Summary of a Critical Response

The article I chose was from Knight's Quarterly (Aug - Nov 1824) by an Anonymous author. The author actually was comparing Frankenstein to another book written by Mary Shelley, but was severely disappointed with the book. The author questions if  Frankenstein was even written by Mrs. Shelley, because the writing style were very different. The restrain shown in Valperga is paradoxical to the hyperbole used in Frankenstein. The author goes as far as to claim he reread Frankenstein and analyzed it as if it was supposed to be realistic. The author states that Frankenstein is poorly written and overzealous, whereas Valperga is cautious and a slow read.
The author or critic, read Frankenstein from a harsh unforgiving frame of mind. I felt sorrow for both the Monster and for Victor Frankenstein's childish machinations. Although it is wholly Frankenstein's fault that the Monster is even in existence, I disagree with the author's brash and unforgiving attitude towards Frankenstein. In the name of science all kinds of unnatural occurrences have been brought to fruition.
 "It is utterly inconceivable also that he should have let the monster (as he is somewhat unfairly called) escape" (anonymous, Knight's Quarterly) the author does not allow for any error on the part of Frankenstein to go unnoticed. The Monster commits murder and the author speaks nothing of that, and although I agree that Frankenstein bares the brunt of blame I felt the a Monster or quasi human who could articulate as well as Shelley supposes the Monster could have would know a certain level of right from wrong regardless of how he was treated previously. I agree completely with the author where as the lack of insight in to what Frankenstein was doing make Victor seem more like an impetuous child than an educated man.

After reading this literary analysis of Frankenstein I feel that given the almost two hundred year difference in the time the Author wrote the analysis and the time I read Frankenstein shows a lot in the way we interpret the work. I felt that Victor was doing his work in the name of science and in the hope of a better world for all, and the author felt that Victors ego-centrism was a gateway to a morally repugnant abandonment of his creation.

Another not so well thought out idea   .... Like Frankenstein even modern scientists have created extreme destruction and left a wake of disaster. Myself I think that WAR is a sometimes necessary evil but hand to hand combat is always favorable to me than what was created in 1939 by men who had not realized the full extent of their work.