Gothic Horror Essay Example For Students

Gothic Horror Essay Clearly a creature of intelligence, the monster realises that his only chance of friendship is with this poor disabled chap in his lonely house. One day he finds him alone. He enters the hut. He asks for friendship well, sort of. Everything seems at first to be going bumps-a-daisy. Unfortunately it then shoots downhill like a shoved nun it went black then white then black then white White points were that the old chap seemed to like him. Black points were that the rest of his family came back, took the monster at face value (titter, titter) and turned him out into the outer darkness, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And why? He hadnt explained his problem fully to the old man. He dillied. He dallied. And in the end he lost out. He gave a great introduction to his speech, but circumstances stopped him from reaching the res. Finding himself once more friendless and in the cold he starts out upon his mad quest for friendship and revenge. If Frankenstein had loved him in the first place, none of this would have happened. Chapter Five, therefore, is the starting point for many of the novels intricacies. However, it is also the start of something which was new at the time, something which made the novel a sure-fire winner: Gothic Horror. Chapter Five is the first if not only chapter in Frankenstein which is pure Gothic Horror in the true sense of the phrase. Every line nay, every word oozes Gothic and every second word perspires horror. Take the first sentence for instance: It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. Whoa! Even the first eight words would have done. It was Instantly we are cast into a state of apprehension. That word it: a true stalwart of the English language, used thousands of times per minute across the whole globe and yet sadly neglected in most analysis of texts; oh, unhappy it! For underneath that shabby exterior lies a wealth of meaning, emotion and indeed power. Specifying the definite, announcing fact, preparing the way for revelations, it does it all. And now couple these startling two letters to the three letter word was: it was. Not great to look at admittedly, but it is a sure sign of better things to come. A more dramatic way of introducing a subject has yet to be imagined. But the beauty of it was is in its power. Not only does it display the blatantly obvious influences detailed above, but it also maintains an ominous subtlety the sinister use of the past tense. It isnt, it was. As thoroughbred Brits we tend to use the present tense for happiness and the past for despair. This is, no doubt, because the present is unchangeable, exhaustible and should be enjoyed while it lasts whereas the past is full of death, darkness and, as Frankenstein would say, despair. Consequently, when a member of the British public reads those formidable and menacing words it was he is much inclined to close the curtains, pull his head under the covers and generally get ready for a terrifying introduction, excursion or climax as the case may be. I could rhapsody forever about the cunning Mary Shelley showed by employing such a skilfully crafted weapon as it was to open her fifth chapter, but time marches on and so must I.  A, when used in the right place and at the right time, can be extremely powerful. It is, after all, the indefinite article and should not be overlooked. But as I am at nearly 2,800 words already I think that maybe I should skip it just this once, though. And so we come to the fourth word of our little clause: dreary. Now were getting somewhere! Dreary is the quintessential gothic word, the champagne of an authoress vocabulary, the Dior of her dictionary and the Wensleydale of her text (for the uneducated amongst you, Wensleydale is a cheese highly admired in the better circles but often underrated by the general public). Just say it slowly to yourself; savour the subtle nuances of dreadfulness, the nutty shadows of despair; roll it around your mouth as if you were a snooker table and it a ball; then elongate that ear until the floor starts to shake and the smoke alarms to ring. Now you have experienced dreariness. TajMahal 1852 EssayMany people miss the fact that Frankenstein fails at acting both Mother and Father to his creation. Who can say what would have happened if he had just played Father? If someone else had done the maternal stuff leaving Victor to enforce discipline and generally be nice and paternal? Was she saying that, although successful at giving birth to the creature he didnt do any of the other things that a mother would have done? Was that why his baby turned evil? I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy and I shall again be virtuous says the monster later on in the novel. Maybe Mary Shelley, a woman herself, was warning mothers to stay at home and nurse their children otherwise they would turn into little horrors? If she was it shows great foresight, as it wasnt until the Second World War (over 100 years later) that mothers started to work. However, I do believe that if that was what she was saying then she hit the nail on the head: I think that the broken relationships, depressed children and general social chaos around today is mostly down to working mothers. Somehow I dont think that Mrs. Shelley was quite saying all that. After all, she didnt have much experience at that sort of thing, her only child dying shortly after birth. Its much more likely that she was pointing her finger at science. Chapter Five is very much a chapter of science. It states things. It has a hypothesis, a fleeting glimpse (I gathered my instruments about me) of a method and what is, when you think about it, a pretty obvious result. It is from Chapter Five that disaster springs. Is it from science that all catastrophes leap? Was Mary Shelley writing a strong retort to the scientific obsessions of the time? Her father William Godwin was a successful author and radical thinker who knew Humphrey Davy, a chemist who believed that chemistry was the underlying principle of all life. She regularly attended scientific lectures with her husband Percy and consequently was well briefed with the facts that modern science had discovered. Could she have been such a great supporter of scientific advances and yet be aware of and warn against the dangers of incautious fascination? Yes quite easily. However, she could also quite easily have purely used pertinent facts to give her fantasy a flavour of reality. Was she a socially aware and clear-thinking moraliser or just an authoress with a flair for combining imagination with realism? That is for each and every one to decide individually, there being no clear argument either way. I personally favour the latter alternative as it sounds more like human nature. If, however, she did write Frankenstein as a social statement then what was the point? Was it worthwhile? Has she been heeded? We have now developed methods of cloning animals. One day these practices may be applied to humanity Will Mary Shelleys advice be listened to and noted or will science take control? Will life become secondary to technology? Will contemporary scientists act like modern-day Frankensteins? Chapter Five is the diving board from which a tragic tale falls. Will we, as a planet, one day be in our very own Chapter Five?