Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
” Many people believe that this was just an excuse for Victor’s mistakes, but I believe that it was Mary Shelley’s influence creeping into the storyline yet again. Shelley was a romantic; she spent her life against the facts of the world, hoping for the near impossible. She drove herself to the wonders of fate, much like Victor is doing at this time in the book. He told himself that he had little control, and that fate and mysterious wonders possessed him like a puppet on a string. Death is in a way the centre of the story. More then half of the characters themselves die, and the creature is made of dead matter.
It is astonishing that Mary Shelley would write about death if she was a romantic. What is even more astounding is that she wrote so much about science! But I think there is a possible link that does not contradict any of the facts or motives. If Shelley wanted to prove how dreadful science was, then what could persuade people more then death? I think that she wrote the story to illustrate what science could really do to someone’s life. Whereas the “guardian angel” mentioned in the story (which I think is symbolic for the romantics Shelley loved), could have saved their lives.
The death presented can be received as if it were a horror story, and it partially is, but the amount of death and pain suggests otherwise. Even though the idea of death is dire, without it the book would be pointless and boring. In fact, in this situation, the death creates life, the creature. “With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. ” Victor’s experiments with dead matter and electricity must also give a massive input to the concluding decision.
It contains scientific knowledge, experience and language, and therefore helps the science fiction appeal. Even the way that Victor speaks sounds scientific enough to make you think that it’s science fiction. “I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. ” Although in the film certain parts of content are lost and an exaggeration of the electricity used is inputted, the outlines, structure and main plot remain.
And if the film was defined as a sci-fi horror, then indubitably the book must also be regarded with similar merits. There are so many ways in which science is referred to in the book that it is almost impossible to imagine how many there actually are. If Victor as the main character is experimenting with science, then presumably the story is experimenting too, bringing to the conclusion that Frankenstein is an early from of science fiction, on the basis of the meaning of science fiction itself.
Science fiction itself is defined as “a piece of fictional writing including a form of scientific knowledge or plot. ” Therefore, theoretically Frankenstein would fall into this category. The only obstacle preventing this is whether or not it should be something else, like gothic horror or even romantic thriller. There are approximately equal amounts of evidence that would finally classify the novel. There are so many genres it could be that it is extremely difficult to comprehend which one it would distinctively fall into. The problem is how do we choose which one?
But one thing most people do not consider is why can’t something be more than one thing? For years people have combined ideas to save time or just for the sake of it. Things like two in one shampoos, or multi vitamin tablets or even television programmes. So what some people agree upon in this situation is: why can’t Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be three genres rolled up into one? After all, this essay has found no reason to suggest why it shouldn’t be pronounced science fiction, and I am sure that there will be no way to say how it is not any other genre.
If we excluded one genre from the description then it would not fully describe the book to its full temperament. However, against anything else and for the sake of answering the original essay question, I will call it an early form of science fiction, only because there was nothing like it before it was written, and if it hadn’t been, there may not be a science fiction anyway. Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.