Shelley's Frankenstein And Charles Dickens Hard Times example essay topic

KB 724: 19th CENTURY LITERATURE MAJOR ESSAY SCIENCE AND PROGRESS IN FRANKENSTEIN AND HARD TIMES The 19th century was a time of massive change socially, politically and scientifically. This time saw the rise of Imperialism and of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, seeing massive changes in the way industry was run. Also during this time the literary movements of Romanticism and Victorianism emerged. Romanticism dealt with the issues of reality versus illusion, childhood and man versus nature. The first book I will examine in this essay, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, comes from this literary period and focuses on the man versus nature theme, namely the theme of scientific development and it's contrast to nature. The second book I will look at in this essay comes from the Victorian period of the 19th century.

This period saw the rise of the Industrial Revolution and of huge social and political change. Hard Times by Charles Dickens deals with these issues very closely, focussing mainly on the rise of industry in Britain and its effects on the people of Britain. Both of these novels challenge the social, political and scientific developments of the 19th century, namely the advent of science and technology. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has become almost a myth in our culture; it so deeply probes the collective cultural psyche and our fear of science and progress. "Frankenstein is our culture's most penetrating literary analysis of the psychology of modern 'scientific' man, of the dangers inherent in scientific research, and the exploitation of nature and of the female implicit in a technological society" (Mellor, 1988: 38). The interesting thing about Frankenstein is that there can be multiple readings of the text.

It can be seen as a conservative criticism of science, a Promethean belief of the unlimited progress of science, the feminist anti-female principle angle to the story, even a religion versus science story. What I will explore through this essay is each of these readings and shed some light on this wonderful novel. "The value of Mary Shelley's novel lies not in presenting a clear morale but encouraging the readers to make up their own" (members. a on. at. htm). The most obvious and well-known theory of the story of Frankenstein is that of a warning to the dangers of science: " Mary Shelley's implicit warning against possible dangers inherent in the technological developments of modern science" (Mellor, 1988: 114). Shelley was very interested in science and she researched it before writing the novel, using this knowledge to create her story. The creation of the monster was based largely on the scientific research being undertaken in the 19th century; the use of electricity and chemistry in the reanimation of dead tissue and animals.

The power and danger of electricity is described early in the novel when Victor recalls his first encounter with electricity:" When I was fifteen years old... we witnessed a most violent and terrible thunderstorm... and the thunder burst at once with frightful loudness... as I stood at the door, on a sudden I beheld a stream of fire issue from an old and beautiful oak... and so soon as a dazzling light vanished, the oak had disappeared, and nothing remained but a blasted stump" (Shelley, 1996: 23). This passage shows Shelley's continuing comparison between nature and science; how electricity can destroy something beautiful. "She used this knowledge both to analyse and to criticise the more dangerous implications of the scientific method and its practical results" (Mellor, 1988: 89). Although Shelley studied the sciences in which she has written, she remains very distant from it refusing to totally involve the reader in the creation process. "Her vision of the isolated scientist discovering the secret of life is no mere fantasy but a plausible prediction of what science might accomplish" (Mellor, 1988: 107). What Anne Mellor suggests here is quite interesting; the "isolated scientist" is what Victor becomes.

Shelley portrays the scientist as someone who displaces normal emotions and healthy human relationships, totally oblivious to the outside world. This can be seen in volume one chapter five of the novel: The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul in one pursuit. It was a most beautiful season... but my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature. And the same feelings which made me neglect the scenes around me caused me also to forget those friends who were so many miles absent, and with whom I had not seen for so long a time" (Shelley, 1996: 33). It seems Shelley through this passage is trying to contrast the "good" science -the detailed and reverent descriptions of the workings of nature with "bad" science-the hubristic manipulation of the elemental forces of nature to serve man's private ends. Victor takes this force of nature (electricity) and uses it for his own ends to reanimate his monster.

It becomes increasingly clear that Shelley had a good understanding of the science, which she describes, but she didn't like what she saw and to communicate this she makes Frankenstein's creation uncontrollable. The role of myth, in this case Greek myth, is also a reading available for Frankenstein. The title itself offers the beginnings to this type of reading; Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. The myth of Prometheus is that he created humankind out of mud and water, and then stole fire from the gods to give to his creation. There are obvious parallels between the two stories; Frankenstein also created a human but instead of fire there was electricity involved, a natural but deadly force just like fire.

In chapter four Victor becomes the modern Prometheus by stealing his fire from the gods to create his own human:" With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing That lay at my feet" (Shelley, 1996: 34). Mellor argues about this passage and its connection to the modern Prometheus theory; "At that moment Victor Frankenstein became the modern Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods to give to mankind and that moment he transgressed against nature" (Mellor, 1988: 102). This is an interesting point made by Mellor, that Frankenstein and transgressed nature. This point leads to my next argument within this essay, to examine the feminist reading of Frankenstein, the unnatural versus the natural production of life.

Shelley can again be read as anti-science in this reading. Frankenstein can be seen as a story telling what could happen when a man tries to have a baby without a woman; all hell breaks loose. A prime example of this view can be seen with Victor's dream described in volume one, chapter four, just after Victor has created his monster:" I thought I saw Elizabeth, in the bloom of health, walking in the streets of Ingolstadt. Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; But as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel" (Shelley, 1996: 34). This is a clear indication of Shelley's view on Victor's creation, that he is killing the role of the woman in the creation process, that Frankenstein is going against the female principle of creation. This is a very religious viewpoint taken by Shelley and this novel can be read as a very religious text, showing that Victor's creation is an act against God.

This reading first becomes evident when reading the preface to the 1831 edition of the novel, when Shelley herself describes the story; "Human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the creator of the world" (Butler, 1993: 2). Frankenstein becomes a science versus God / nature story in this reading, which seems to have the strongest case as the clearest reading of the text. Throughout the novel there are examples of nature fighting back against Victor, it seems that whenever nature is mentioned as a moral presence over human life, it appears to produce only the monstrous. An example of this is seen in volume one, chapter six:" The sky was serene, and I was unable to rest, I resolved to visit the spot where my poor William had been murdered... during the short voyage I saw the lightings playing on the summit of Mont Blanc in the most beautiful figures...

A flash of lightening illuminated the object... it was the wretch, the filthy daemon to whom I had given life" (Shelley, 1996: 47-48)". When the monster invokes the analogy between himself and Adam or Satan, we are obviously invited to think of Frankenstein as God" (Levine and Knoepel, 1979: 7). This is an interesting point, Shelley makes a connection between Victor and God, that the monster describes himself as Adam but in the end Adam (the monster) destroys God (Frankenstein). This seems to show that Shelley is saying that nobody can play God successfully".

The duality of our relationship to creator and creature is an echo of our relationship to the technology that we worship even as we recognise that it is close to destroying us" (Levine and Knoepel, 1979: 17). This point sums up the novel rather well; Shelley seems to present the two sides of the story to give the reader a glimpse at our own lives and our relationship with technology. Although the novel was written over one hundred and fifty years ago the message is still relevant, science and technology is a danger to life, love and religion. When thinking of Charles Dickens' work his novel Hard Times is mostly forgotten, but this novel remains one of his most political and ambitious works. The readings of this novel are quite varied; some see this text as an attack on the industrial revolution and its treatment of the factory workers. To others it is an attack on the utilitarian system of English towns, even the destruction of nature through the industrialization of English towns.

Hard Times has also been identified as a parody of England and its society in the nineteenth century. However when you look at this novel it portrays a message of distrust and hatred toward the England of the day. I will examine each of these readings and explore what Dickens was trying to communicate through this lesser known novel. The first and most apparent reading of Hard Times I will examine is that of an attack on the industrial revolution and its treatment of factory workers.

Throughout the novel Dickens describes the industrial environment of Coketown. A prime example of this is found at the beginning of book one, chapter five:" It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever... it had black canal in it, and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye" (Dickens, 1995: 27). Dickens is portraying Coketown as a town of industry, the factories have consumed everything: the air, the water, everything. "Charles Dickens uses his fictions town in Hard Times to represent the industrialization of England at that time or close to it" (web). This statement rings true; Dickens' description of Coketown could be a description of numerous towns in England at that time, overrun with industry.

Another interesting comment made by Dickens of English industrialization is his reference to the factories as "fairy palaces". It is first used in book one, chapter ten of the novel:" The lights in the great factories, which looked, when they were illuminated, like fairy palaces-or the travellers by expression said so" (Dickens, 1995: 66). I believe that Dickens is commenting on how many people were ignorant of what was really happening in those factories, all they saw were the beautiful lights at night, not the days of back-breaking work and deaths that occurred within those walls everyday. "It could be argued that Hard Times is... impressionistic-this time about the state of England" (Butterworth, 2001: 316). Butterworth makes an interesting point. The description of Coketown and its "fairy palaces" is in a way describing England as a whole; a place of decaying, polluted cities populated by workers, with factories seen as "fairy palaces" by the rest of society, really it's a comment on the class struggle and structure of England in the nineteenth century.

This leads to the next section of this reading of Hard Times, how Dickens is commenting on the treatment and lives of factory workers. "Dickens described the appalling conditions of life in factory towns; preached that the poor were entitled to the same... as the rich" (web). We are first introduced to the workers of "The Hands" in book one, chapter ten of the novel:" In the hardest working part of Coketown; in the innermost fortifications of that ugly citadel... in the last close nook of this great exhausted receiver, where the chimneys, for want of air to make a draught, were built in an immense variety of stunted and crooked shapes as though every house put out sign of the kind of people who might be expected to be born in it; among the multitude of Coketown; generically called 'The Hands' " (Dickens, 1995: 65-66). This passage shows exactly what Dickens was trying to communicate about the workers of these towns, that they lived amongst the factories, almost a product of industry.

You get a vision of broken people living in squalor for the profit of others. "Coketown is the product of Thomas Gradgrind's system of facts... its only purpose is to enrich the factory owners" (web). Our main access to the lives of "The Hands" is through Stephen Blackpool, a hard working, seemingly simple man. Although Stephen is seen and treated like a simpleton who knows nothing of society, his insights contradict this view. Two examples of this is firstly his dream described in book one, chapter thirteen: He stood on a raised stage, under his own loom, and looking up at the shape the loom took, and hearing the burial service distinctly read, he knew that he was there to suffer death. In an instant what he stood on fell below him, and he was gone" (Dickens, 1995: 86).

This is a very powerful passage with a very powerful message. Blackpool sees his own death and that it was a result of his work at the factory. This passage is telling the reader that these "Hands" work will kill them. Blackpool delivers a wonderful monologue later in the novel that sums up the plight of the factory worker:" Look round town-so rich as 'tis-and see the numbers o' people as has been brought en ' her, for to weave, an to card, an to piece out a liv in', an the same one way, somehow's, twixt their cradles and their graves. Look how we live, an where we live, an in what numbers, an by what chances, an wi' what sameness; and look how the mills is awl us a go in, and how they never works us no night er to ony dis " ant object- awl us, death" (Dickens, 1995: 147)". Dickens is conveying his vision of a society in the very throes of being riven into fragments, Dickens looks not to the short term but argues rather for the fundamental reform of society" (Butterworth, 2001: 324).

I believe, as Butterworth does, that Dickens was commenting on how the industrialisation of Britain was destroying society and that he attempts to portray this message through Hard Times. The above passage from the novel sums up the message quite well; industry has taken over society and taken over the lives of many. It was a time when profit was more important than human life. "Hard Times is examining the notion of freedom within a capitalist, industrial economy" (Peck, 1995: 20). The nineteenth century saw the rise of industry but along with this came the rise of the utilitarian ideals within society, ideals of fact over fancy. Hard Times is an obvious attack on these ideals: "It... more single-mindedly argues a case than his other novels, targeting for attack the ideas of the utilitarians" (Peck, 1995: 17).

The way Dickens attacks this value system is through his representation of Jonah Bounderby. Bounderby is the model utilitarian, supposedly living a life based on fact, single-mindedly working towards his goal. All this of course comes apart in the end when Bounderby is found to be living a lie. "Dickens characterizes Bounderby as a powerful individual, driven by greed and guided by a distorted view of human nature" (web).

Bounderby is made the villain of the story and is contrasted with the circus folk who live in a world of fantasy, caring little for the material side of life. "The utilitarians are cold, unfeeling and unforgiving, whereas the circus folk are tolerant, generous and loving" (Peck, 1995: 18). Some critics see this attack on the utilitarianism as an unjust argument, that Dickens; portrayal is flawed. "Hard Times, rather than presenting a historically accurate picture of the extraordinary changes brought about by the industrial revolution, is a one-sided attack on the utilitarian value system of the middle nineteenth century" (web). This argument is rather interesting in that we are talking about a novel, a piece of fiction, not a historical text. The views expressed by Dickens are his opinion and should be seen as such, to look at the text as an accurate document of history is a total misreading of the text.

The connection between industry and nature is also quite a large element of Hard Times. Although it is closely connected to the anti-industry argument within the novel, Dickens creates some beautiful imagery through his words. One obvious connection that Dickens makes is the continual reference to animals in his descriptions of the factories. "Coketown is... a devouring monster with 'smoky jaws' and a strangely monotonous jungle in which only two kinds of strange animals perform endlessly repetitive movements: the smoky snakes and the metallic elephants constantly coil and bob" (Gallagher, 1995: 189)". The measured motion of their shadows on the walls, was the substitute Coketown had to show for the shadows of rustling woods; while, for the summer hum of insects, it could offer, all year round, from the dawn of Monday to the night of Saturday, the whirr of shafts and wheels" (Dickens, 1995: 112). This passage shows Dickens' wonderful use of words to describe the environment of the factories, that all the natural wonder that there is in Coketown is seen in the machinery of the factories, none of the workers ever see the natural world.

Towards the end of the novel Dickens takes an interesting angle when describing the countryside during the search for Stephen Blackpool:" They walked on across the fields and down the shady lanes, sometimes getting a fragment of a fence so rotten that it dropped at a touch of the foot, sometimes passing near a wreck of bricks and beams overgrown with grass, marking the site of a deserted works" (Dickens, 1995: 256). Dickens seems to be telling of the revenge of nature; that nature is fighting back against industry, that nature is forever, industry comes and goes. Dickens shows an obvious dislike of the industrial side of Britain, that the beautiful and wondrous Britain is in the countryside not on the factory floor. When looking at these two novels, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Charles Dickens' Hard Times, an obvious anti-progress angle is clear.

The nineteenth century saw huge advances and changes in the fields of science and industry, advances not agreed on by Shelley and Dickens. "Mary Shelley grounded her fiction of the scientist who creates a monster he cannot control upon an extensive understanding of the most recent scientific developments of her day" (Mellor, 1988: 89). Although Frankenstein is considered fiction much of its contents are based on fact, Victor being unable or unwilling to control his creation is an obvious critique on the scientific developments of the day. Through his fictions town of Coketown Dickens attacks the very heart of the new age of industry; the utilitarian system and the factory owners.

"Dickens points out the flaws and limitations of this new society in his eloquent and passionate plea on the behalf of the picture" (web). As pointed out in this statement Dickens offers a biased view, but as with all arguments he is just offering his view. As I stated before, this text is a novel based on Dickens' opinions not a historical textbook. The nineteenth century was a time of great change and also a time of great displeasure, when the developments within science and industry saw great advances but also saw great drawbacks.

There are many readings of each of these novels, as I have shown, but there is no denying the definite anti-progress attitude presented in both Frankenstein and Hard Times.

Bibliography

1. Dickens, C. (1995) Hard Times, London: Penguin Classics.
2. Kaplan, F & Mood, S. (eds.) Hard Times: A Norton Critical Edition, New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 3. Levine, G & Knoepel, M. (eds.) The Endurance of Frankenstein, Los Angeles: University of California. 4. Mellor, A. (1988) Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters, New York: Routledge.
5. Peck, J. (ed.) New Casebooks: David Copperfield and Hard Times, New York: Macmillan Press. 6. Small, C. (1972) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein-Tracing the Myth, Pittsburgh: University Of Pittsburgh Press.
7. Shelley, M. (1996) Frankenstein: A Norton Critical Edition, New York: W.
W. Norton & Company. 8. Taming, J. (1995) Dickens, Violence and The Modern State, London: Macmillan Press.
9. Ashbury, M (2001) Representation of Industrialization in Dickens' Hard Times [Online].
Available: web [Accessed 25th April 2005].
10. All ingham, P. (2000) Charles Dickens' Hard Times for These Times as an Industrial Novel [Online].
11. Rohr moser, A. (2004) The Origin of a Myth: Mary Shelley's Novel Frankenstein [Online].
12. Oldham, R. (2000) Charles Dickens' Hard Times: Romantic Tragedy of Proletariat Propaganda [Online].
13. Frankenstein: a science-fiction novel or a scientific fiction? [Online], (2001).