While reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, one cannot, or someone notice that some male characters equally with
female seem to have passive role. However, some feminists authors criticize the novel
because of consisting only passive female roles. Maybe they did not pay
attention some details where male equally with female seem to have passive role.
It seems like they have investigated only female’s passive
role. Feminists forgot passive role of male. However, in order to
investigate the novel we need to include all details not only female’s passivity. Anne K. Mellor and Cynthia Pon discuss this issue using feministic point of view
in their essays which had
feministic character and criticize male characters in the novel that
are guilty for passivity of women in the novel. They take each passive action
of women in the novel and criticize male characters that are reason for their
passivity. Both authors investigate the novel by feministic point. They blamed
male characters in the novel for reasons of passive role of woman not paying
attention to other circumstances. Actually if we discuss only by female and
male characters in the novel we could find many active or passive roles of female
and male whole. Even though many people found the
elements of passivity of woman in the novel, I strongly believe that there are not
any anti-feministic views in the novel, so finding elements of passivity of
women do not correspond in order to announce like anti-feministic novel because
there are other circumstances where woman play passive role.
On the way scientific prosperity, some
discoveries like human cloning can replace the female’s control over
reproduction of children. Science is going to so far. I would not be surprised
if people after several years create human by clonning way. Even though the novel Frankenstein is written as science
fiction, perhaps it would become more realistic after several years. “According
to Mellor, by stealing the female’s control over reproduction, Frankenstein has
eliminated the female’s primary biological function and source of cultural
power (274)”. In this case Mellor want to discuss passivity of females in children’s
reproduction and criticize Victor who creates man eliminating woman’s
reproduction potential. Therefore, I had question, why Mellor does not criticize
scientists who discovered human cloning
which is also eliminate woman’s potential of human reproduction? By Mellor’s
point Victor is guilty who makes woman passive in woman’s reproduction, but
scientists who investigated cloning way are not. Victor created only one man,
but by cloning way scientists would create unlimited creations. The main point
of the novel Frankenstein was the
creation of man without human’s biological function of reproduction. Otherwise
it seems that Mellor is against development of science which made progress and
comfort life for humanity. Anyway science starts to eliminate human’s
biological function of reproduction.
Shelley puts man as a creation (monster)
because most of her readers were Christian by religion. Most feminists criticize
Marry Shelly because she gave role of creation to man where novel shows
passivity of females. “According to Pon, Marry Shelley describes the doomed
trajectory of masculine creation that displaces the female, and that is
premised on self-reflection (37)”. Pon
criticize Marry Shelley because she displaces woman from the role of creation. In order to popularize own novel some writer
make some action in a novel similar to popular human recognized book such Bible. There written about creator who
creates man, Adam firstly. Taking man as creation was closer to people. If she
gave role of creation to woman, the novel could not be as popular as right now.
Using man as a first creation makes the novel more realistic.
In order to save security for whole humanity
Victor rejected to create female. Feminists criticize Frankenstein for
non-creating woman for monster where it shows passive role of woman. As we know
security is a main way for our existence. We are ready to everything in order
to save own security. For example, even liberal country can limit freedom if the
freedom threatens
for sovereignty
of country. Even liberal Japan country has limited freedom in religion for own
citizens where for citizens prohibited to extend Islam and show rituals for
community by constitution in order to save security in country. We know a lot
of facts where on the way of enlightenment many created things in science,
culture and architecture were destroyed by conquests. As I wrote in last essay if in europe
were security from religious conquerors, we could be ahead for many centuries in
development humanity and science. Mellor criticize novel, “One of the deepest
horrors of this novel is Frankenstein’s implicit goal of creating a society for
men only: his creature is male; he refuses to create a female (274)". This case shows passivity of female in the novel. However,
in order to save security for whole humanity it is good if we refuse from some
suggestion which creates danger for humanity. In the case of Victor, creating
woman for monster may create huge danger for humanity. As he mentioned in the
novel, new race which have powerful brain, strong muscules could adapt at any
natural condition as in deserts and in North Pole. It means that new
race could displace our humanity from the world. We need to be thankful for Victor
who has saved our world from danger not criticizing him as feminists do. It
seems that Mellor is against to security for humanity. Therefore, Victor made
good decision for security of humanity rejecting to create woman for the
monster even his family was killed by monster.
Even though many feminists criticize
passivity of woman in Frankenstein,
we can meet passive role of man. Sometimes public opinion could be false.
Usually most of people could not speak against public opinion. Public opinion
sometimes can be wrong. Therefore, even most people in public are feeling wrong
justification of innocent human will just close eyes in such situation in order
to save themselves. According to Mellor, Elizabeth, fully convinced of
Justine’s innocence, is unable to save her: “the impassioned defense she gives
of Justine arouses approbation of Elizabeth’s generosity but does nothing to
help Justine”
(276). Even Elizabeth was fully convinced for
innocence of Justine, public do not want to listen her because public do not
believe to woman. For death of Justine, Mellor blames public man because of
passive role of woman in society she was justified where no one wants to
believe to woman. Same with the Justine, Felix was also justified by public and
repressed to the forest where from the rich family they became poor family who
lives in the forest. By helping to Turkish girl Sophie in Germany, Felix was
repressed to forest even Felix was innocent. Therefore, despite any facts man
also have passive role in the novel same with the woman.
Not all women in Frankenstein
had a passive role, but also some woman had active role as men. Feminists
criticize Frankenstein because it
consist passive role of some woman. However, I am disagreeing with feminist
critics. According to Mellor, inside the home, women are either kept as a kind
of pet. “They work as house wives, childcare providers, and nurses (Caroline
Beauford Frankenstein, Elizabeth Larenza, Margaret Savile) or as servants
(Justine Moritz) (275)”. Mellor criticize male in the novel who does not take
responsibility for house works not paying attention to Felix. In the novel De
lacey family shows a good model of family that lives in harmony and equality in
the sharing of family responsibilities. De lacey family always divides
responsibility in house work equally. Felix and his sister had equal
responsibility for providing house with all necessities. Same with woman at
that time, Felix do house work even most men rejected to do piling everything
on woman. Sophie daughter of Turkish man also proved that woman had a choice whether
she would live not pay attention to father’s decision not to go to Felix. There
Sophie shows that female are independent from male. She could decide own
destiny without father’s denial. Even her religion prohibited to live with
people of other religion, Sophie showed that she does not care about woman and
religion stereotypes. This situations shows that woman also had some choice being
independent from a male at that time. Therefore, in the Victor’s family perhaps
women like to live in such condition of life where they have responsibility to
keep family and nurse the children. In William’s situation, Justine loved
William as own son and was ready to spend the night outside in order to find
William when he was lost. It also shows that Justine love to nurse William. No
one dictate to her to nurse William. Even she was happy when she dies because
she as she said; she will meet William in other world. Therefore, some women
had a choice for own destiny in the novel.
Analyzing all arguments by feminists about passivity of
female in Frankenstein we can
strongly state that some women in Frankenstein
have active role comparing with a male. Some arguments feminists were not objective
for the novel. We have a lot of passive and active role of female and male. That is no reason to say that only
women play a passive role, not men. Actually
Frankenstein was not written
in order to show woman’s passivity in community. There are other circumstances
where women played passive role. There are other circumstances like cloning in
science could make woman passive in biological function of reproduction.
Religion book Bible
showed that man was created firstly, that is why Marry Shelley gets man as
first creator. Frankenstein rejected to create woman in order to save our world
from danger. There all arguments show that there were other circumstances why
female played passive role in the novel comparing with men.
Citations
Anne K. Mellor. “Possessing Nature: The female in Frankenstein”. Frankenstein. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc., 1996. 274-286. Print.
Cynthia Pon. “’Passages’ in Mary Shelley's
‘Frankenstein’: Toward a Feminist Figure of Humanity?” Publications of the Modern Language
Studies (1987). JSTOR.
Web. 16 March 2014. Article DOI:
10.2307/3195378.
