Summary of "Frankenstein and Radical Science" by Marilyn Butler

• "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is famously reinterpretable." It seems to fit any time period because it can be interpreted to be an allusion or allegory for different things in any time period. 

• About one year after Shelley published the novel, the public criticized it for the controversial kind of science (natural science) that it represented. It became less infamous as people gained awareness of the scientific world, because they no longer viewed it as something radical and exciting. 

• Mary Shelley wrote accurately on scientific matters, most likely because she was friends with a respected science writer, William Lawrence. He also influenced her view of man through his writings about natural science and the mechanisms or motivations of man seen in animals. Furthermore, because of this influence, many people, at one time, interpreted Shelley's work as an attack of Christianity.

• Many themes of Lawrence's natural science writings can be found in Shelley's text. For example, "mankind as a domesticated animal, pretentious but flawed." Other themes that Shelley touches on might include "heredity, fosterage and nurturance, sexual selection and the perverse adoption of choices which lead to extinction." (It's easy to see why these ideas were not entirely excepted at the time.) Also the fact that the creature attempts to nurture Frankenstein--for example when he kills a hare for him--could reflect the idea that primitive man is inevitably father to sophisticated man. 

• Lawrence was later condemned for his writings, and this left Shelley in the predicament of publishing a book with blasphemous writings. She re-published a new edition in 1831, which depicted Frankenstein as a more religious character. She also took out a lot of Frankenstein's scientific background, and the genetic material about his family. Now, people could interpret the plot of Frankenstein as they liked, because most of the obvious themes of evolutionary theory were eliminated. 

The Similar Nature of Humility Represented by Sir Gawain and Sculpture of Akhenaten

     One of Sir Gawain's most admirable traits throughout his story is his humility. He consistently lies about or conceals his virtuous acts, mainly those of strength and his courtesy, in order to avoid loftiness. In this way, Sir Gawain uses a dishonest portrayal of his character to keep himself humble in his court and his travels. Another example of humility lies in one of Ancient Egypt's most famous rulers, Akhenaten, whose honest portrayal of himself in sculpture represents a humility that is juxtaposed against the exaggerated and haughty sculptures of his predecessors. Sir Gawain and Akhenaten are therefore similar in their relatively humble views of themselves; however, they are different in that one chooses humility through dishonesty, while the other is humble in his honesty.
     Both subjects are humble in their portrayal of their own strength, as strength and power were important in both cultures. When he proposes his challenge of the Green Knight to King Arthur, Gawain de-emphasizes his strength as he proclaims, "...I am the weakest, well I know, and of wit feeblest; And the loss of my life would be least of any..."(121). The reader knows that this is false, because Gawain easily decapitates the Green Knight in the next passage. His statement was simply an example of his humility and his tendency to reject the reality of his potency.
     Similarly, any statue of Akhenaten gave him an androgynous figure with a large stomach, which was probably what he actually looked like because of starvation at that time, instead of the muscled figure that his predecessors granted themselves. Similar to Gawain's de-emphasization of his strength, Akhenaten chose to reject any method of portraying himself as powerful. The difference between these two portrayals, though, is that Akhenaten's was actually very realistic, while Gawain's was entirely false. Still the effect is the same, in that their representations give an impression of weakness.
     Further evidence of this humility lies in the cultures of each subject, which give reason to their actions. For example, Gawain is humble when describing his strength to King Arthur, because he knows he must be courteous in the face of one who is in a position of higher power than he is. It is more important for Gawain to respect the authority of another by derailing himself, than to describe his own strength, and this ideal is a reflection of a knight's code. Furthermore, Gawain's humility can be seen as a reflection of Christian morals, a religion which guided the lives and actions of knights at that time. Therefore, Gawain's self-deprecation is the result of his respect for those whom he believes have authority over him.
     Similarly, Akhenaten believed in a humbling and realistic portrayal because he was devoted to a higher power in his culture, Aten, the sun god. Akhenaten was the first king of Egypt to commit to Aten, and the ideals of divine verity that this god represented. He chose to depict himself as lacking strength, despite his need to represent power as a ruler, because he wanted to remain faithful to this deity that was greater than he was. There is discrepancy in the actions of Akhenaten and Gawain in that as a king, Akhenaten could have chosen to depict himself as he liked. Still, they both respected authorities greater than themselves, and were, for this reason, humble in their descriptions.
     The similarities between Gawain and Akhenaten with regards to their representations of themselves show a theme of humility among those with great power. For Gawain, his humility allows him to stand out as one who embodies the courtly kindness of his time, while for Akhenaten, it is a divine way to live in humility and truth. Both show a connection and also define what it means to be humble.