The Industrial Revolution that was go oning in the early dusk of the 19th centuries changed the universe forever. The debut of scientific discipline as a possible remedy for all became evident. Many captivation innovations such as steamboat. autos and electricity were created and the mentality for the hereafter was bright. However. because of this. many scientists turned a unsighted oculus to the dangers of cognition and inadvertently caused many sorrows in their procedure to go “god” . Such illustrations are introduced in the undermentioned two narratives: Frankenstein and “The birthmark” . In both narratives. the writer created a character that was to typify the scientists of the early 19th centuries who believed that anything was possible with scientific discipline. In “The Birthmark” . Hawthorne’s character Aylmer tries to take his wife’s nevus with his usage of scientific discipline but ends up killing her. While in Frankenstein. the supporter Victor efforts to utilize scientific discipline to make life but ends up destructing those there were closest to him.
There are many similarities between the two narratives. particularly between the features of Victor Frankenstein and Aylmer. Both work forces have a deep passion and love for scientific discipline that boundary lines on compulsion. One of the prevalent subjects in both narratives is the danger of playing God. In Frankenstein. Victor attempts to travel beyond recognized human bounds and entree the cognition of life and hence going godlike. The narrative begins with Walton’s missive to his sister. From the missive. we are introduced to the danger of scientific discipline. Victor tells Walton. “You seek for cognition and wisdom. as I one time did ; and I ardently hope that the satisfaction of your wants may non be a snake to biting you. as mine has been. ” ( pg 31 )
The subject of destructive cognition is so developed farther throughout the narrative as the tragic events and effects of Victor’s compulsion for life is unfold. He cuts himself off from the universe and finally commits himself wholly to his undertaking. “while I pursued my project with ceaseless ardor. my cheek has grown picket with survey and my individual has become emaciated with parturiency. ” ( pg 55 ) This is similar to what Aylmer went through. “He was pale as decease. dying and absorbed. and hung over the furnace as if it depended upon his extreme watchfulness… or wretchedness. ( pg 70 ) He was so haunted about flawlessness that he forsakes the effects of his action.
Throughout Frankenstein. Victor repeatedly convinced himself that what he is making is perfectly right and because of this. his autumn from grace mirrors those of Aylmer. Both of them have unrealistic ends to accomplish and both accidentally destroy those that are cherished to them.
For all their similarities. Dr. Frankenstein and Aylmer are still significantly different characters. Victor wants to be god but does non cognize what to make with the power. “When I found so amazing a power placed within my custodies. I hesitated a long clip refering the mode in which I should use it. ” ( pg 54 ) Victor views scientific discipline as the way to new cognition: “in other surveies you go every bit far as others have gone before you… but in scientific chase. there is continual nutrient for find and admiration. ” ( pg 52 )
While Aylmer positions scientific discipline as the way to greater power. “We know Aylmer possessed this grade of religion in man’s ultimate control over nature. ” ( pg 59 ) He tries to play God in order to flex the Torahs of nature and do imperfectness to flawlessness. “I experience myself to the full competent to render this beloved cheek as faultless… and so. most darling. what will be my victory when I shall hold corrected what Nature left progressive in her fairest work! ” ( pg 63 ) In the terminal nevertheless. it was nature that got the last laugh when the potion that Aylmer gave Georgiana resulted in her decease.
Both Frankenstein and Aylmer are victims of the destructive captivation for scientific discipline and nature. Both work forces try to exceed to godhood and. finally. both fail. Possibly. that is why both Shelley and Hawthorne wrote similar narratives in an effort to exemplify the danger of aspiration. scientific discipline and godhood.
