Introduction
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was one of the most famous literary works in the 19th century. The story is about a scientist who was able to create a creature from old body parts. The story has gone ahead to become very famous, even getting a television and cinema adaptation. The novel has received both positive and negative criticism since its publication in 1818. One of the critics that have taken an interest in the topic is The Literary Panorama and National Registers. The Literary Panorama and National Registers “Review of Frankenstein” adequately argue that Frankenstein is filled with most gross and apparent inconsistencies by failing to explain the relationship between vital principles and actions dependent on acquired habits.
Literary Panorama and National Register is a collection of works by different scholars that have been deemed to be culturally significant. It is a project by Charles Taylor, an English engraver that is responsible for the publication of many artistic works, including The Shakespeare Gallery, London, 1792. The register is made up of scholarly works and, therefore, The Literary Panorama and National Register, N.S., 8 (1 June 1818): 411-414 should be considered as a credible source.
The article’s thesis is that in as much as Shelley’s work affords scope for the display of imagination and fancy. It is hastily written on crude and ill-digested plan, which has caused the details to be riddled with gross and obvious inconsistencies. According to Taylor, “the anonymous author has not wholly neglected the opportunities which it presented to him” (par. 2).
I happen to agree with the critic’s thesis because the author makes a logical argument regarding life processes. The consistent scientific elements in the novel happen to be very scarce. Shelley can be said to have been discussing magic; in that, the author assumes Frankenstein can communicate life into dead matter. Nevertheless, even with the gift of life, certain vital functions and processes would have required learning them before execution. “Agatha, kissed the hands of the lovely stranger and pointing to her brother, made signs which appeared to me to mean that he had been sorrowful until she came” (Shelley 138). How does a newly created creature with no learned behavior or habits get to know the meaning of signs? Such inconsistencies are why I support the critic’s argument.
Although I do agree with the author’s argument, the evidence provided in the article is not sufficient to make a strong case. The author only provides two instances of inconstancies, which are not enough to cover for “frequently filled,” as alleged by the author. The evidence provided by the author as support for the thesis is that the “previously inanimate form of being” runs from the horizontal posture in which he lay and starts to walk away the moment Frankenstein has endowed it with life (Taylor, par.4). According to the critic, walking, reasoning, or judging are the vital principle that requires the learning process, regardless of whether the creature is endowed with the vital principles of hundreds or a thousand human beings.
Taylor’s argument can be supported using La Belle Assemblée, or Bell’s Court and Fashionable Magazine, 2d Series, 17 (March 1818): 139-142. The article by John Bell criticizes Frankenstein’s author of being impious. According to Bell, an author with a moral end in view should point out that application, “which may be more generally understood” (Bell, par.2). Bell alludes to the fact that Frankenstein lacks a clear moral view from which the readers should draw. The critic is hoping that the moral view is that the presumptive works of humans are frightful, vile, and horrible leading to discomfort to oneself. However, while Bell’s critic focuses on a different issue on the topic, he uses one of the issues pointed out by Taylor as evidence to support his argument.
Based on Bell’s critic, Frankenstein is very vague. He provides evidence of the argument from the text. While talking about Frankenstein’s work, the author says, “he then proceeds to examine “the cause of life and death” (Bell par.4). It is at this point that the critic points out just how vain the objective of Frankenstein sounds. “The cause of life and death” is a very general objective, especially considering that an average teenager can name five causes of death off the top of their head without needing to perform thorough research. The author then proceeds by indicating, “and finds himself capable (we use the writer’s own words) “of bestowing animation on lifeless matter!!!” (Bell par.4). Once again, it is not clear how he bestows animation to lifeless matter. It is processed like this that makes the story seem less of science fiction and more of magic. Those are examples of how the author fails to provide precise details to scientific processes that are required in a science fiction novel.
Conclusion
Frankenstein might have gained much popularity, but it highly unlikely that it because of the workmanship of the book. Taylor’s arguments for the inconsistencies and lack of coherence and details in the story is justified based on the textual evidence submitted on the relationship between vital principles and the actions dependent on acquired habits. Taylor’s argument is used by Bell to prove his point that there is a lack of a clear moral lesson from the novel. For there is a lack of clarity on whether Frankenstein uses the science of magic to give life to “lifeless matter.”
