A
very commonly used quote when referring to power comes from a comic book; “with
great power, comes great responsibility.” It is famous for a reason. The quote
embodies an ideal held by most modern societies. In a world of checks,
balances, and laws, power is carefully watched in order for it not to get out
of control. An entire genre of literature even warns of scientific power
ranging from manipulating genetics (Jurassic Park) to controlling robots
(I, Robot) which is called science fiction. Such scientific power gone
wild is seen by the creation of life in the book Frankenstein by Mary
Shelly. Victor Frankenstein creates a monster that causes his endless despair
and tragedy throughout the span of his life, all just to conquer nature. There
seems to be no contemplation of the consequences of his actions while creating
the being, only retrospective hatred for giving life to such a terrible
creature. Frankenstein’s best friend in the book, Henry Clerval, has a
different tendency when it comes to power. Although his ambitions follow those
of an imperialist, Henry learns restraint early on and is able to quell his
ambition. He becomes a happy, poetic character to rival the ambitious but
depressed Frankenstein. The disasters of Frankenstein find their source in his
lack of restraint due to his powerful upper-class distinction while Henry
Clerval learns how to wield power from his lower social status.
Both
Henry Clerval and Frankenstein have ambition to be the best in their field, but
their differences are clearly based on their upbringing. At the beginning of
the novel, the reader is introduced to Henry Clerval as a chivalrous being who
reads and loves stories of knights and grand adventures. In the words of
Frankenstein, Henry, “occupied himself, so to speak, with the moral relations
of things,” and that he had, “made doing good the end and aim of his soaring
ambition.” (pg. 19-20, Shelly 1994). Henry has the dream to, “become one among
those whose names are recorded in story, as the gallant and adventurous
benefactors of our species.” (pg. 19, Shelly 1994) In a way, he does achieve his
dreams becoming chronicled in Frankenstein’s narrative as being a perfect
individual. One could see these lofty ambitions of someone who hasn’t ever had
too much. Clerval is born to a “merchant of Geneva,” which is not necessarily a
poor occupation, but certainly bellow the class of Frankenstein. In fact,
another merchant of Geneva is seen falling, “through numerous mischances, into
poverty” right at the beginning of the novel, showing how quickly a merchant
can descend into poverty if they are not careful (pg. 14, Shelly 1994). Clerval is described to be cultured by being,
“deeply read in books” as well as plays of chivalry (pg. 19, Shelly 1994). This
indicates that he attempted to culture himself rather than take up his father’s
trade and become his apprentice. Clerval has learned to balance his
relationship to his father as well as these higher cultured practices and truly
appreciates whatever he has.
Being raised as a
wealthy child is not all about laziness and happiness. Frankenstein’s parents
were wealthy and kind people, attempting to raise their children to be so. The Frankenstein’s
acquire their fortune through an ancestry of counselors and magistrates showing
that inherited power is common in the Frankenstein lineage (pg. 14, Shelly
1994). Victor Frankenstein develops a feeling of ownership over everything, and
air of arrogance and egocentric thinking, as well as a need to break the limits
of his world. The paper “Acquirers’ and Inheritors’ Dilemma” by Dennis T. Jaffe
and James A. Grubman offers insight to the innate difference between these two
characters. It examines “growth and development in relating to…wealth and its
role in [wealthy family members’] lives” (pg. 1, Jaffe and Grubman 2007). In
the context of this essay, Frankenstein falls into the role of the “Inheritor”
while Clerval embodies the “Acquirer”.
Frankenstein gets his power and wealth from his parents while Clerval
“acquire[s] it during [his] lifetime through effort or chance” (pg. 2, Jaffe
and Grubman 2007). In this case, Clerval puts in effort to escape the middle
class life to join Frankenstein in college as well as travel to London. He has
“already developed much of [his] personal identity in the economic culture of
[his] birth,” learning the forethought and restraint of his middle class father
(pg. 2, Jaffe and Grubman 2007). Frankenstein on the other hand, is a “[native]
of the land of wealth” and feels that he is “automatically…special without
their ever having done anything to earn it” (pg. 2, 10, Jaffe and Grubman
2007). Some of the issues in the paper with wealthy children stem from poor
parental interaction, but this is not the case for young Frankenstein.
Frankenstein
comments that “[his] parents were possessed by the spirit of kindness…. [and]
not the tyrants to rule our lot” (pg. 19, Shelly 1994). His parents are kind
and supportive, yet there are still many problems that can and do develop. Victor’s
parents have enough money to travel Europe when Frankenstein is only a child,
and even buy two houses at a time when most could barely afford one (pg. 18,
Shelly 1994). His parents can afford a house in “considerable seclusion,” which
made Frankenstein generally secluded as well until he meets Clerval (pg. 19,
Shelly, 1994). Research shows that wealthy children “distrust others whom they
fear will take advantage of them” (pg. 13, Jaffee and Grubman 2007). This might
assume that Victor was raised by servants or that his parents, since they could
afford anything, never really had to reprimand Frankenstein. Victor didn’t have
to face overbearing control by his parents like Clerval. Having everything he
wants in childhood gives Frankenstein an air of possession that carries
throughout the rest of the novel. He is seen “expressing arrogance,
entitlement, and insensitivity to others” as the novel continues (pg. 12, Jaffe
and Grubman 2007). After his mother connects the two on her death bed,
Frankenstein says that he, “looked upon Elizabeth as [his]” and that she was a
“promised gift” for him (pg. 18, Shelly 1994). While creating a creature,
Victor Frankenstein also comments that, “a new species would bless me as its
creator and source” (pg. 32, Shelly 1994). This possessive nature is caused by
Victor’s upbringing in a high social class. He feels he is entitled to
everything since he could have anything anyway as a child. Such arrogance is
seen when Henry and Elizabeth die by the monsters hand. The monster directs
threats to Frankenstein, but he only perceives, “menace to himself” (pg. 598,
Brooks 1978). If Frankenstein did not just believe that all danger was his due
to his upper-class arrogance, he might have been able to protect his friends
from death by his creature’s hands.
The one time Victor
is refused and scorned by his parents leads to his downfall. As Frankenstein grows up, he becomes interested
in natural philosophy. Victor states that it is his father’s disgust at a book by
the natural philosopher Agrippa that prompts him to take up the subject. Since
Victor is in a high class, he is not used to being said “No” to. This scoffing
by his father rather than pointing out the problems with natural philosophy
leads Frankenstein down the path to creating the monster that plagues him. Even
Frankenstein reflects that if “instead of this remark”, an explanation by his
father might have turned him away from natural philosophy. Instead, he develops
this need to break even the barrier of the natural laws to prove he is
limitless. The mad scientist has many, “enquiries (that) were directed to the
metaphysical, or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world.” (pg.
19, Shelly 1994) Professor Peter Brooks of Harvard notes that we see this need
for recognition from his father once the monster requests a bride. Just as Frankenstein
wants to act beneficial as a creator to his creation, Victor wishes that he
could receive acceptance from his “creator” (his father) as well (pg. 597,
Brooks 1978). He initially attempts to create the bride just in order to escape
“the monstrous element in his own nature which led him to create a monstrous
being” (pg. 597, Brooks 1978). Rather than being instilled with the idea of
what is feasible or not through work, he is urged by his upbringings of luxury
to break the one natural boundary he couldn’t buy his way out of; life and
death.
Along with this
difference in ambitions, the reader sees Clerval rewarded for his restraint
while horror continues to surround Frankenstein based on his impatience.
Frankenstein does not have respect for nature and attempts to defy it as
quickly as he attains the knowledge. Frankenstein moves along in his work so
quickly that there is not enough time to think about the moral consequences of
his actions. Frankenstein directly says, “Idleness had ever been irksome to
me,” right after he creates the monster that plagues him for the rest of his
life (pg. 44, Shelly 1994). His so called rebellion of the limits of his existence
ends in the creation of the monster. As is seen in other heirs to wealth,
Frankenstein “never recover[s] from rebellion and fall[s] into
self-destructiveness” (pg. 16, Jaffee and Grubman 2007). Henry, on the other
hand, pursues his ambition in a more controlled way. He is held back from going
to college by his father who, “was a narrow-minded trader, and saw idleness and
ruin in the aspirations and ambition of his son.” (pg. 24, Shelly 1994). The
fear of Clerval’s middle class father is exactly what happens to Frankenstein
as he finds ruin while pursuing his aspirations in science. Holding back
Clerval from such education teaches him not to refute a similar kind of ruin by
relentlessly going after his passion. He leads up to his goals rather than
jumping straight to the end. Instead of learning a language and running off to
India in search of adventure, he learns the trades of his father and then goes
to, “the university with the design of making himself a complete master of the
Oriental languages,” before, “[pursuing] no inglorious career.” (pg. 44, Shelly
1994) Such is seen in self-made people. They tend to have, “higher levels of
self-control, achievement, and motivation” (pg. 16, Jaffee and Grubman 2007). Clerval limits his ambitions and works up to
his goals rather than demanding immediate satisfaction and travelling to the
Far East.
Both
Clerval and Frankenstein keep their inherited traits from childhood all the way
until their respective deaths. Clerval ends up being destroyed by
Frankenstein’s monster after Frankenstein refuses to build the monster a bride.
Clerval remains blissful and happy until the misery of Frankenstein leads to
his downfall. When journeying from Frankenstein’s home to London and then to
Scotland, Clerval is described in being completely delighted with the journey
and nature on the trip. He, “desired the intercourse with men of genius and
talent” in London and admired the “beauty and regularity of the new town of
Edinburgh” (pg. 114,118, Shelly 1994). Frankenstein even uses a Wordsworth poem
to describe the wonder with which Clerval saw the world of nature (pg. 113,
Shelly 1994).The reader sees that “Clerval cleaves to nature in such a
childlike love and trust.”(pg. 601, Brooks 1978). Clerval’s social status meant
that he was able to appreciate the sights and sounds of the world all the more.
After being stuck in Geneva forcibly by his father who would not allow him to
go to college, this freedom is all the sweeter to Clerval. Frankenstein, on
this journey with Clerval, “follows [Clerval] as his shadow,” literally
embodying the darker side of the two (pg. 118, Shelly 1994). He constantly
praises Clerval, yet continues to promote woe and sympathy for only him. He
makes the trouble of the monster his sole problem and suggests that the misery
he feels is above the lofty ideals of Clerval. This relates back to the
egocentric behavior prompted by his upbringing which caused him to claim
Elizabeth as his own and pursue natural philosophy since it was the one thing
his father denied him in his life of abundance and wealth.
Clerval
dies shortly after this, leaving the reader with these respected images of the
journey in their minds. Till death, Clerval is left to enjoy the world until
Frankenstein’s terror ends an individual who had only begun a rise to
prominence. Frankenstein dies on a different note. We see Frankenstein, alone
and lost in the Arctic with his fortune, family, and friends gone at the hands
of his monstrosity. It deeply contradicts the origins of Victor in his life of
luxury and wealth. Frankenstein even says that only the memories of childhood
bring back good memories, while the conditions at the end of the book are quite
the opposite. All these losses are on account of Victor’s creation which was
spurred on by the childhood he idealizes. Yet, even at the end, the beliefs
instilled by Frankenstein’s upper class life pervade his mind. When the crew of
Robert Walton’s ship wants to turn back from their dangerous Arctic voyage,
Frankenstein comes to the captain’s rescue with a speech. In it, he states
that, “You were hereafter to be hailed as the benefactors of your species,” yet
only focuses on the captains successes that they are giving their lives for
(pg. 159-160, Shelly 1994). He not only urges the crew to brave the danger they
know is deadly, but insists that the power and fame are entirely the captain’s
rather than the crews’. Just like he ignores the dangers of creating a human
abomination and seeks to be praised by his creation, Frankenstein is repeating
his mistakes caused by his upbringing. The last we see of Frankenstein, he
withers away still corrupt by the ease of his upper class life.
Frankenstein’s negative characteristics
leading to his downfall spawn from his upper class upbringing as seen in the
novel Frankenstein. Victor’s arrogance and immense ego come from his
wealth creating a feeling that he owns everything. In a world where he can have
whatever he wants, Victor pursues to break the only barrier that’s existed to
him, that of the natural world. He has no restraint or concern of the future
from these traits, leading to the creation of the monster and Frankenstein’s
continuous self-destruction in the form of long bouts of madness. To counter
this type of development, the character of Henry Clerval shows the benefits of
a middle class upbringing. His success requires effort and he learns restraint from
his father and generally being limited by his lesser wealth. Having greater
wealth as a child leads Frankenstein to go crazy with power, becoming a
reclusive scientist who creates life without thinking of the consequences.
Henry is held back from knowledge and power in order to learn restraint due to
his social class. Seeing this comparison between power crazy and restrained
ambitions is relevant to the problems of today. We today see many irresponsible
inheritors of power and idolize them like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. They
only have wealth to throw away, but inheritors such as Kim Jong Un who now
rules North Korea and Bashar al-Assad, who struggles to hold on to his rule
violently as Syria is consumed in civil war, have more power to go crazy with.
Careful consideration of these children of wealth and power could stop terrors
much like the monster that Frankenstein unleashes upon the world just due to
his upper class upbringing.
Works
Cited
Brooks, Peter. “Godlike
Science/Unhallowed Arts: Language and Monstrosity in Frankenstein.” New
Literary History , Vol. 9,
No. 3, Rhetoric I: Rhetorical Analyses (Spring, 1978), pp. 591-605
Jaffe, Dennis T., and James A. Grubman. "Acquirers' and
Inheritors' Dilemma: Discovering Life Purpose
and
Building Personal Identity in the Presence of Wealth." Journal of Wealth Management 10.2
(2007):
20-44. Official Site of James
Grubman. Web. 8 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.jamesgrubman.com/Uploads/Acquirers_and_Inheritors___Jaffe_Grubman_JWM_
Fall_07.pdf>.
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft.
Frankenstein. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.
1 comment:
The intro is a little long, but I certainly like the idea about Clerval. Good.
In the second paragraph you cover lots of good material, but your argument about the relationship between their social classes and their respective approaches to power could be clarified. My understand is that it's something like this: Clerval's basically middle-class upbringinging teaches him to restrain his ambitions; Frankenstein's aristocratic upbringing teaches him to melodramatically expand them. I think I'm pretty close, but in any case I'd like to see a clearer statement of your argument *from you*.
Inheritor vs. Acquirer. Good use of research. I'm not sure if it really supports your argument - I'm interested to see how this develops.
Your introduction of the idea of fatherly acceptance is fine, but it's a topic worth pursuing (or perhaps not bringing up in the first place). I'd like to see their interaction in Ireland, for instance, and on the journey back, along with the fuller discussion of Victor's bethrothal to Elizabeth. It's too big of a topic to do briefly, I think.
Let me play Devil's advocate re: Clerval. Isn't the flip side of his greater self-control that he achieves far less? That is, Victor achieves things nobody has accomplished before, whereas Clerval is simply gradually preparing to be an imperial functionary. Is this an argument for bureacratic, middle-class normalcy? Very likely it is - I actually think the argument is quite interesting - but I'd like to see some acknowledgement for the Romantic, charismatic force of Victor's goals and achievements.
The turn to real-world children of power at the end works (well, the celebrity examples are pretty trivial - you're getting into Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends territory - but the later ones work).
Your discussion of Clerval's good death vs. Victor's bad one is good; your later discussion of Victor's persistent egocentricity is perhaps better. "In a world where he can have whatever he wants, Victor pursues to break the only barrier that’s existed to him, that of the natural world." I liked that a lot. One thing bugged me at the end, perhaps too much. It seemed that evaluating and discussing Clerval's role as Victor's nurse here should have been tremendously important - not doing more with it seems like a huge omission, especially because it would help turn your argument for Clerval away from being a defense of mediocrity (which might itself ben an ok approach) toward being a defence of decency. In other words, I think your argument is basically well made, but that this could have greatly strengthened it.
Other than that, my main desire here would be for somewhat more compressed prose: it wouldn't be hard to make this just as effective with, say, 20% less words. Good work. Note that throughout my comments I'm mostly pushing back a little against your argument. That's because you have a sufficiently interesting and nuanced approach to be worth arguing *with*.
Post a Comment