The first criticism that I read was written by the author called Sherry Ginn of Wingate University. Dr. Sherry Ginn earned both her MA (1984) and Ph.D. (1988) in General-Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina. She completed post-doctoral training at the East Carolina University School of Medicine and taught at East Carolina University for a number of years, during which time she completed graduate study in the Women’s Studies Program.
Sherry Ginn uses “Frankenstein’s Critique Essay” to adequately show that Mary Shelley’s novel is a clear depiction of a miserable childhood and resolve to seek identity. Dr. Ginn taught at Wingate University from 1999 – 2006, serving as the Director of the Women’s Studies program while there. She currently teaches at Rowan-Cabarrus Community College. She has published numerous research articles in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but currently, focuses her extracurricular work on the intersection of popular culture with psychology and neuroscience. Dr. Ginn’s book entitled Our Space, Our Place: Women in the Worlds of Science Fiction Television, was published in 2005.
Dr.Sherry used the Erik Ericson theory of psychosocial development to Mary’s life. She says that it was out of Mary’s lack of maternal and paternal care that led to conceiving her creature. Also, a critique on the author’s creativity and over imaginative mind is clear from the assessment of her writing. Her employment of creativity and over imagination relates to ‘’Sherry Ginn uses “Frankenstein’s Critique Essay” to adequately show that Mary Shelley’s novel is a clear depiction of a miserable childhood and resolve to seek identity”. She explains that the creature suffered stigma and rejection immediately it was created, after Victor is shocked by its appearance, and it is forced to fend for himself. The thesis guiding this article is that the acts of Frankenstein were out of desperation, rejection and stigma and the film is an autobiography.
According to the article, I completely agree with the thesis. The author tries to explain the occasions that the creature did some inhuman acts and also the motives that drove it to do them. After the creature knew it was different from other people, the author says it needed a companion and went back to its creator to demand one.
The evil nature of the creature was out of rejection and loneliness. Victor Frankenstein, the creator of Frankenstein, did not consider the fact that his creation needed a companion who looked or talked its language. It did not deserve the stigma it suffered. The Creature vows to kill others in Victor’s family unless Victor complies with the request for a mate, this is after it killed Victor’s younger brother.
The author has sourced enough evidence from various external sources and other journals, with more than twenty references. She has extensively explored the evidence with relevant citing.
The second criticism is written by Naomi Hetherington. She has a successful educational background, having achieved BA Theology and Religious Studies (Newnham College, Cambridge) MA Victorian Literature (Manchester) and Ph.D. (Southampton). Naomi taught for five years in the Department of English and Humanities at Birkbeck, University of London.
Some of her publications include books- Amy Levy: Critical Essays, co-edited with Nadia Valman (Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2010). articles- Amy Levy: Critical Essays, co-edited with Nadia Valman (Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2010), and special issues and chapters.
Her criticism opposes the theory of the first author. Naomi explains that Mary started writing the novel in her teenage, as a tale and the novel’s subtitle, ‘The Modern Prometheus’, refers to the two-fold Greek myth of the Titan who created human beings from clay and stole for them fire from heaven. She criticizes that Mary’s own relationships, in particular, her marriage with Shelley, is a source of inspiration for her character studies. On a Feminist basis, she criticizes, the novel as the story of Mary’s experiences in writing it and diagnosed’frustrated female pen envy’.
She explains how Frankenstein correlates with the Christian iconography of creation and fall. She says that Mary used Milton’s Paradise Lost and the Prometheus legend as a mythological network through which to explore the religious implications of her rejection of spiritual vitalism.
Naomi uses her criticism essay to argue that Mary wished to explore through fiction what it means to be human within this self-regulating universe. Through the different ways in which her characters correspond with Milton’s, she wanted to create a new and a subversive tale of human origins, which expounded simultaneously the timeless implications of this myth for disparate aspects of our nature. In so doing, she aimed to refute on a moral and philosophical basis the traditional Christian tenets which the new science questioned on empirical grounds.
The first author uses her thesis to emphasize that Frankenstein was written as an autobiography. She supports her argument by asking questions such as: could a young woman with no formal education really conceive such “hideous progeny?” Secondly, could a young woman really understand the scientific and philosophical principles necessary to write this story? Most women did not have formal education at the time Mary was writing the book.