Loneliness in Frankenstein

The loneliness of various characters is a prominent motif in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Both Victor Frankenstein and his creation, both of whom can be seen as the true hero of Shelley's work, can count loneliness as a significant element of their respective experiences.

The circumstances that were the repercussions of Victor Frankenstein's act of creation led him to feel isolated from his peers, companions and family due to his sole possession of intimate knowledge among mankind of the truth concerning William's murder and Justine's execution. As such, he bore a heavy burden of guilt, which led to him isolating himself from his companions. As Victor describes in his own words: "I was seized by remorse and sense of guilt...This state of mind preyed upon my health... I shunned the face of man.. Solitude was my only consolation-deep, dark, deathlike solitude." (Shelley, 72)

Likewise, Victor Frankenstein's creation also encounters loneliness. In fact, his existence is practically defined by loneliness, even from the moment of his birth through animation. "It was dark when I awoke; I felt cold also... finding myself so desolate... I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch... feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept." (Shelley, 84) Indeed, this feeling of loneliness becomes the centerpiece of his experiences, leading him to pursue acceptance, sympathy and perhaps ultimately love from human beings, including the De Lacey family and his creator. At last, when he realized that his appearance made said quest nigh on impossible, he sought Victor for another purpose, which was to create another being, a female, that was just like him for the purpose of companionship. What further proof does one need to prove the creature's loneliness, that one should seek to bring another being into a proven miserable existence merely for the purpose of shared sympathies and companionship?

Frankenstein and Walton: A Comparison (With a Touch of Ozymandias)

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicted striking similarities between two of her characters, namely Robert Walton and Victor Frankenstein. They were both infatuated by natural philosophy and believed that it was their respective destinies to achieve greatness through scientific discoveries or as Frankenstein puts it, “…unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creations.” Although their fields of work differed (Frankenstein sought the secret to the animating force of life itself while Walton was determined to unravel the wonders of the North Pole and its role in magnetism), Shelley goes out of her way to impress upon the reader of how these two men are practically kindred spirits. In fact, Walton states that “I [Walton] begin to love him as a brother” (pg.11) scarcely two days after Frankenstein boarded his ship. Indeed, Frankenstein only recalls his story in an attempt to prevent Walton from encountering a fate similar to his.

That being said, it is implied that Walton was on the edge of a revolutionary scientific discovery, which would have earned him the glory that he yearned for through this contribution, when he encountered Frankenstein, who did indeed discover the secret to life. In short, both Robert Walton and Victor Frankenstein in years past were defined by their determined pursuit of scientific discovery, which, it seems, was merely the means through which they both would earn glory and thus leave their marks upon this world.

However long their glory would last, however, is a highly debatable issue. Prima facie, Percy Bysshe Shelley’s Ozymandias would seem to assert that any marks, any imprints, left by such glory as both Frankenstein and Walton sought would decay and ultimately leave behind a worthless, empty shell that is devoid of any of the grandeur with which it was overflowing at one time: “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:/Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!/ Nothing besides remains. Round the decay…”

Upon a closer look, however, it is worth noting that however empty and lonely the pedestal seems, the fact of the matter is that it endured, indicating that glory remain for a much longer time than one would expect, albeit in a barely recognizable form. Is this not exactly Frankenstein’s fate? After all, both Frankenstein and Victor Frankenstein, its namesake character, linger in modern popular culture, having endured nearly two centuries of changing social values and lifestyles. That being said, the popular conception of Frankenstein today is egregiously erroneous and in my humblest opinion, a mere husk of the greatness of the original as written by Mary Shelley. However, it is indubitable that the notoriety of Frankenstein has proven itself to be capable of enduring the ravages of time and, being a classic, will continue to be able to do so for the foreseeable future.

Science vs. Religion?

First of all, I'd just like to say that science is not necessarily the antithesis to religion, and vice versa. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."   In other words, I believe, or rather, I know, that it is possible to embrace and recognize the values of both. I, for one, have done so.

That being said, science and religion seem to contradict each other on a variety of issues. Certainly, the media seems to enjoy setting the two up as equally valid systems of thought and pitting them against each other and based on the ratings of numerous talk-shows, the general populace seems to enjoy this clash as well. In these debates, there is no issue that is so contentious or so controversial as life itself.

Indeed, life, particularly the origins thereof, is a particularly touchy issue when it comes to the whole science vs. religion dispute. As strange as it sounds, I believe that there are valid points on both sides of the aisle. Based on my life experiences, I have come to believe in the existence of a Prime Mover of sorts in this universe. However, biology has also led me to hold that evolution is a viable scientific theory. As such, I have effectively taken eaten the entirety of the proverbial pie by reconciling my religious belief in the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Judeo-Christian God with my recognization of the validity of the scientific evidence gathered and the conclusions drawn from said evidence. Since science, by definition, cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, I am inclined to hang on to my beliefs and should science provide new information that clearly contradict said beliefs, revise them accordingly.

In short, I do believe that one can, given an open mind and a reconciliatory attitude, see the life the same way through the lens of both science and religion.

P.S. Before I sign out, there is a somewhat disturbing trend among religious conservatives in this country that I feel like I must call out, which is to label any evidence-based belief a religion. Indeed, I have heard various individuals call the belief in the impact of man on climate change a religion; Darwinism, a religion; Atheism (which incidentally happens to be the total absence of a religion), a religion; and of course, science, which is defined as by the New Oxford American Dictionary as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the struture and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", is somehow also dubbed a religion.  Now, the New Oxford American Dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power" and science is precisely... not that. You know, all I hear when I listen to these individuals dubbing science a religion is "Come on, we all believe in something..." No. No no no no no. I mean, it's a merely a variation of the grand old intellectual tradition of "I know what you are, but what am I?" (Props to Karl Rove) Just because one finds it difficult to defend one's own superstitious theories concerning the origins of life does not mean that every other plausible explanation is invalid, and it definitely doesn't mean that one should label these explanations as religions. Science is a religion in the same way that abstinence is a sex position, got it? Goodness gracious, that was a long post-script. In truth, I can only hope that my spiel was at least somewhat enjoyable to read. Until next time, then.