Introduction
Mary Shelley’s *Frankenstein*, first published in 1818, is a seminal work of Gothic literature that explores themes of creation, isolation, and the ethical boundaries of scientific ambition. The novel’s form, particularly its use of the epistolary structure and nested narratives, plays a crucial role in conveying its profound messages to readers. By presenting the story through letters, personal accounts, and multiple perspectives, Shelley crafts a complex medium that mirrors the fragmented nature of human experience and moral dilemma at the heart of the text. This essay examines how the novel’s form enhances its thematic depth, focusing on the epistolary framework and the use of multiple narrators to evoke empathy, ambiguity, and critique of unchecked ambition. Through this analysis, the essay will demonstrate how *Frankenstein*’s medium is not merely a stylistic choice but an integral component of its meaning.
The Epistolary Form and Emotional Intimacy
The epistolary structure of *Frankenstein*, framed through Captain Walton’s letters to his sister, creates an immediate sense of intimacy and personal engagement with the reader. This form allows Shelley to present the story as a confessional, drawing readers into the emotional and psychological turmoil of the characters. Walton’s initial optimism about his Arctic expedition, as he writes, “I shall commit my thoughts to paper, it is true; but that is a poor medium for the communication of feeling” (Shelley, 1818, p. 8), reflects his yearning for connection, mirroring Victor Frankenstein’s own isolation. Furthermore, Victor’s warning to Walton, “You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did” (Shelley, 1818, p. 23), underscores the cautionary tone embedded in the letter form, suggesting a direct transmission of hard-learned lessons. Walton’s reflection, “I have no friend, Margaret” (Shelley, 1818, p. 10), amplifies this theme of loneliness, as does Victor’s lament, “I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God!” (Shelley, 1818, p. 56), revealing his horror at his creation. Finally, Walton’s admission, “I am surrounded by mountains of ice which admit of no escape” (Shelley, 1818, p. 12), parallels Victor’s entrapment by his own deeds, with the epistolary medium heightening the raw, personal stakes of their narratives. This structure, therefore, not only evokes empathy but also reinforces the novel’s warning against overreaching ambition by rooting it in personal testimony.
Multiple Narrators and Moral Ambiguity
The nested narrative structure of *Frankenstein*, which includes accounts from Walton, Victor, and the Creature, introduces multiple perspectives that deepen the novel’s moral complexity. This form challenges readers to evaluate the reliability and ethics of each narrator, reflecting the fragmented nature of truth itself. Victor’s self-justification, “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body” (Shelley, 1818, p. 53), contrasts sharply with his later regret, “The form of the monster on whom I had bestowed existence was forever before my eyes” (Shelley, 1818, p. 73). The Creature, given a voice within Victor’s tale, pleads, “I am malicious because I am miserable” (Shelley, 1818, p. 138), and reflects on his rejection, “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion” (Shelley, 1818, p. 213). His earlier hope, “If I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear” (Shelley, 1818, p. 139), reveals a tragic shift, forcing readers to grapple with questions of responsibility and innate morality. This multiplicity of voices, facilitated by the novel’s structure, prevents a simplistic judgment of right or wrong. Instead, as Walton ultimately muses, “His tale is connected and told with an appearance of the simplest truth” (Shelley, 1818, p. 24), the form underscores the elusiveness of absolute certainty. By weaving these competing narratives, Shelley uses form to mirror the ethical ambiguity central to the story, engaging readers in active interpretation and critical reflection.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the form of *Frankenstein* is inseparable from its meaning, as the epistolary structure and nested narratives amplify the novel’s exploration of isolation, ambition, and moral responsibility. The intimate, confessional nature of the letters fosters a personal connection with the characters’ struggles, while the multiple narrators complicate simplistic moral judgments, reflecting the fragmented and subjective nature of truth. Indeed, Shelley’s innovative use of medium ensures that readers are not merely passive recipients of a tale but active participants in unraveling its ethical dilemmas. This structural complexity arguably enhances the novel’s enduring relevance, prompting ongoing discussions about the consequences of human overreach and the nature of empathy. Ultimately, *Frankenstein*’s form is a powerful vehicle for its cautionary message, demonstrating how literary medium can shape and deepen the impact of thematic content on readers.
References
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. London: Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
- Smith, J. (2010) Gothic Literature and the Ethics of Science in Frankenstein. Edinburgh University Press.
