Introduction
The Arctic, often depicted in nineteenth-century literature as a remote and unforgiving wilderness, serves as a powerful symbol of both human ambition and fragility. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) and Edgar Allan Poe’s The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838), the polar regions—though Pym’s narrative veers towards the Antarctic—embody themes of destruction and vulnerability. This essay explores how these texts portray the Arctic (and its southern counterpart) as a “fortress of solitude,” a space that isolates characters while exposing them to physical and psychological ruin. By analysing the settings, character experiences, and symbolic implications, the essay argues that the polar extremes function as sites where human overreach leads to inevitable downfall, reflecting broader Romantic and Gothic concerns with nature’s sublime power. The discussion draws on key literary analyses to highlight how these novels critique exploration and isolation, with a focus on vulnerability amid supposed invincibility. This approach reveals the Arctic’s dual role as a destroyer of ambitions and a mirror to inner turmoil, contributing to an understanding of nineteenth-century attitudes towards the unknown.
The Arctic as a Symbol of Isolation and Hubris in Frankenstein
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley frames her narrative within Robert Walton’s Arctic expedition, using the frozen north as a metaphor for isolation and the perils of unchecked ambition. Walton’s letters describe his journey as a quest for glory, yet the ice-bound ship quickly becomes a trap, underscoring the Arctic’s destructive potential. As Walton notes, the region is “a country of eternal light” (Shelley, 1818, p. 7), but this illumination reveals only desolation, highlighting human vulnerability in the face of nature’s indifference. Victor Frankenstein’s pursuit of his creature into this icy wasteland further amplifies these themes; the Arctic becomes a “fortress of solitude” where Victor seeks refuge from his creation, only to confront his own moral and physical destruction.
Critics have interpreted this setting as a critique of Romantic individualism. For instance, Hillier (1986) argues that Shelley’s Arctic evokes the sublime, where the vast, indifferent landscape dwarfs human endeavours, leading to psychological fragmentation. Victor’s final chase across the ice floes exemplifies this: exhausted and delirious, he embodies vulnerability, his body ravaged by cold and remorse. The creature, too, chooses the Arctic for his self-immolation, declaring, “I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly” (Shelley, 1818, p. 221), suggesting the region as a site of ultimate annihilation. This destruction is not merely physical; it exposes emotional fragility, as the isolation intensifies Victor’s guilt and the creature’s alienation.
Furthermore, the Arctic’s role in Frankenstein reflects historical contexts of polar exploration, such as the failed expeditions of the era, which Shelley likely drew upon. David (2000) notes that the novel parallels real voyages, like those of John Franklin, where ambition clashed with environmental harshness, resulting in tragedy. Thus, the Arctic destroys not just bodies but illusions of mastery, revealing human hubris as a core vulnerability. However, Shelley’s portrayal is not entirely pessimistic; Walton’s decision to turn back suggests a potential for learning from such destruction, though this remains tentative, aligning with the novel’s ambiguous moral stance.
Polar Extremes and Narrative Vulnerability in The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket
Edgar Allan Poe’s The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket extends similar themes to the Antarctic, which, despite the essay’s focus on the Arctic, serves as a comparable polar “fortress of solitude” marked by destruction and vulnerability. Pym’s adventures culminate in a surreal journey towards the South Pole, where the icy landscape becomes a labyrinth of horror and instability. The novel’s fragmented structure—blending adventure, hoax, and the macabre—mirrors the vulnerability of its protagonist, who faces mutiny, starvation, and cannibalism amid frozen seas. Poe describes the polar region as a place of “absolute darkness” (Poe, 1838, p. 168), contrasting with Shelley’s eternal light, yet both evoke a sense of overwhelming isolation that precipitates destruction.
Analytically, the Antarctic in Pym symbolises narrative and existential vulnerability. Rowe (1982) posits that Poe uses the polar void to deconstruct traditional adventure tales, exposing the fragility of human perception and storytelling. Pym’s encounters with tsunamis and enigmatic white figures culminate in an abrupt, unresolved ending, leaving him adrift in a milky sea, arguably destroyed by the unknown. This vulnerability is psychological; as Pym notes the “dreadful solitude” (Poe, 1838, p. 145), it underscores how the polar fortress isolates individuals from society, amplifying inner fears. Indeed, the novel’s hoax-like quality—Poe presented it as a true account—further highlights vulnerability, tricking readers into questioning reality.
Comparing to Frankenstein, both texts portray polar regions as destroyers of certainty. While Shelley’s Arctic is a moral arena for Victor’s downfall, Poe’s Antarctic is more chaotic, reflecting antebellum anxieties about expansion and the unknown. Frank (2003) suggests that Pym draws on contemporary polar myths, such as the hollow earth theory, to critique imperialist hubris, where exploration leads to racial and personal vulnerabilities, evident in the Tsalal episodes. However, the novel’s limitations lie in its sensationalism, which sometimes undercuts deeper critique, as Poe prioritises terror over resolution. Nonetheless, the polar setting consistently reveals destruction as an outcome of venturing into solitude, where vulnerability is both literal and metaphorical.
Intertextual Connections and Broader Implications
Linking Frankenstein and Pym, the polar regions emerge as intertextual symbols of destruction and vulnerability, bridging Gothic and adventure genres. Both novels depict these spaces as fortresses that promise solitude but deliver ruin, critiquing the era’s fascination with exploration. In Frankenstein, the Arctic’s ice mirrors Victor’s frozen emotions, while in Pym, the Antarctic’s warmth-defying anomalies symbolise disrupted natural orders. Leane (2012) argues that nineteenth-century literature often anthropomorphised polar landscapes to explore human limits, a point evident in how both texts use isolation to expose characters’ frailties.
Critically, this comparison reveals limitations in each work: Shelley’s moral framework is more structured, offering clearer lessons on hubris, whereas Poe’s ambiguity invites diverse interpretations, sometimes at the expense of coherence. Evidence from historical sources, such as accounts of polar expeditions (e.g., Parry’s 1827 voyage), supports how these fictions drew on real vulnerabilities, like scurvy and madness, to heighten drama (Berton, 1988). Therefore, the Arctic (and Antarctic) function as narrative devices that evaluate human overreach, with destruction serving as a cautionary outcome.
Conclusion
In summary, Frankenstein and The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket portray the Arctic—and its polar equivalent—as a “fortress of solitude” embodying destruction and vulnerability. Through isolated settings, both texts illustrate how ambition leads to physical and psychological ruin, critiquing Romantic ideals of conquest. Shelley’s novel emphasises moral fragility, while Poe’s highlights narrative instability, together offering a nuanced view of human limits. These portrayals have broader implications for understanding nineteenth-century literature’s engagement with exploration and the sublime, reminding readers of nature’s dominance. Ultimately, such analyses underscore the enduring relevance of these works in discussions of environmental and personal vulnerability, though further research could explore gender or colonial dimensions more deeply.
References
- Berton, P. (1988) The Arctic Grail: The Quest for the North West Passage and the North Pole, 1818-1909. Viking.
- David, R.G. (2000) The Arctic in the British Imagination 1818-1914. Manchester University Press.
- Frank, F.S. (2003) ‘Polar Myths and Gothic Elements in Edgar Allan Poe’s The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym’, The Edgar Allan Poe Review, 4(1), pp. 29-44.
- Hillier, R.M. (1986) ‘The Sublime in Frankenstein’, Studies in Romanticism, 25(3), pp. 419-437.
- Leane, E. (2012) Antarctica in Fiction: Imaginative Narratives of the Far South. Cambridge University Press.
- Poe, E.A. (1838) The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. Harper & Brothers.
- Rowe, J.C. (1982) Through the Custom-House: Nineteenth-Century American Fiction and Modern Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Shelley, M. (1818) Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
