Blakey 1

Courtney BlakeyENG 4930Dr. Crone-Romanovski10/27/13

Failing Fathers; Frankenstein and the Role of Fatherhood

When reading criticism on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, one could note the large amount

of feminist critiques circulating the literary world. Many critics, such as Ellen Moers and Sandra

G. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, have touched on the birthing myth, the female experience and

perspective of birth, and Dr. Frankenstein as a feminine character. These critiques do an

excellent job of suggesting in what ways the monster’s birth and upbringing in the novel

comment on a woman’s role in the child bearing and rearing processes. However, while these

criticisms are valid and intriguing, what they leave out is any focus on the role of the father in

these processes and the blatant failure of father-figures in the novel. Instead of equating Dr.

Frankenstein to a feminized mother, I argue that he is indeed a father; albeit a failed one. In this

essay, I suggest that Dr. Frankenstein, whom I will call Victor, is not only a failed father-figure,

but also the epitome of criticism against absent father-figures and the reason why the monster

truly becomes a monster. What this does is suggest how important the role of the father is in

child rearing and how a failed father, especially an absent one, leads to imbalances in children

and possibility to devious behavior.

To more deeply look into the role of the father, I will compare some psychoanalytic

critiques to the father-son relationships in the novel. Many critics have studied the effects of

fatherhood on children, including Gary Dick, which can help us to look at some different ways

that fatherhood and childhood intertwine. In The Changing Role of Fatherhood, Dick argues that

the nature of fatherhood is changing and has been ever changing because it is reflective of a

historical time and place and social and cultural forces. That said, we must look at the confines

Blakey 2

of fatherhood as it appeared in the nineteenth century when Shelley was writing the novel.

Doing so, we can develop an idea of the definitions of both a failing and a successful father and

the implications that either would have on a child. One critic, Margaret Marsh, looked into the

cult of masculinity and the shift from domesticity to masculinity in the nineteenth century and

has said, “before the entrenchment of the ideology of domesticity in the second third of the nineteenth

century, fathers had maintained a large role in family government, but in the earlier period the emphasis

was on obedience, discipline, and the importance of the father's role as head of the household” (13).

With this idea, we can infer that a successful father in the early nineteenth century was one that

had authority as the “head of the household” but didn’t necessarily involve himself in the

domestic sphere as he would have been seen to do in later years. Here, the father’s main roles

were to exact rules, judgments, and punishments. As suggested by both Dick and Marsh, this

role of fatherhood had evolved over time, and is still evolving, but I think it is important to place

emphasis on this definition of a successful father in the nineteenth century because it can also

help us understand the definition of a failed father. With the current definition, a failed father

would then be implied to be one that does not hold any authority in or outside of the domestic

sphere—that is one who couldn’t uphold either “obedience” or “discipline.” We will look at the

issues of failed authority when looking at Victor’s father further on, but it is crucial to see that

according to this definition none of the fathers in Frankenstein can be coined as “successful

fathers” even though some seem to begin to engage more so in the domestic sphere.

Writing about the present time period, Dick takes a psychoanalytical approach to show

how the role of father is socially constructed and the ensuing effects of fatherhood on children.

He argues that the father functions in a way that provides “important psychological sustenance”

that greatly impacts the child and the child’s sense of self (3). This statement directly links the

Blakey 3

idea of the father with being responsible for the well-being of his child because whether he

intends it or not, he provides the psychological sustenance that will make up how his child will

see him or herself. In The Changing Role of Fatherhood, Dick cites several instances of failing

fathers to be such as those who neglect and/or reject, abuse, or abandon their children. He states

that:

[R]egardless of whether the father was unknown, dead, living in the home, or

abandoned the child, the one dynamic that crosses all forms of father loss is that

the father is unavailable as a selfobject and therefore fails to contribute psychic

energy toward the psychological self-structure of the child. 7

What Dick proposes by the idea of selfobject is being linked to the internal development of how

one establishes “self.” This means that the father’s identity also determines that of the child’s

because the child bases some aspects of “self” on the father. In accordance to determining self,

Dick also proposes that when there is “paternal deprivation,” or abandonment by father whether

he is “unknown,” “dead,” etc., the child is affected by a faucet of possible scenarios such as low

self-esteem, sense of loss, Oedipal fantasies, aggressive behavior, and loss of empathy (3, 5-6).

In the novel, we see that Victor voluntarily rejects the role of his father when he feels rejected by

his father because his father disapproves of his studies and sends him away to school at

Ingolstadt (Shelley, 25). After being “rejected” by his father, Victor’s behavior throughout the

novel can seem devious enough in his inability to place any blame on himself and his desire to

pursue forbidden sciences and mysteries. In this line of thought, we can attribute Victor’s bad

choices, such as not opting to kill the monster from the beginning, keeping the monster secret,

and allowing others to pay for the crimes of the monster, to his psychology of being an

“abandoned” child.

Blakey 4

By looking at both Victor’s relationship with his father and the monster’s relationship

with Victor, we may be able to pinpoint preexisting attitudes about fatherhood and how a

“failed” father can lead to faulty sons. Though Victor begins his tale with a wonderful account of

his father, he is friendly, loving, and respectable (Shelley, 18-19), he shortly thereafter begins to

blame his father for most of his misfortunes. In fact, he implies that had his father “taken the

pains” to suggest a better route of study, he may never have been in the predicament of creating

the monster in the first place (Shelley, 22). This is, after all, because the study of natural

philosophy is where Victor’s enthrallment began and how he eventually came to study and

ascertain the secrets of producing life. When he first began to read Cornelius Agrippa, a

disreputable choice of scientist as most in the novel declare, Victor’s father did little to dissuade

him from pursuing Agrippa’s subject matter other than insisting that he not “waste his time” on

that “sad trash.” This may seem disapproval enough; however, Victor recalls this scene

somewhat differently:

If, instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me, that the

principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded, and that a modern system of

science had been introduced, which possessed much greater powers than the

ancient, because the powers of the latter were chimerical, while those of the

former were real and practical; under such circumstances, I should certainly have

thrown Agrippa aside, and which my imagination warmed as it was, should

probably have applied myself to the more rational theory of chemistry which has

resulted from modern discoveries. It is even possible, that the train of my ideas

would never have received the fatal impulse that led to my ruin. 22

Blakey 5

Here, Victor clearly states that if his father would have been able to exercise better authority of

him and his choices, he would “certainly have thrown Agrippa aside” and rendered his

intellectual pursuits to a better-suited science, like chemistry. Instead, he ignores his father’s one

time plea and continues on with his own “fatal” intentions, which eventually leads to his “ruin.”

An interesting dynamic to analyze here is the issue of authority. Consequently, looking back to a

time period which suggested that maternity held sole responsibility and culpability inside the

home (domesticity in the early nineteenth century) especially in regards to child rearing, the

paternal figure of the household always held the authority or, as Marsh says, was head of the

household. What the father said was what was done despite being in or outside of the domestic

sphere, and when ignored there was surely discipline to be had. Sadly, Victor’s father does little

to stop him from pursuing bad sciences; which includes his failure to logically reason with

Victor on why such sciences should not be studied. Victor’s failure to do as his father suggests

could be based on the fact that in the first place it was only suggested and not demanded. In a

later instance Victor says, “my father was easily induced to comply; for a more indulgent and

less dictatorial parent did not exist upon earth” (Shelley, 109). Here, we may link discipline with

dictatorial because a dictator exacts punishment and holds others under strict compliance.

Though no one wants a dictator for a father, the nineteenth century definition of a successful

father, as we saw, is one that carries out discipline and requires obedience. Therefore, because

Victor’s father is too “indulgent” (or perhaps complacent), he is a failed father-figure. In that

case, Victor is almost right for blaming his father for not more fully putting a stop to his reading

of alchemy because his father’s failure to do so is the failure of authority and thus fatherhood all

together. This failure of authority also can be seen as Victor’s father becoming an absentee

father, for while physically present, he yields no control over his son at all. After this point,

Blakey 6

Victor chooses to totally disregard his father and make his own choices, including the choice to

hide his monster-making from his father.

Similarly, the issue of an absent father, or one with no authority, also comes into play

with the idea of being rejected by the father. In Frankenstein, Victor feels rejected by his father

early on in life when he is sent to Ingolstadt. His arrival at Ingolstadt closely follows the death

of his mother, and he begins to feel as if his place at the university is actually a place of isolation.

“I was now alone. In the university, whither I was going, I must form my own friends, and be

my own protector. My life had hitherto been remarkably secluded and domestic; and this had

given me invincible repugnance to new countenances” (Shelley, 27). At Ingolstadt, Victor was

cut off from his family and from familiarity. He left the “domestic” life of the country in Geneva

to the populated university life where he chose not to make new acquaintances but to seek out

churchyards instead. The text suggests that his pursuit of the churchyard and the mysteries of

life stems from the death of his mother; however, what is interesting is that the novel also shows

this as a result from the loss of father as well. At school, Victor is cut off from any remaining

authority or influence his father might have, and thus is free to live by his own ideals of right and

wrong. His devious behavior is that of studying graveyards and dead bodies to learn the

mysteries of life that none should be privy too. In a way, this could be seen as direct defiance of

his father as we recall that Victor’s father calls this type of science both “sad trash” and a waste

of time. Along the way, Victor completely disassociates with his life back home, especially his

father, and forms his own authority and influence. (Notably, he also picks up the vices of pride

and flattery along with his newfound authority and influence.) When he finally creates the

monster, he becomes the ultimate pinnacle of authority as he becomes a father in his own right.

Blakey 7

William Veeder argues that Victor ultimately fulfills the “negative Oedipus complex”

because instead of killing the father to get to the mother he essentially (metaphorically) kills the

father in order to become the father of himself (Veeder, 16). In this claim, Victor creates the

monster in order to make himself the father of himself (as the monster is supposed to be a

representative of Victor) and ultimately erases his own father. This claim, though complex and

seemingly abstract, actually makes a lot of sense given that Victor not only blames his father for

much of his life occurrences but also that he sees his father as inadequate. To justify himself as a

father, Victor says:

No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a

hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal

bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our

dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy

and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the

gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve their’s. 33

In this passage, Victor not only justifies himself as a father but claims that because he can create

a whole “species” that it utterly dependent on him, no one “deserve[s]” to be called a father more

than himself. We can also see in the passage, that before the actual creation of the monster,

Victor is truly enthused about creating life and assured of the “happy and excellent natures” that

he thinks are inevitable results of this creation. Thus, in Victor’s eyes, the idea of a successful

father appears to be one that defies the “bounds” of life and death and can create “light” out of

“dark.” This type of fatherhood is quite radical from the definition of successful fatherhood that

we have so far examined and seems to be more fantastic than realistic. We can put this in stark

comparison to the roles of fatherhood that Victor acknowledges his own father to have—which

Blakey 8

mostly includes the duty of ensuring the education of his children. Indeed, Victor says, “my

father directed our studies, and my mother partook of our enjoyments” (Shelley, 24). Here,

interestingly enough, the mother is not responsible to directing her children’s education, which

might have been seen as under the hood of “domestic” duties, and is instead responsible only for

the children’s “enjoyments.” This shows one of the ways in which fatherhood might have been

evolving during this time period because we start to see the father more so enter the domestic

domain and take on more responsibilities, like education, pertaining to children. However, even

with that said, Victor still claims that he is a better father than his own, perhaps because he still

blames his father for not having enough authority and influence over him in spite of his

involvement in his life (and perhaps precisely for being responsible for his education without

warning him of the consequences of the studies he chose!).

At this point, we can begin to look at Victor’s relationship with the monster, or, more

appropriately for this argument, his son, in order to pick up the pattern of how failures as a father

render children truly monstrous. As stated earlier, Victor’s first failure of the monster is neglect

and abandonment. As soon as the monster comes to life, Victor is disgusted with him and runs

away. Here, some critics liken Victor to a mother with post-natal syndrome, but I see this

scenario as more of the panic-stricken father running away from the sudden responsibility of

fatherhood. Though we may see this often enough in modern times, we might be able to imagine

a paternal anxiety that fathers may have felt when necessity required them to submit themselves

to the domestic roles that their wives would have been occupying in the nineteenth century (such

as in the case of a death of the mother). To link this with Victor, after the “birth” of his son, he

realizes that he is the sole caretaker and responsible party of his creation and decides to flee from

his sudden obligations. He says, “I felt the bitterness of disappointment: dreams that had been

Blakey 9

my food and pleasant rest for so long a space, were now become a hell to me; and the change

was so rapid, the overthrow so complete!” (Shelley, 36-37). What sticks out here is Victor’s

resentment to the “change” that became a sudden hell to him. The change he may be referring to

could be fatherhood as a whole because fatherhood certainly is a big change for many a first time

parent. All of a sudden, the parent has to makes choices not only for his or her own better good

but for that of his or her child also. Further condemning himself in the novel, Victor not only

abandons his child after birth but also prays to escape seeing him ever again, or at least until he is

ready for revenge. As is indicated in Dick’s study on paternal deprivation, the psychology of the

son after such an abandonment would be severely altered. Dick claims, “It is especially painful

for the child when the father chooses to disengage…When a father abandons his child, the

vitalizing and soothing experiences that once could have emulated from him leave the child

vulnerable in times of uncertainty, anxiety, and fear” (7). If we study the monster’s behavior and

attitudes in the novel, we can see that he does indeed exhibit some of the negative effects Dick

proposes an abandoned child might experience.

In fact, we can see how the monster seems to be affected by the many factors such as low

self-esteem, a sense of loss, aggressive behavior, loss of empathy, and a lust for vengeance. In

regards to low self-esteem, the monster experiences his first pangs of self-loathing after he

encounters the sight of the lovely and beautiful De Lacey family. He says, “I had admired the

perfect forms of my cottagers…but how was I terrified, when I viewed myself in a transparent

pool...and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled

with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification” (Shelley, 78-79). So, not only

does the monster feel unworthy to be seen by the “perfect forms” of the De Lacey’s, which

contributes to a feeling of low self-esteem, he also admits to feeling “despondence” and

Blakey 10

“mortification” over his appearance and what he believes this appearance implies about himself;

namely, that he is a “monster”. The monster also feels a sense of loss, especially in observing

the De Lacey family, when he realizes that he does not have a father or mother, or even know of

who created him. This creates an even deeper psychological issue as it makes him question his

origin and consequently what Dick calls the “self” (Dick, 3). Understandably, these negative

feelings about the self could have caused him to act out aggressively because he is missing out of

the fundamental need of acceptance. Being abandoned by his father, which I will discuss more

shortly, the monster seeks to lash out against the fact that he has no one to look after him and

help him when others will not. His aggressive behavior includes his feelings of destruction, his

sworn vengeance against mankind, his burning of the De Lacey cottage, and eventually his

murders of William, Clerval, and Elizabeth. But the monster is not unconscious of his

aggression. After cursing his creator for his cruelness he says,

I was like a wild beast that had broken the toils; destroying the objects that

obstructed me, and ranging through the wood with a stag-like swiftness…I, like

the arch fiend, bore a hell within me; and, finding myself unsympathized with,

wished to tear up the trees, spread havoc and destruction around me, and then to

have sat down and enjoyed the ruin. 95

At this point, the monster has lost the empathy the he once felt for mankind. Now, not

only does he demonstrate his aggression, he actually “enjoy[s]” it. He declares himself a

“fiend;” one whose purpose is to “spread havoc and destruction” because he is only filled

with rage—not remorse. For once he “could not conceive how one man could go forth to

murder his fellow,” but now he is completely consumed by his “daily vows [for] revenge

—a deep and deadly revenge” (Shelley, 83, 99).

Blakey 11

But let’s take a moment to look at this more from the monster’s perspective. From the

monster’s point-of-view, readers are finally introduced to the child’s understanding of being

rejected and abandoned by a father-figure. Frankenstein’s monster grieves that he did not have a

father, never did know him, and when we has introduced into the world, he was rejected by it

also. In relating his tale to his father at last, he says, “But where were my friends and relations?

No father had watched my infant days, no mother had blessed me with smiles and caresses, or if

they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy in which I distinguished nothing”

(Shelley, 84). At this moment in the past, the monster was left not only questioning his origin

but also who and what he was. He was neglected before he could gain any concept of “self” and

so had to create his self through his experiences in the world. Unfortunately, the world was not

any kinder than his father. After the world of civilized men rejected him again and again, he lost

not only self-confidence but also hope of ever finding love and acceptance. After being shot by a

“rustic” for trying to help a little girl from drowning, the monster exclaims, “The feelings of

kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish

rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all

mankind” (Shelley, 99). With this as yet another instance of injustice towards him, the

“monster” is then truly born as all of his empathy is destroyed and he swears “eternal”

vengeance.

For all of this and more, the monster blames Victor, and we can see the monster’s acts of

violence and murder as pure vengeance against the father and the world that so hurtfully rejected

him. To the monster, Victor was both “tyrant” and “tormentor,” and the one that he would

inevitably destroy for being so (Shelley, 121). In another essay, emphasizing father-son

allusions in Frankenstein, Terry W. Thompson looks at the ways Victor and his monster are very

Blakey 12

much like the legendary King Arthur and Sir Modred. Thompson argues that Victor and his

monster are most like King Arthur and Sir Modred compared to other mythical father-son

pairings because the sire creates his own destroyer in both stories. Thompson proposes that like

King Arthur, Victor neglects his “son,” and thus the son becomes dangerous and monstrous.

According to legend, because Sir Modred was born a legal bastard, King Arthur willfully sends

his son away and refuses to acknowledge him as a son. Hurt and rejected, Sir Modred grows up

with a powerful vengeance against his father whom he ultimately plans to meet in battle and

destroy. In his essay, Thompson argues that in both King Arthur’s story and in Frankenstein the

sons seek vengeance upon their fathers for failure of “paternal duties” (3). Thomas would

suggest that the consequences of failed paternal duties lead to many possibly monstrous actions

such as murder, insubordination, and vengeance; however, I would suggest that the word

“duties” is actually calling our attention to a greater concern of gender roles. The tension of

parental duties in the novel, and elsewhere, may be arising from a shift in, as Dick would put it,

the ever-changing roles of fatherhood. In the later part of the nineteenth century, fathers were

beginning to become more involved in the domestic sphere and in the roles of educating and

raising children (Marsh, 13). In this understanding, we could look at the novel in its historical

background as possibly being one source that advocates for the change for more father

involvement at home. In particular, if we look back on the monster’s behaviors and upbringing

we could say that the novel claims that abandoned children are negatively impacted

developmentally and socially. That said, Frankenstein can be read as a cautionary tale about the

consequences of parents abandoning their children and a call for change in parental practices.

However, though Frankenstein can be seen as suggesting the consequences of parenting

in general, I must persist in saying that the novel is actually more about fathers. I say this

Blakey 13

especially in the light of the fact that there are no staying mother figures in the novel. In fact, the

only live mother in the novel is Victor’s mother who fatefully dies from scarlet fever when he is

seventeen and just about to be sent to Ingolstadt. Though it is clear that Victor loved his mother,

he doesn’t spend a whole lot of time grieving over her. In contrast, he says, “[m]y mother was

dead, but we had still duties which we ought to perform” (Shelley, 26). Again—the topic of

duties comes up, and it seems evident that both father and son-related duties must continue

regardless of death and misfortune. The other females in the novel are all young women or

children who are not yet married or mothers, such as Elizabeth, Safie, Agatha, and Justine. That

said, I would argue that the novel should be read in the context of shedding light on failing

fathers and fatherhood in general and furthermore upon the idea that women do not solely carry

the burden of childhood, such as might be suggested under the cult of domesticity or nineteenth

century patriarchy. Keeping with this argument, fathers are just as responsible and culpable for

the actions and behaviors of their sons and daughters just as Victor should be held accountable

for that of his monster. All-in-all, I would argue that Frankenstein is a novel written in one of

the interesting points of history where the role of fatherhood is evolving and old “duties” and/or

responsibilities are being called into question along with the new. With that, I believe the novel

proposes that we all take a closer look at the consequences of failing fathers and the effects they

have on their children. If not, perhaps society as a whole really could be turned into a world of

childish monsters.

Blakey 14

Works Cited

Dick, Gary L. "The Changing Role Of Fatherhood: The Father As A Provider Of Selfobject

Functions." Psychoanalytic Social Work 18.2 (2011): 107-125. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fgcu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=60675f39-

3796-4f7d-baea-ee15412e5895%40sessionmgr114&vid=18&hid=118

Marsh, Margaret. "Suburban Men and Masculine Domesticity, 1870-1915." JSTOR. The John

Hopkins University Press, 1988. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713066>.

Shelley, Mary W, and J P. Hunter. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York:

W.W. Norton & Co, 2012. 18-19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 36-37, 78-79, 83, 84, 95, 99,

109, 121. Print.

Thompson, Terry W. "Shelley's Frankenstein." Explicator 58.4 (2000): 191-192. MLA

International Bibliography. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fgcu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=24&sid=7f4794d4-97ef-

4788-9c15-

225fe2734fd2%40sessionmgr12&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

%3d#db=mzh&AN=2000059638

Veeder, William. "The Negative Oedipus: Father, Frankenstein, And The Shelleys." Critical

Inquiry 12.2 (1986): 365-390. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fgcu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=20&sid=7f4794d4-97ef-

Blakey 15

4788-9c15-

225fe2734fd2%40sessionmgr12&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

%3d#db=mzh&AN=0000315589