Introduction
Naomi Hetherington is a brilliant and well-respected scholar in various fields, including religious studies, women’s literature, and literary criticism. She received a Distinguished Teaching and Scholarship Award for her work as an educator at the University of London. The author has taught at the London Metropolitan and University of Hertfordshire. The scholar holds a Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and a Ph.D., and she has published research papers like ‘The New Woman’ and other fiction works. Hetherington’s “The Creator and Created Review of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” demonstrates that Shelley’s religious views and lifestyle influence Frankenstein and that Mary’s modernity may be replicated in chronicles to comprehend their meaning.
Hetherington’s Critiques
Hetherington dismantles her critique of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein into three distinct pieces in her essay. She contrasts Shelley’s conception of God as the Over-Reacher with the conventional Christian picture of God (Hetherington 2). This is followed by a discussion of Mary’s presentation of creation myths compared to the Christian interpretation. As the last point, she discusses how the human situation affects both the creators and the formed in various ways. Hetherington has a well-argued and substantiated critique of Shelley’s Frankenstein based on her religious beliefs.
The over-reacher image, a depiction of god, is shown by Shelly in Frankenstein. Supposedly, god is located in a solitary laboratory at the end of the stairs, and as for Shelley’s over-reaching, Hetherington disagrees. For her, Christianity and the church have a striking likeness with the divine being (Hetherington 12). Even though there are socially acceptable types of evil, like Milton’s Satan, as per Hetherington’s perception, Shelley’s interpretation of the over-reacher leads to a stalemate of ideas.
In her critique of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Hetherington sees moral anger in the mythology of creation. According to this author, if readers want to relish Shelley’s work, they should share her religious values (Hetherington 20). In order to grasp the notion of creation myths, readers not sharing Shelley’s religious beliefs may be unable to do so. As far as Hetherington is concerned, nature must be represented when relying on external power sources. On the contrary, Shelley feels that nature is active and embraces whole elements, and it does not require any external authority. The scholar acknowledges that Shelley’s mythology represents an independent-regulating realm of fantasy. She thinks Shelley disregards conventional Christian faith and perceptions, which substantially creates moral and intellectual inconsistencies.
Criticizing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Hetherington focuses on the human situation, which she refers to as “the human condition” (Hetherington 22). In order to understand the existence of human beings, one has to look to Frankenstein. Humanity’s creator is not mentioned, and there lacks any external source of strength (Shelley n.p). Furthermore, Shelley demonstrates that evil stems from people by indicating that they exist. According to her, the Christian notion of God the Father is at odds with this lack of acknowledgment of a creator. Confusion is a common reaction to Shelley’s depiction of the maker and the created as linked creatures.
Similarly, Sherry Ginn’s essay on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein significantly criticizes it. As a science fiction novel, Sherry’s prose concentrates on describing Frankenstein. Unlike Shelley’s Frankenstein, Hetherington’s “The Creator and Created” focuses on her religious beliefs. Throughout the novel, Ginn provides proof of futurism and how it works. Shelley’s Frankenstein is clearly defined as a scientific odyssey by Ginn, as seen by the title of her novel (Shelley & Ginn n.p). In order to prove that Frankenstein is a skiffy work, Ginn provides evidence on how to categorize science fiction. New empirical ideas may be seen as futurism in the recurring theme of discovery.
Conclusion
There is no evidence to substantiate the criticism of Hetherington’s religious views that Ginn has written. Her article depicts Shelley’s Frankenstein as a science fiction novel, unlike Hetherington’s essay, which is religiously motivated. Because I believe that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is best portrayed as a saintly tale, I favor Hetherington’s writing; however, Ginn’s science fiction evidence cannot be disputed. As Hetherington argues, Shelley’s devout viewpoints play a role in the authoring of Frankenstein.
Works Cited
Hetherington, Naomi. “Creator and Created in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” The Keats-Shelley Review 11.1 (1997): 1-39.
Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein [1818].” New York: Oxford (2001).
Shelley, Mary. “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: Science, Science Fiction, or Autobiography.” Conference Paper in Proceeding. 2003 The 20th International Literature and Psychology Conference. Edited by Ginn, Sherry, 2017.