Mary Shelley, through “Frankenstein”, besides dealing with the horror story of a monster, wants to generate in the reader a reflection on the role of science in the 19th century.
I think the novel is an accusation against the aberrations that an inappropriate use of science could conduct in the future.
Mary wrote this book in a period in which lots of people were involved in studying human body. In those years an important contribute was also given by Galvani, who discovered the animal bioelettricity. This Italian scientist observed that a stimulation of a frog's nerve causes contraction of the muscle to which it is attached. The scientific community was excited by the potential use of this new force and research was conducted throughout Europe on the application of electricity to induce and sustain life. Obviously Mary could not know how to animate life in enough detail to write it in the book; in fact there isn’t a precise description.
Victor Frankenstein, as a young boy, becomes obsessed with studying theories about what gives humans their life spark; in this, he reflects the tendencies of that period.
He becomes absorbed in the quest to find out what creates life. After many researches he believes he has discovered the secret of generating life and decides to create a living being from parts of dead bodies. Victor applies experiments with electricity and he uses amniotic liquid to give life to the monster.
However, the creature he generates turns out to be a destructive and homicidal “demon”.
So the novel can be seen as a critique of male rationalism, of the negative potentiality of science.
I agree with Mary Shelley, thinking that scientific discoveries not always have a positive result, not always they bear useless conclusion; science must be controlled by reason, otherwise it can destroy the same person who used it to overcome human limits.
Modern day science deals daily with the exact problems of which Shelley was aware.
She introduces ethics to the study of science, and I think that she writes literature to act as science's conscious: the novel continues to resonate with readers to this day because of its criticism of science without conscience.
It was as if she acknowledged that the future of science, if uncontrolled, could be disastrous.
The book serves to warn readers, both past and current, of our own powers.
It was almost as if Mary Shelley in 1818 could see nearly 200 years into the future, recognising that our scientific discoveries of nuclear weapons and cloning could eventually be our demise.
I think the novel is an accusation against the aberrations that an inappropriate use of science could conduct in the future.
Mary wrote this book in a period in which lots of people were involved in studying human body. In those years an important contribute was also given by Galvani, who discovered the animal bioelettricity. This Italian scientist observed that a stimulation of a frog's nerve causes contraction of the muscle to which it is attached. The scientific community was excited by the potential use of this new force and research was conducted throughout Europe on the application of electricity to induce and sustain life. Obviously Mary could not know how to animate life in enough detail to write it in the book; in fact there isn’t a precise description.
Victor Frankenstein, as a young boy, becomes obsessed with studying theories about what gives humans their life spark; in this, he reflects the tendencies of that period.
He becomes absorbed in the quest to find out what creates life. After many researches he believes he has discovered the secret of generating life and decides to create a living being from parts of dead bodies. Victor applies experiments with electricity and he uses amniotic liquid to give life to the monster.
However, the creature he generates turns out to be a destructive and homicidal “demon”.
So the novel can be seen as a critique of male rationalism, of the negative potentiality of science.
I agree with Mary Shelley, thinking that scientific discoveries not always have a positive result, not always they bear useless conclusion; science must be controlled by reason, otherwise it can destroy the same person who used it to overcome human limits.
Modern day science deals daily with the exact problems of which Shelley was aware.
She introduces ethics to the study of science, and I think that she writes literature to act as science's conscious: the novel continues to resonate with readers to this day because of its criticism of science without conscience.
It was as if she acknowledged that the future of science, if uncontrolled, could be disastrous.
The book serves to warn readers, both past and current, of our own powers.
It was almost as if Mary Shelley in 1818 could see nearly 200 years into the future, recognising that our scientific discoveries of nuclear weapons and cloning could eventually be our demise.
Valentina Rizzo
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento