“A female, equal companion”: Frankenstein and Shelley’s Feminist Advocacy

It’s been about two years since I studied Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein at school, for my English Literature A Level. Since today is Halloween, I decided to revisit it and share my ideas about it with you in my first blog post. Now, if you’ve read the title of this essay (which you probably did) you might be wondering: what on earth does a story about a horrifying monster and a mad scientist – with barely any female characters in it – have to do with feminism? Some of my schoolteachers would have probably been wondering the same thing, if I had mentioned this to them back then. No offence towards my teachers; they were nice. But I do find it surprising that we were never – not even once – told in our A Level years about the feminist aspect of this book, which I believe is the main subject of the novel.  So, how did I find out about this aspect? Well, at A Level I was quite the nerdy girl, studying from day until night, always devouring books and critical articles beyond the syllabus. Naturally, thus, I stumbled upon critics supporting this feminist reading of the novel and I suddenly found myself siding with them (I have listed some of these critics in my bibliography). Coming back to the question of the relationship between this ghost story and feminism, in this essay I aim to argue that though Frankenstein– inspired by Galvani’s bioelectrical experiments – is often regarded as science fiction, Shelley is actually using the scientific background as a medium to examine and criticise the society she lives in.

The Romantic period was an era of great reform, with rapid scientific advancements, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of radicalism. While women were still under the authority of men, a new movement, known as proto-feminism, emerged with Mary Wollstonecraft’s publication of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman^[1]– one of the earliest books about feminist philosophy. Indeed, both Wollstonecraft and her husband, William Godwin, were regarded as political radicals, influencing their daughter, Mary, who was familiar with their works. As Fred Botting notes, “Frankenstein is a product of criticism, not a work of literature”^[2]. Although I would not go as far as denying the literary aspects of this novel – let us remember that the book started as a ghost story – I would certainly agree on its critical dimensions. Through Frankenstein, Shelley advocates feminism, making use of thought-provoking criticism of patriarchal societies. Despite the fact that the creature’s desire for “a female”, equal companion (p.118) has often been interpreted as his biological need to reproduce^[3], on a deeper level, his request for a “female” reflects Shelley’s feminist echoes throughout the novel.

Though I would agree with critics, like David S. Hogsette, that Frankensteinis a tale of caution regarding scientific materialism^[4], I would add that, this scientific avariciousness, which is present in the novel, often overlaps with the text’s feminist warning regarding motherhood. As Victor asserts, “in a solitary chamber, […] I kept my workshop of filthy creation” (p.36). Here, on a surface level, it appears that Shelley is commenting on Victor’s scientific immorality, through the adjective “filthy”. But, on a deeper level, this filthiness of Victor’s actions also has feminist connotations, as this is a further reference to his Promethean hubris of creating life without procreating. It is, thus, a criticism of removing the female – as is observed in the adjective “solitary” – from an act that essentially involves both genders. Moers’ belief is that Frankenstein expresses “the revulsion against newborn life, and the drama of guilt, dread and fright surrounding birth and its consequences”^[5]. The critic is, indeed, correct to comment on “the drama of guilt, dread and fright”, however, it is important to understand that all these negative consequences are not, as Moers quotes, aftermaths of any type of “birth”, but rather of the unnatural birth that removes the mother. As the motherless creature laments “no mother had blessed me with smiles and caresses” (p. 97), and he is thus left to search for a replacement female: the companion. When Victor destroys the companion, in an image suggesting the elimination of women – once more – the consequences of this female removal become clear and detrimental, with the creature’s foreboding “if I have no ties and no affections, hatred and vice must be my portion”. Here, the “affections” that the creature seeks to find specifically through a female, mother-figure come into stark antithesis with the “hatred and vice”, suggesting that these violent lexes are, by contrast, associated with the male gender. Hence, Shelley’s feminist warning is explicit; it is the absence and removal of female “affections” in a male-dominated world that turns the creature violent.

It is – in fact – the case, that, not just the creature, but all male protagonists of the novel are portrayed as destructive. Immorality and overarching ambition are shown to be male qualities, as observed in the characters of Victor and Walton. Further, both the creature and Victor are blinded by emotions of hatred. As the creature exclaims, “you can blast my other passions, but revenge remains” (p.140). This idea of “revenge” indicates that Victor’s own threatening actions backfire at him, through yet another male’s – that is the creature’s – violent actions of killing Victor’s loved ones.  Undoubtedly, thus, it is the male – and not the female characters – who lead the play to its tragic conclusion, and who are, in turn, led to their own fall. Indeed, one such fall of the aforementioned males may be compared to Satan’s fall in Paradise Lost; one of Shelley’s references, which would further condemn masculine immorality. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that after Justine’s unfair condemnation – once again, by male judges – the female Elizabeth exclaims, “men appear to me as monsters” (p.71). This would also link back to the idea of the creature literally turning into a “monster”, due to the absence of gentle females in his life. Moreover, the fact that the aforementioned male characters are all connected to each other through Shelley’s frame narrative also reflects their connection in terms of masculine fallibility. Yet, they dominate the novel, mirroring the way in which men dominate patriarchal societies. In this way, Shelley, provides an implicit criticism, suggesting that societal problems are caused by the masculine ego. 

It is, hence, clear that the novel, Frankenstein, advocates that a gentler, female-run society would be a better solution to societal violence, as shown in the creature’s plea for “a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being” (p.118). Thus, Poovey’s view, that through silencing women in her novels, Shelley supresses her “unladylike self-assertiveness” ^[6]has its limitations. I would, on the contrary, propose that Shelley’s silencing of her female characters has the opposite effect, as it reflects the issue of problematic societies from which women are absent. This is further illustrated through the comment of Gilbert and Gubar, who – regarding the character of Walton – assert, “(while) writing his ambitious letters home from St. Petersborough, Archangel, and points north, Walton moves like Satan away from the sanctity and sanity, represented by his sister”^[7]. Here, this marginalisation of the female sister from her male brother can be extended to the subject of her silence within the novel. Indeed, Mrs Saville is only addressed through the letters. Like, the reader, she is able to criticise Walton’s actions, but she never speaks herself. She is, in this way, a figure that comes to represent silent women who could potentially correct men in feminist societies.

Strikingly, though, the creature is yet another marginalised character, in the text, claiming to be “irrevocably excluded” (p. 78). More specifically, according to Gilbert and Gubar, he is a “silent listener to (the) masculine conversations” of the De Laceys. In this sense, it seems that the creature is likened to, or even, manifests the aforementioned female exclusion from society. Though he becomes violent after being exposed to Victor’s masculine brutality, the fact that he is unnamed may suggest his artificiality, mirroring labourers who are often exploited by capitalism^[8]. At the same time, his lack of having a name also suggests that he represents the universality of the masses; like the poor, common people of the French Revolution. Thus, his rebellion has often been interpreted as a symbol of popular uprising against authority. The further reference to the colours of his physical appearance as being “yellow” (p.38) and “dark” (p.39) also allude to oriental, foreign features^[9]. Even if on a surface level, these representations of the creature seem irrelevant to the subject of feminism, on a deeper level they perfectly link with Shelley’s general feminist advocacy. This is because feminism, as a concept, is fundamentally based on equality. Thus, Shelley’s feminist message also radically extends to giving importance and a voice to the socially vulnerable.

Though – on the surface – Frankensteinis a work of fiction, embodying the Gothic conventions of its time, it is more than a stock ghost story. It is evident, that Shelley’s undercurrent feminist advocacies run rampant throughout the text; from the creature’s request for a “female”, to the depiction of problematic patriarchal societies, or even to the smallest of details – like the creature’s representation of the socially vulnerable. Even more interestingly, though, its feminist attributes continue to captivate writers today – with Theodore Rozdak’s adaptation, The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein, directly highlighting the importance of gender equality^[10]. Hence, more effort needs to be made to read Frankenstein not simply as another entertaining science fiction novel, but as a much more complex commentary on society. As someone who values equality of all sorts, this Halloween I invite you all to see Frankenstein in a new light and think about what this masterpiece of a novel might have to teach us about the way we regard gender in modern-day society. 

*As you might have noticed, in this essay I have been calling Victor’s creation ‘creature’. Incidentally, a popular disagreement among readers of Frankenstein is over the way to call this character. Half of the readers call him ‘creature’ while the rest of them call him ‘monster’. But, let us set this straight once and for all. In her novel, Mary Shelley never calls Frankenstein’s creation a ‘monster’ herself; it is only when Victor addresses him that he is referred to as a ‘monster’ – and Shelley is critical of that, of course. He is Victor’s creation and therefore a ‘creature’, who has the potential of being either a kind-hearted individual or a cruel monster. Victor’s masculine ego despises the socially vulnerable, like his physically disformed creature, and he thus calls him a ‘monster’. The creature starts off as being benevolent and gradually turns into the ‘monster’ that Victor calls him, as a result of the masculine cruelty Victor has shown him. To call the creature a ‘monster’, would thus be to assume that his nature overweighs his nurture, which would in turn mean denying Shelley’s feminist message of individuals turning into monsters when exposed to the masculine ego. Thus, for the sake of Mary, I genuinely feel that it is way more appropriate to call this character a ‘creature’.

---

^[1]Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. London: J. Johnson, 1792.

^[2]Botting, Fred. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995.

^[3]Long Hoeveler, Diane. “Frankenstein, Feminism, and literary theory.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, 21. (2003): 45-62.

^[4]Hogsette, David S. “Metaphysical intersections in Frankenstein: Mary Shelley’s theistic investigation of scientific materialism and transgressive autonomy.” Christianity and Literature, 60. Summer (2011): 531.

^[5]Moers, Ellen. Literary Women. New York: Doubleday, 1976.

^[6]Poovey, Mary. The proper lady and the woman writer: ideology as style in the works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. London: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

^[7]Gilbert, Sandra M. and Gubar, Susan. “Horror’s Twin: Mary Shelley’s Monstrous Eve.” Feminist Studies, 4. June (1978): 48-73.

^[8]O’Finn, Paul. “Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein.”Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, (1995): 325-337.

^[9]Lew, Joseph. “The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley’s Critique of Orientalism in ‘Frankenstein’.” Studies in Romanticism, 30. Summer (1991): 255-283.

^[10]Rozdak, Theodore. The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein. New York: Random House, 1995.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994

Secondary Sources:

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. London: J. Johnson, 1792.

Botting, Fred. Frankenstein, Mary Shelley. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995.

Long Hoeveler, Diane. “Frankenstein, Feminism, and literary theory.” The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, 21. (2003): 45-62.

Hogsette, David S. “Metaphysical intersections in Frankenstein: Mary Shelley’s theistic investigation of scientific materialism and transgressive autonomy.” Christianity and Literature, 60. Summer (2011): 531.

Moers, Ellen. Literary Women. New York: Doubleday, 1976.

Poovey, Mary. The proper lady and the woman writer: ideology as style in the works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, and Jane Austen. London: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

Gilbert, Sandra M. and Gubar, Susan. “Horror’s Twin: Mary Shelley’s Monstrous Eve.” Feminist Studies, 4. June (1978): 48-73.

O’Finn, Paul. “Production and Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein.”Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, (1995): 325-337.

Lew, Joseph. “The Deceptive Other: Mary Shelley’s Critique of Orientalism in ‘Frankenstein’.” Studies in Romanticism, 30. Summer (1991): 255-283.

Rozdak, Theodore. The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein. New York: Random House, 1995.