How do Victor and the monster of Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein' act as doubles of one another?

There are a number of similarities between Victor and the monster which reflect how Shelley is trying to show them as 'doubles', a popular feature of Gothic novels, this become more and more apparent as the novel goes on, the increasing similarities are highlighted by the amount of epithets they begin to have in common. Victor calls himself ‘miserable’ and compares himself to a ‘spectre’. Both of these epithets had previously been used on the monster showing how alike they become. Also both of them are negative so it may be a reflection that Victor believes he’s becoming as monstrous as the monster.

Perhaps the most obvious way that Victor and his creation are alike is through their ‘ardent’ desires. Victor is obsessed with science and all it entails being ‘smitten with the thirst for knowledge’ at a young age with said ‘thirst’ continuing into adulthood. Similarly, the monster ‘ardently desired to become acquainted’ with the ‘godlike science’ of language. The monster’s description of language as a ‘godlike language’ shows his further similarities to Victor as he worships his ‘science’ as Victor worships his own. The difference between these two desires, though, is Victor uses his knowledge to become better than man and elevate himself to a godlike status in the ability to create life whereas the monster uses his to become equal to man as shown through his desire for people to ‘overcome the deformity of [his] figure’ when they see he speaks well. This difference is very significant because it makes their intentions much more dissimilar than they seem on the surface. Modern readers may be able to relate more with Victor’s want to be the best he can be but readers at the time would dislike Victor for his blasphemous ways and sympathise with the monster for wanting to be normal.

Another thing that Victor and the monster have in common is the comfort they find in nature. When in a stressful situation both of them escape to scenic landscapes. The use of nature and the sublime was a common feature in romantic as nature was ‘a reflection of the soul’, as believed by philosopher Emmanuel Kant, so very important to romantics to whom expressions of the soul were essential. The similarities of the monster and Victor’s feelings towards nature are highlighted plainly through their statements regarding it. Victor remarks that the ‘heavenly scene restored’ him whereas the monster comments that ‘pleasant sunshine and pure air restored’ him. The similarities in their descriptions of the restoration properties of nature, and the calmness it brings them, shows the reader clearly how alike they are.

An additional striking resemblance between them is their need for vengeance. The monster seeks revenge for his abandonment and the ‘barbarity of men’ and he does this through violence and murder, vowing his ‘eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind’. Victor also seeks revenge for said murders, swearing ‘fierce vengeance’ towards the monster. Again, within this similarity there is a stark difference. Victor wants revenge but does not actually act on this want, remaining peaceful minus harmful words to the monster. However, the monster commits murder to get what he wants shedding Victor in a more positive light. Although the monster had more of a valid reason to be vengeful to begin with, he went too far so his role reversed with Victor meaning Victor began to have more reason for revenge. This role reversal is clearly demonstrated in the National Theatre Live’s performance of Frankenstein in which the actors playing Victor and the monster switched characters regularly in order to demonstrate their interchangeableness.

The monster’s murderous vengeance could be seen as him ‘playing god’ by taking life. This is a reflection of what Victor did when he created life. Both characters hate each other for their different ways of ‘playing god’. This is shown through the monster’s despair at his creation when he exclaims ‘cursed creator! Why did I live?’ and also through his chastisement of Victor for wanting to ‘sport thus with life’ by removing the life he created. The monster’s actions of taking life are hated by Victor also and both the creation and taking of life would have horrified audiences at the time. This would have been even worse due to the fact that religion and god were being very much doubted in 1818, when Frankenstein was published, so Victor and his creation’s behaviour will have been seen as a representation of these blasphemous views.

A final way that Frankenstein and his monster are similar is through their isolation. Victor’s isolation is self imposed through his secret keeping and his rejection of his family. In this respect early Victor is much more similar to the monster than he is later. At the start Victor was ‘unwilling to quit the sight of those who remained’ to him after his mother’s death but that soon changes when he leaves to start his scientific education. The monster has isolation thrust upon him with his abnormal appearance preventing socialisation but even so it is obvious that he craves it. He considers the DeLacey family ‘friends’ despite not speaking to them and when he receives the rejection from them it symbolises to him his lonely isolated future and he realises he will never have friends or a family. This realisation is why he wants the female monster so badly and the fact he never gets her further enforces the difference between he and Victor. Victor always has his family but does not appreciate them until the monster takes them and the monster never has family and for that he blames Victor.

In conclusion, Victor and his monster are clearly doubles. As said earlier, doubling was a common feature in Gothic literature and Shelley was not the only one to implement it, it was famously used in Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Grey and Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as an embodiment of a division in the human psyche. So this supports that Victor and his monster were so similar that they were almost the same person but the differences highlighted between them represent the division of the personality. 

‘The glory invites me.’ How are feelings and ideas inspired by the natural world explored in ‘The Glory’ by Edward Thomas and how does this relate to his other poems?

The poem, ‘The Glory’, explores a number of ideas relating to the natural world. One of which is the simplistic beauty of nature, which is introduced right from the start of the poem. When Thomas lists the aspects of nature that he believes fit into the ‘beauty of the morning’ they’re not the extravagant things you may expect but instead the little things. These include the ‘untouched dew’, the ‘white clouds’ and the more generalised ‘sky and meadow and forest’. It is as if Thomas is telling us that, not only some parts of nature are beautiful but all of nature is. Thomas clearly demonstrates a deeper understanding of nature through his ability to appreciate even the smallest aspects of it. This is shown further in his other poems, such as ‘But These Things Also’. There is a striking difference between this and ‘The Glory’ which the former being a more negative outlook on nature but the thing they both have in common is that both focus on the tiny parts of nature. For example, the poem ‘But These Things Also’ discusses ‘the grass’, a ‘little snail’ and even smaller things like a ‘chip of flint’ and a ‘mite of chalk’. Both poems described highlight the small parts of nature but where ‘The Glory’ uses that to show how simple and beautiful nature is, ‘But These Things Also’ uses it to show the fragility and delicateness of nature. Thomas’ dwelling on the simplicity of nature contrasts to the evident complexity of it, this could be a reflection of him only being able to understand the simple aspects of it so can only describe those while the larger, more complicated, parts of nature elude him and he cannot describe them.

Another idea that Thomas explores in this poem is that everything is insignificant when compared to the ‘glory’ of nature. This is shown when he describes how the glory ‘invites’ him only to leave him ‘scorning/all [he] ever can do’ and be. This shows Thomas’ belief that, no matter what he does, he will never be good enough to accept natures invitation. This links to a definition of the sublime which describes it as something awe-inspiring but could provoke terror. It is possible that Thomas is feeling said terror through his feelings of insignificance, in this way the poem appears to be exploring both definitions of the sublime by showing the reader the terrific beauty that nature can be. The insignificance of things other than Thomas himself are explored in this poem as he describes how even if you ‘seek as far as heaven’ and ‘hell’ you can never gain the ‘wisdom or strength to match’ the beauty of nature. This suggests that Thomas believes humans can never be as strong as nature, nor can they ever be wise enough to fully understand it. This inability to properly comprehend nature is reinforced in the final line when Thomas describes how he ‘cannot bite the day to the core.’ This reflects his dissatisfaction with not being able to grasp the whole concept of nature which is shown earlier with his acceptance that he may have to be ‘content with discontent’. The final line, though, seems to have biblical connotations that further support the idea of the insignificance of humans by making the restriction on human understanding appear necessary and protective – perhaps to prevent human disappointment if the air of mystery surrounding nature fades and what is found is dissatisfying. The idea that humans could not handle the knowledge of nature’s secrets is also present.

Another feeling that comes across through ‘The Glory’ is Thomas’ distress at not being able to explain nature adequately. In the poem there is an undertone of desperation to poetically match nature’s glory but he feels that he fails in that aspect. In actuality, the poem is full of gorgeous imagery that gives the reader an idea of nature being glorious and unimaginable so if that is failing to ‘match’ nature’s glory then we get the suggestion that it must be even more amazing than the poem makes us imagine. The inability to effectively describe something is shown in Thomas’ other poem, ‘Words’, in which Thomas talks about how words must choose the poet. If this idea is still true in ‘The Glory’ then it could be another reflection of his feelings of inadequacy that he does not deserve the words to describe nature – he’s not deemed good enough for such words, perhaps.

Finally, Thomas talks of a ‘sublime vacancy’ which could be reflection of the emptiness or loneliness of nature or perhaps the emptiness of him, as a poet, being unable to comprehend such beauty. This adds a darker tone to the poem, as if Thomas is giving up and feels nothing he ever does will fulfil him. This links to the depression that Thomas experienced in his life. It’s possible that he’s been searching for happiness in the ‘glory’ of nature and is starting to realise he’ll never find it whatever he does or is.

In conclusion, ‘The Glory’ expresses feelings of inadequacy and lack of comprehension of anything other than the simpler aspects of nature.