Miaka 1

Angel Miaka

Composition II

Evaluation Essay, Writing Assignment 4

6th March 2020

The Case of Inconsistencies

The infamous character Frankenstein belongs to the novel written by Mary Shelley. It is a

tale of blind ambition and relentless devotion towards a cause. The lesson of ambition and

devotion is conveyed through the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, who was hell bent on his

pursuit of recreation of human life. The day Victor achieved his goal was also a day he came to

the realization that in thirst of being able to construct the human life as we know it, he ended up

creating something that could only be characterized as a grotesque monster. Not only does it lead

to the creator abandoning his creation but also enacts a revenge plot from the creation towards its

creator. The review of the Literary Panorama satirically establishes the “obvious” inconsistencies

with regards to the creature and its ability to enact on thoughts which do not even exists i.e. the

fundamental behaviour of humans; thought development and corresponding creation of habits.

The details which have been conveyed with regards to the creature’s, Frankenstein, development

by the author, herself, Mary Shelley, coupled with Sherry Ginn’s reviewal, goes out to disagree

with the fundamental outline of the review presented by the Literary Panorama - it tackles with

the arguments regarding the creatures ability to act out basic human tasks i.e walk, judge and

reason and how they are filled with inconsistencies.

The review of Literary Panorama takes it upon itself to describe the literary work of Mary

Shelly as words put together in a haste without a concrete outline, therefore, it is filled with
 Miaka 2

inconsistencies [ CITATION The181 \l 1033 ]. The review recounts the instances of

inconsistencies in depth from the moment his inanimate body was sparked with the essence of

life. The review fundamentally argues with the ease of how the creation felt to act out human

activities which are even hard for humans to be in control of at times as the creature gets up,

walks and disappears for a period of nearly two years. The review argued with how if the

creature had been infused with the vitality of thousand people it still would not have been able to

walk away and form opinions this easily. The reviewer themselves collected and presented these

inconsistencies in a dazed hurry.

The creature’s awakening is presented in the novel. However, what follows after has been

left to imagination. No such detail is provided with regards to how the creation was in his initial

movements. The creature supposedly had great strength and muscle mass which leaves answers

for the readers to question of as to how would it be possible for the creation to gain the balance,

the answer lies in the strength it had. The author described the creature to be someone of a great

stature, nearly 8 feet tall and has been characterized has proportionally large [CITATION

She091 \p "Vol 1. Chapter 3" \l 1033 ]. The creature was created as a full-blown humanoid;

therefore, it is conceivable how it had been able to act out on basic human impulses given he had

been wired this way.

The creatures experience with a multitude of sense has been methodically explained as he

goes from a range of sense which are inclusive of light, darkness, of hunger and thirst and of

overwhelming sounds [ CITATION She091 \l 1033 ]. The creature has been shown to have

childlike tendencies as it familiarizes itself with substances placed around him through touch.

The review of Literary Panorama which describes all of these instances as inconsistencies, fails

to take into account the observational common sense of questioning and curiosity, the possibility
 Miaka 3

to seek answers through testing and how it is fundamental nature that even humans exhibit right

after birth. Mary Shelley introduces a logical progress of development within the creature and

wraps up the different stages of life gone through by humans in the short frame of a scene.

The development seen within the creature is through observation of a nearby family

which equips it will the facilities which enable him to be able to read Werther, Plutarch and

Volney only a year later to being sparked to life. The review calls into question such

development. However, it is both logical as well as plausible. Humans, themselves, learn through

observing and that is exactly how they receive their fundamental education. The review misses

out on key developmental arcs.

Last but not the least, the eight stages of development put forward by Erik Erikson which

built up the review put forward by Sherry Ginn. Stage one consists of identify what to trust and

what not to, second stage consists of autonomy and self-doubt, stage three consists of initiatives

vs. guilt which is fundamental in shaping life, stage four consists of industry vs. inferiority, stage

five is basically role confusion and search of identity, stage six is consists of intimacy vs.

isolation, stage seven is of confrontation that involves generativity vs. stagnation whereas the last

stage includes integrity vs. despair. These stages appropriately categorize the experiences of the

creature aforementioned. These stages further help disagree with the review of inconsistencies

put forward by the Literary Panorama review.

The review failed to develop a deeper understanding f the literature and was rather hasty

in forming an opinion. It failed to take into account certain theories which support the steady

development of the character and which work in full force to rebuke the instances of

inconsistencies it claims.
Miaka 4
 Miaka 5

Works Cited

Ginn, Sherry. "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction or Autobiography." Oxford

2003. 6 March 2020. <www.clas.ufl.edu/ipsa/2003/ginn.html>.

Shelly, Mary. Frankenstein. Romantic Circles, 2009. Act II. 6 March 2020.

<www.rc.umd.edu/editions/wattyler/text_Act1.html>.

The Literary Panorama, and National Register. "Review on Frankenstein." N.S. 01 June 1818:

411-414. 6 March 2020.

<www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/lprev.html >.