that (3) Victor’s parents creating the first monster in Victor (vs. the creature being the first “monster” of the novel) is strong. The broad scenario from the novel that I believe presents a good supporting argument is, (4) “because they coddle Victor as a boy.” Therefore, each of the three body paragraphs following the précis would provide a separate example of a situation in which Victor’s parents coddle him in the story that likely leads to his poor, “monstrous” behavior so that I can effectively support my thesis.
Conversely, you may disagree with the critic’s thesis and/or support. In this case you will choose the one piece of evidence from the critique that serves as the argument’s (claim’s) worst flaw. Then, you will show how and why the thesis and/or poor support are incorrectly drawn/ineffectively argued with two to three relevant, related examples from the novel. In this approach, you are essentially refuting the critic’s claim and/or worst evidence flaw with a few examples from the novel. Be sure to spend a little time explaining the critic’s flaw before you refute with the two to three novel examples (these two to three broad examples should be represented under an umbrella term in the thesis; see examples above).
Please be sure it only summarizes your primary critic’s work (not both critiques) and his or her opinion(s). Avoid inserting your own opinion, and be sure it is clear that any claims made in this paragraph are those of the critic. The purpose of the précis is to summarize how the author develops and supports the major claim and to give a statement of the author’s purpose. Please see the following source as well as the details in Topic 4’s lesson presentation regarding a precis paragraph: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/rhetorical-precis/sample/peirce_sample_precis_click.html
If a source makes a quote in a source that has a different author, name the quoting source that is within the larger source in your signal phrase. List the main, larger source in your reference list and in the parentheses. Example: John Carter argued that… (qtd. in Smith 98). John is the quoting source within the main, larger source which is authored by Smith. See the Citing Indirect Sources section: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/
Sample thesis: “John Smith uses “Frankenstein Critique Essay” to adequately argue that Victor’s parents create the first monster because they coddle Victor as a boy.”
Following the précis paragraph after the introduction, create three body paragraphs, each dedicated to one instance in the novel where Victor’s parents coddle him in a way that leads to Victor portraying the first “monster” in the novel. Start each of these body paragraphs with an argumentative topic sentence—“The first way Victor’s parents coddle him that leads to him portraying the novel’s true monster is…”—then briefly explain the critic’s related thoughts, if applicable (depending on how much support the critic uses, this part may only work well in the first body paragraph); next, include examples and excerpts from the novel to present your own support; then, in at least two of the three paragraphs, include support from a second Frankenstein novel critique; and finally, include discussions that draw conclusions from your examples to explain how they support the claim in your thesis.
Follow these same ideas and structures no matter if you agree or disagree with the critic’s claim and/or support. If you disagree, explain the critic’s flaw(s) in a paragraph after the précis and then refute the critic’s claim and/or support using material from the secondary critique and examples from the novel and in the next couple paragraphs.
SAMPLE PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE:
TOPIC SENTENCE: Critic John Smith adequately supports the idea that the Frankenstein novel is a mirror of Shelley’s life by showing the link between the electric spark used to give life to the creature and Shelley’s knowledge of Galvani’s discovery that electric pulses were responsible for muscle movement in frogs. NOVEL SUPPORT: Further evidence of Shelley’s knowledge of the importance of electrical currents in giving life is evident when Victor says, (add quote from the novel). SECONDARY CRITIQUE SUPPORT: Jane Doe, author of “Frankenstein Critique,” also strongly supports the idea that Shelley was well aware of electrical pulses and their significance in bodily movements. Doe explains that Victor’s application of the pulses during the monster’s creation is far too coincidental to Shelley’s specific understanding of the concept, NOVEL SUPPORT: which holds very true when considering Victor’s statement to Walton: (add quote from the novel).
Be sure to correctly identify your source. For example, is it a review from a journal or magazine, or is it a simple article posted on a webpage? Did it originally appear in a print source? You may have to conduct a bit of research to make this determination. It is important that you identify your source in order to create an appropriately formatted works cited entry.
Please review the Purdue Owl website listed below for MLA Works Cited format. Please remember that each entry needs at least one parenthetical citation or signal phrase within the essay. Use the left navigation menu on the page to locate the type of reference you need: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/
You can also visit http://www.easybib.com or Straighterline’s citation generator at http://www.thesladvisor.com/citation-generator/ to have citations generated for you. Be sure to select the correct source type first and then be sure the boxes contain the appropriate elements.
NOTE, some of the citation generators may not include placeholder elements for components that are missing from your source. For example, according to the MLA Handbook 7th Edition, which is considered the ruling document for MLA format, when a web source or other source requiring publisher information does not list a publisher and/or publication date, you should use N.p. and n.d. respectively in their typical positions within the entry. Many websites have publishers. Please use the following source to check for the publishers of your web entries: http://whois.domaintools.com/. The publisher will be listed under Registrant Org.