Specialisation: Walter Scott

Frankenstein Critical Analysis Evaluation

A critical analysis of Walter Scott’s novel “Frankenstein” can be found in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine Review of Frankenstein. He is regarded among the most accomplished historical authors of Scotland. He has devoted a significant amount of his free time to investigating the neighbouring country since he has had a lifelong fascination with the stories that take place along the border. After graduating from high school, he attended Edinburgh University to pursue studies in both the arts and law. His first significant work, “The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border,” was published in 1802. The publishing of “The Lay of the Last Minstrel” in 1805, on the other hand, helped to boost his popularity. As a result of the book’s enormous success, Scott rose to become the most well-known novelist of his day. 1806, Scott was given the position of clerk to a court proceeding in Edinburgh.

Before providing a chronicle of the individual creation, the premise of Scott’s assessment refers to the idea that Frankenstein is either a book or a love fiction of a distinctive character that must be presented. This essay demonstrates how philosophical considerations should be given priority when including supernatural elements in literary works. In addition, it is proved that natural laws have been altered. This was done to convey better the likely impact the wonders will have on the witness (Scott, 1818).

The review’s central argument that Frankenstein is superior to other works of the supernatural is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. The author’s criticisms are particularly insightful since they point out where the rules of believability are broken in Frankenstein. Scott says that “marvellous” is the story’s focus for both the writer and the reader. This is true because it tells the story of the human victims dragged along with the equipment and identified with its marvels (Scott, 1818). Even if he draws on other works to back up his claims, the author of this criticism never loses sight of his original point. He explains that Frankenstein is shown the marvels of contemporary chemistry and philosophy and all their supporting structures. Later, he carried out these scientific endeavours to their innermost core, revealing their enigmas and secrets. In addition, they have blended unusual abilities and unparalleled achievements.

It is important to note that “Creator and Created in Frankenstein” also serves as a criticism of the book. Hetherington taught courses on the literature of the 19th and 20th centuries at London’s Birkbeck College. Her bold experimentation and unique literary style won her the support and advocacy of several feminist academics. In addition, this was complemented by well-informed journalism works on women’s liberation. Because of her use of modern anti-Semitic rhetoric at her London Jewish community conferences, she has remained divisive.

According to the article “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” the subtitle of the book, “The Modern Prometheus,” alludes to the dual nature of the Greek tale of the Titan. This is crucial in fashioning humans out of clay and appropriating fire from the heavens. Hetherington’s thesis of the criticism is grounded on these accusations as she explains how the novel’s portrayal of Mary’s transformation affects religious inferences. Arguably, Hetherington uses rational arguments and claims to support her viewpoint.

I concur with the author’s premise, and he has done an excellent job using outside sources to back up his claims. Indeed, the Christian account of creation and fall is mirrored in Frankenstein. However, the story of Zeus and Prometheus provides an analogous pagan allusion. This is in stark contrast to the claims made by Walter Scott, who emphasized science and natural law above supernatural abilities. This is especially clear when the latter is demonstrated to have prioritized scientific materialism above the Christian belief in an eternal soul that existed before birth.

Hetherington has included other material to support his claims. To show that Mary’s tale was written as a commentary on contemporary public discourse, she cites Marilyn Butler’s 1817 text (Hetherington, 1997). Abernethy, a fictional figure, believed that the presence of a super-added element similar to electricity and connected to the soul is what makes life possible. In developing her entrance into a book, Hetherington shows how Mary uses the Prometheus story and Milton’s Paradise Lost as her fundamental mythological underpinnings. Because of this, the initial ghost tale comes across as a little mockery of Abernethy’s viewpoint and amounts to gibberish.

The author might examine the theological overtones of her denial of spiritual truth by drawing on these two narratives. After thinking things through, it becomes unclear if the concept of materialism contradicts the existence of a deity who is beyond the material world (Hetherington, 1997). To back up his allusion, Hetherington explains that materialism sees the natural world as dynamic and all-encompassing. Frankenstein’s author sought to create a new and groundbreaking story about the origin of humanity, and the various ways by which characters comply with Milton’s demonstrates this.

Conclusively, the distortions in our appearance reflect how the adjustments impacted the spiritual element of the formed “being” and its physical appearance. I agree with Hetherington that all references to the creation are framed in purely human language. In this case, it was not the all-powerful and all-loving Christian god responsible for making everything, but rather a demiurge in human form. Hetherington demonstrates, in his review, how Mary changes her previous works to separate them from Lawrence while still including an orthodox Christian worldview (Hetherington, 1997).


Hetherington, N. (1997). Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Keats-Shelley Review 11 (1997): 1-39. http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/hether.html.

Walter, S. (1818). Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine http://www.ipl.org/div/litcrit/bin/litcrit.out.pl?ti=fra-63.