The autobiographical nature of Shelley’s novel "Frankenstein"

The novel has experienced and continues to experience increasing readership due to its rather engrossing nature. In the novel, Shelley introduces her readers to Victor Frankenstein, a scientist, whose uncontrolled desire for invention pushes him towards creating a monster. The outcome is not as Victor anticipates as his creation is nothing like him, Frankenstein (its name), is a monster. His grotesque appearance renders him vulnerable to oppression not only from his maker, but also from others in the society. Discussing the events in the novel, Barbara Johnson writes that Shelley’s presentation of the situation between Victor and his creation is an analogy of her own personal experiences. Therefore, the novel is an autobiography about the author but is not explicitly demonstrated. Johnson explains that as a young girl, Shelley’s fascination is only demonstrative of the monstrousness in herself. Hence, a discussion of the autobiographical nature of Shelley’s novel is thus warranted. 

Johnson (1982) proposes a rather provocative argument about the foundational basis of Shelley’s novel. She writes that monstrousness is inherent in human beings, that one cannot escape it, but rather tame it. The argument is that each individual has, in his or her own capacity, the ability to reveal or unveil his or her monstrousness. Johnson (1982) wrote that, “… Mary Shelley, who does not explicitly locate the self’s monstrousness in its gender arrangements, appears to dramatize the divisions within the human being that are so much a part of being human that no escape from monstrousness seems possible” (p. 3). Thus, the argument is that human beings cannot avoid or run away from the monstrous self as it is, in itself, of natural existence. Putting the novel into context, the mere fact that Victor is unable to face Frankenstein, his own creation, demonstrates his desire to want no association with him. In the first place, it is not clear why Victor, a scientist, is unable to make a being that is more appealing and pleasing to the eyes. Instead, Victor creates a monster, one that he does not want any affiliations with. Therefore, based on this particular fact as obtained from the book, a reader can notice that Johnson’s (1982) evaluation of the novel is accurate. In his behavior, Victor is running away from his monstrous self but there is no escape. Thus, Johnson (1982) explained that Shelley’s presentation of Victor’s vulnerability mirrors her own experiences. At only 18 years, Shelley had lived through an unwanted pregnancy out of wedlock and, unfortunately, saw the baby’s demise. Further, her mother died after giving birth to her which explains that at such an age, Shelley had excruciatingly divided emotions (Johnson, 1982). Therefore, the argument is that the novel is an expression of such emotions which are largely characteristic of her painful experiences with separation, in this case, Victor’s lack of desire to want to be affiliated with Frankenstein. 

In the novel, Shelley writes about separation and presents it in various ways. For instance, Victor talks about the death of Elizabeth, his lover. Shelley (n.d.) writes “It is so long before the mind can persuade itself that she whom we saw every day and whose very existence appear a part of our own can have departed forever” and that “when the lapse of time proves the reality of the evil, then the actual bitterness of grief commences” (p. 40). The statement itself projects Victor’s emotional experiences after the death of Elizabeth. He explains that after some time, it becomes clear that death, as evidence of evil, exist. Therefore, from such realization, the bitterness of grief in human beings is unveiled. The inevitability of grief in life is Shelley’s way of communicating her experiences with the same. In the article, Johnson (1982) states that the novel documents various instances which address the nature of existence. For instance, the death of Elizabeth is evidence that such an outcome is natural. However, it is unnatural that human beings, such as Victor, can create a human being. Therefore, in creating the monster, Victor was somewhat attempting to replace a life, but through unorthodox means. Johnson (1982) concurs stating that “On the one hand, the story of Frankenstein is, after all, the story of a man who usurps the female role by physically giving birth to a child” (p. 8). Therefore, the unnatural attempt by Victor to give birth is akin to Mary Shelley’s quest to tell a story about a man’s experiences but from a woman’s perspective. Therefore, such inconsistency is only representative of Shelley’s lack of belief in herself as being worthy of parentage. Johnson (1982) explained that “In order to prove herself worthy of her parentage, Mary, paradoxically enough, must thus usurp the parental role and succeed in giving birth to herself on paper” (p. 8). Therefore, in question is whether Shelley believes in her ability to become a mother or if she is limited in this particular role based on her experience. That explains why she is, through Victor’s character, too quick to dismiss a creation that could not have existed in the first place. 

Thus far, the analysis has focused on how the article illuminates various aspects about the novel, which are not so clear to the reader. Johnson’s (1982) argument is that the novel is somewhat of an autobiography that Shelley wrote, though implicitly. Throughout the analysis, it is noted that Shelley does not want to acknowledge the monstrousness in self. However, Johnson (1982) emphasizes that one can only accept such a reality in order to avoid its effects on one’s quality of life. In this case, even after an adverse event such as death, one should push forward and accept that separation is part of existence. In the novel, Victor says, “My mother was dead, but we still had duties which we ought to perform; we must continue our course with the rest and learn to think ourselves fortunate whilst one remains whom the spoiler has not seized” (Shelley, n.d., p. 40-41). In the passage in question, Shelley presents Victor as being overly optimistic and willing to accept the existence of death as a normal and inherent experience. However, that is not the message that Johnson (1982) projects in her article. She presents Shelley as being an individual who, through her novel, is not willing to accept that such reality exists, and that one can only move from such experiences by trying to create pleasant encounters. Therefore, the limited perception of Shelley’s character as demonstrated through the novel is not overly accurate and to some extent, presents a falsified impression of the inability of human beings to recover from grief. 

Conclusion 

Admittedly, Barbara Johnson provides her readers with a compelling analysis of the motivation behind the writing of the novel. She explains that Frankenstein is an autobiography of Shelley’s life explaining how she dealt with separation and grief. There are various examples in the novel, such as Victor’s attempt to give birth to a child physically one that he wants to affiliation with, which is consistent with Shelley’s loss of her children born out of wedlock. However, Shelley is able to demonstrate that human beings can recover and should recover from grief, a factor that is not quite clear in the article. Nevertheless, Johnson allows readers to understand Frankenstein from a feminist lens illuminating on the experiences of motherhood. 

References 

Johnson, B. (1982). My Monster/My Self.  Diacritics,    12 (2), 2-10. doi:10.2307/464674 

Shelley, M. (n.d.). Frankenstein . Retrieved from https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/frankenstein.pdf