Why does Social Media persist in misreading M. W. Shelley's Frankenstein? A Complete Review

Let’s finish what we started. Last time, we wrote about the meaning behind Frankenstein; namely, the meaning is the quest for love and acceptance. We also discussed what the novel is about; for those who have not read it, the story explores the consequences of rejection and the absence of love. The result of such neglect is pain, which ultimately gives rise to a desire for revenge.

Time Period

Published on January 1, 1818, the novel is considered the first work of science fiction and speculative fiction, while also containing strong elements of the Gothic novel. These include the narrative structure of stories within a story (the Arctic ship and Frankenstein’s own account), supernatural elements (the figure of the Monster, medieval settings such as the Genevan castle), and an obsession with scientific achievement (the very act of creating the creature). The novel is partly epistolary and written in the first-person singular. The story has three narrative lines: one belonging to Walton, the second to Frankenstein, and the third to the Monster.

Impeccable descriptions, a deep affinity for nature, and an admiration for its beauty permeate the entire novel, which is hardly surprising given the period to which it belongs. Romanticism emerged as a response to rapid industrialization and to the overemphasis on reason inherited from the Enlightenment. It also revived an interest in the medieval period (Victor’s fascination with the natural sciences originates in alchemy; the Genevan castle), a tendency that appeared during the awakening of nations and reached its climax in the revolutions of 1848–49.

Godlike Syndrome and the Banished Child: A Social Media Critique of Frankenstein

BookTok narratives often simplify both Victor Frankenstein and the Monster. The former is frequently described as “the real monster,” while the latter is depicted as an “outcast” or a “misunderstood outsider.” This perspective is shaped by contemporary lenses – trauma discourse and neurodiversity. The Monster is often seen solely as a victim of Frankenstein’s rejection. However, readers frequently forget what the Monster actually does, he murders Victor’s loved ones, and many go so far as to justify this behavior. The Monster is not innocent, nor is he merely a victim, despite how often he is framed as one.

Bookstagram offers a similar reading. The Monster is portrayed as a pariah, which is understandable, as people sympathize with him and may even recognize parts of themselves in him. Nevertheless, we should not forget what abandonment does to him and what it ultimately turns him into. Bookstagram emphasizes feelings of loneliness and isolation in the novel, which may point to what is lacking in contemporary societies. I see this as a cry for help. People today are lonelier than ever before. Use this as a mirror, when you read a book, pay close attention to what people focus on when they discuss it; it says a lot more about nowadays than you might think.  

Goodreads, on the other hand, tells a different story. Many Goodreads reviewers tend to misunderstand the novel or approach it with expectations that are never meant to be fulfilled. Some expect horror, but the presence of Gothic elements does not mean the novel exists purely for entertainment. While many modern horror books may prioritize thrills, early Gothic works often carried deep philosophical and moral meanings. Take, for example, Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It is not merely a story about a doctor who transforms into another personality; it explores the duality of human nature – though we will leave that discussion for another time.

Another frequent criticism on Goodreads concerns the novel’s slow pace. This slowness stems from extensive conversations between characters. These dialogues reveal emotional states and motivations, explaining why characters act as they do. The reflection provided by Wollstonecraft Shelley is essential for understanding the novel.

Although Goodreads contains many reviews by disappointed readers, it also offers thoughtful analyses. The strongest ones explore the question of responsibility, something Victor Frankenstein consistently fails to assume. Victor is responsible for the Monster; he created him, yet rejected him because of his appearance. This exposes Victor’s superficiality. Another recurring topic is the moral responsibility of scientific experimentation, which Victor ignores in favor of personal ambition and desire.

While social media often delivers oversimplified interpretations of the novel, I would ask: what happens when a society forgets how to love?

Final Thoughts on the Novel

Since I have a deep affinity for the Gothic genre and Romanticism, it comes as no surprise that the novel captivated me. I would highlight several elements as particularly impactful: the sentimentality in the descriptions of landscapes and their reverence for nature, the close and affectionate relationship within the Frankenstein family, Victor’s obsession with the natural sciences, and the universality of the emotions portrayed. It seems to me that this latter quality is increasingly lost in the modern world, through alienation, a growing distance from nature, and a certain shame associated with emotional expression.

Furthermore, the Monster is not a martyr, nor is Victor Frankenstein. Both characters commit good and evil acts; both are complex, morally ambiguous figures, not black and white characters as some readers try to portray them. This is the beauty of Romanticism: it introduced psychological and moral complexity in character portrayal. That is one of the main reasons I admire the Romantics and the movements that followed them. Perhaps we should learn from them; viewing the world and the people in it through a lens that accepts density and complexity.

In this review, I won’t touch on the matter of galvanism and genesis in Frankenstein. I’ll leave that to you.

You may also enjoy

#maryshelley #frankenstein #prometheus #romanticism #gothicliterature #supernatural

Source:

Wollstonecraft Shelley, M., Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus, London: Vintage Classics, 2016