Reading through Moers’ classic essay Female Gothic: The Mother’s Monster, she discusses the implications of Shelley’s prior education and its significance on how the novel was brought to fruition. In today’s society, Frankenstein is hailed as a masterpiece from an ingenious woman’s mind; however, numerous critics during her lifetime accused her of merely reconstructing ideas around her opposed to pioneering a new source of horror (322 Moers). Challenged by a kind of misogyny which would rather credit a studious woman with an excellent education, in lieu of creative genius, Shelley’s works are scrutinized by far too little information for such a conspiracy to be given the time.
The claim that Shelley only took from her present day source material beyond lacks in validity, even beyond the blatant fictitious elements in the horror classic. As Moers details, while there are semi realistic details regarding the flow of electricity, the study of anatomy and biology, and fluency in a number of languages could aid in the story, it takes a very different mindset to record and charter facts than it does to bring a creation to life. But much like the essay, which focuses heavily on speculations that Shelly rejected her children as monsters much as Victor did The Creature, they are merely that: speculations.
There is very little proof to back up such a claim – and, in fact, the rejection of one’s child is far from what Frankenstein preaches to begin with. Perhaps Shelley’s education became focal in hopes of making Frankenstein more a tale of caution of creation and birth opposed to treating people with respect and kindness; looking at Victor Frankenstein himself, he, too, had the education and intellect, and much like Shelley breathed life into her work, managed to create his own [“artistically flawed”] magnum opus. The major difference? He is a man who is hailed as a genius who went too far. While in class, we discussed the common misconceptions of the novel: a general audience who hasn’t read the book (or knows only of references in pop culture) would declare it serves a warning of the dangers of playing god (Meyer-Lee 2021). The focus, then, shifts away from the mistreatment the creature suffers, and misses a very different point: ostracization. The Creature is a misunderstood being in society, subject to people’s misgivings and stereotypes far prior to their actions – particularly, and most notably, by their own creator, Victor Frankenstein. The title “Monster” is one which the Creature deigns no association to, given by his own father and those around him, not some sort of honorific worn with pride. Shelley shows the damage that ostracization can do to a member of society, even though the creature’s actions are their own. Victor’s actions are not scorned for creation, nor is the creature for being created – and similarly, false accusations thrust upon the novel were far more caustic than the creation itself. We are brought to feel a sort of disdain by Victor’s treatment of his creation, and thus the notion that it symbolizes a hatred for her own children seems a blatant red herring.
It is interesting, then, that opposed to discrediting Shelley’s reservoir of knowledge, it is the application and transformation which is brought to the front for questioning. Even the male audience, which scorns her craft, cannot deny that she has an intellect and scholarship that rivals theirs; as mentioned in Moers’ footnote, the bias is towards intellect over creativity. Perhaps it is by assumption that such knowledge came only from other male scholars, and that Shelley’s application is a mere vessel for what is already known. But even by doing so, they are still giving her the credit of that scholarship, creating somewhat of a paradoxical situation when it comes down to intellectual prowess. And Shelley herself is no stranger to this kind of double standard.
According to Bringing The Author Forward: Frankenstein Through Mary Shelley’s Letters, even Shelley herself shuns the notion of such an idea; she is cited in the essay to be far from “conventional or conservative,” and actively “questions the priority and authenticity
of the authorial and female self in the context of a profound awareness of woman’s position under patriarchy” (Carson 432). Opposed to accepting the misogyny of acceptable culture, she instead rebelled against it – and perhaps, in a sense, created the birth myth within Frankenstein as a critique of feminine and masculine gender ideals. Both creation and birth myths entail the production of another entity in the end, presumably adding that as a common ground between the binary sexes – the very last thing that a sexist society would want. Without a doubt in the world, if a man had created the work, nobody would bat an eye; however, the fact that such classic literature wasn’t created in “acceptable” male society does say a lot when compared to its themes.
Which is worse in the grand scheme of things; the removal of power altogether, or merely mitigating it to a controllable amount? Society at large can question and demean those who have it in them to create new life, regardless of whether that is through high fiction, scholarly essays, or birth itself. However, when you give those individuals the power to spread that mindset, and to give them the agency that they desire, then that is when it becomes dangerous.
At the end of the day, it is impertinent to speak for Mary Shelley and her intentions; fiction has its links with reality, yes, but that does not mean that it is entirely parallel all the time. Writers take bits and pieces of themselves and put them into their novels, inspired by the comings and goings in their life; it is a bit presumptuous to claim without proof that Shelley had any disdain for her children, and a far cry to remove all context of her life altogether. Moers left “the bias of her scholarship” as an unsourced given due to the fact that it was not debated if she was educated, but rather if she contributed anything new with such education. The assertion that she hadn’t is a work of pure misogyny – an attempt to leave a woman erased from history.
Works Cited
CARSON, JAMES P., and James B. Carson. “Bringing the Author Forward: ‘Frankenstein’ Through Mary Shelley’s Letters.” Criticism, vol. 30, no. 4, 1988, pp. 431–453. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23112085. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
Meyer-Lee, Robert. “Perspectives on Literature. ” ENG 280 A. Agnes Scott College, 23 February 2021, Agnes Scott College, Atlanta.
Moers, Ellen. “Female Gothic.” Literary Women. Garden City, NY: Doubleday &, 1976. 90-99. Print.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1797-1851 and J. Paul Hunter, Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2012.
