As a senior English major in college, on the precipice of receiving my degree, I contend that I am perhaps more haunted by the novel Frankenstein than Frankenstein is by his monster. My history with the piece of literature and the cultural phenomenon surrounding it originated from watching the 1931 Frankenstein movie with my cult-classic-loving uncle when I was eight. I took the film at face value and I didn’t dive deeper, comparing it to the other monster movies I had seen. It wasn’t until high school that I read the novel by Mary Shelley and since coming to UNE, I have read it three more times.

After reading the Critical History by Smith, I found connection almost immediately. Every discussion I’ve ever participated in involving Frankenstein has focused on morality and ponders who is the true villain: Frankenstein or his monster? I was surprised to read that Percy claimed that there was no physical foe, but rather the enemy is human nature. The mass disagreement felt familiar. The discussion that I’ve participated in have almost always ended with Frankenstein being blamed as the evil one, the creator of a monster by giving him life and then subsequently abandoning him. And I believe that is where I place myself within the critical history, mostly because that is where I have been led. My placement here is supported by the use of Frankenstein in education, where the apparent moral ambiguity has become ground for classroom discussion.

Outside of my classroom, due to my other interests, I have found footing in the idea of Frankenstein being a Romantic tale. Much of my education has involved the study and analysis of the Romantic movement and its pursuit of reason and science, a reaction to the Enlightenment. Shelley provides vivid imagery of nature and the perversion of it, and I found it interesting that this status has been questioned due to Shelley’s unorthodox methods. As a Biology major also, I was intrigued by the analysis of the science within Frankenstein and the questions of what constitutes a human being, the implications of pseudoscience, and the reality and purpose of life.

Upon reflection, I see now why this book was assigned first in this class. The book has been read and critiqued many times and viewed through a multitude of lenses. This text appears to have the ability to used in favor of an argument while at the same time acting as a counterpoint. What that tells me is that throughout this semester, we will be assessing the elasticity of different works. We will establish what they tell us and then argue why they say nothing. I found the Critical History revelatory to something I think I have observed and talked about before, but reading it now prepares me for what is to come.