Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley was first published in 1818. It is now referred to as one of the first pieces of science fiction. The reception of the book was somewhat controversial, and literary critics’ views were mixed. John Wilson Croker’s review, published right after the novel was released, was negative. The critic convincingly argued that the story was an unsuccessful attempt to follow Mr. Godwin’s footsteps and “a tissue of horrible and disgusting absurdity” (Croker 381). By providing a summary of the whole book in his review, Croker’s main attempt was to discourage the readers from the boredom of the literary verse and the entire story’s insanity.
Quarterly Review 18 by John Wilson Croker
John William Croker’s review is quite extensive and starts with describing how young Frankenstein has become fascinated with death. The critic provides several extracts, and by the monotonous tone of his narrative, it is clear that his attitude towards the author’s choice of words and phrases is quite sarcastic. Croker describes humorously creating the monster as if to highlight the absurdity of the whole idea of the novel. When Croker explains how the creature was acquiring education, it is almost as if he deems the monster more intelligent than the creator. He then, however, describes all the atrocities the creature has committed, from killing Frankenstein’s little brother and beloved bride to threatening to murder his creator unless he makes him a wife. The whole purpose of summarizing the most insane parts of the novel is to convince the readers of the foolishness of the work reviewed.
The critic compares the novel’s literary style to that of Mr. Godwin, whom he values considerably more. Croker claims that Godwin’s work “delights in the most affecting and humiliating of human miseries” (381). However, the attempt of the author of the novel to repeat the spirit of Mr. Godwin is viewed by Crocker as unsuccessful. Moreover, the writer’s language leads the critic to the conclusion that the insanity described in the novel may have resulted from the madness of the author.
To ensure the readers of the narrative’s tediousness, Crocker provides several long extracts from the novel. He sarcastically refers to the novel’s language as “the vigor of the fancy” (Crocker, 381). In all honesty, it is hard not to agree with the critic because the narrative’s language is indeed particularly monotonous and dull. One of the extracts chosen by Crocker is the one where the author describes the monster. Its appearance was that of “unearthly ugliness rendered it almost too horrible for human eyes’ (Shelley 171). The author’s words, phrases, and language expressions are not very peaceful; however, the flow of the narrative is still perceived as monotonous.
Review in the Literary Panorama, and National Register
Another review, published in the Literary Panorama, dated 1 June 1818, shares a similar critical approach towards Shelley’s work. Firstly, the author of the analysis draws the same conclusion regarding the literary spirit of the novel, calling it a “feeble imitation” of the works by Mr. Godwin (Review of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text 411). However, in contrast with Croker’s review, the anonymous author does not discourage the readers from following the story; however, he advises them to lower their expectations. The critic also does not deny the author of the novel some talent but claims that it steers towards materialism too much (Review of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text 411). While Crocker mostly criticizes the author’s language skills, the critic of the review in the Literary Panorama places a greater emphasis on the shortcomings of the novel’s structure. He claims that the story’s timeline is reversed, making the readers think that the novel has been written in haste and is full of inconsistencies.
The critic points out that the author undoubtedly possesses a great imagination and knowledge of human nature; however, these talents are not used adequately since the novel is not structured. He then proceeds to provide examples of inconsistencies in writing. The critic comments on how the author interprets the habits and the development of the monster as if trying to make sense of the imaginary story.
Even though John Wilson Crocker and the anonymous writer from the Literary Panorama take a different approach towards the novel’s critique, the conclusion seems to be the same. Both critics claim that the story is a pale imitation of Mr. Godwin’s style and is not worth reading. While Crocker openly ridicules the author’s ineptitude in describing human nature’s depth while lacking the required literary skills, the critic from the Literary Panorama leads the readers to the same finding by criticizing the inability of the author to structure the novel, thus, making it difficult to read. Even though Crocker is more definitive in his findings, both critiques come to an adequate for that time concluded that the novel’s idea is absurd and pointless.
Works Cited
Croker, John Wilson. Review of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text. Quarterly Review 18, 1818, pp. 379–385.
Review of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text. The Literary Panorama, and National Register, 1818, pp. 411–414.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus: The 1818 Text. Oxford University Press, 1998.