Perceptions and Expectations in Frankenstein

Despite having read Frankenstein before, revisiting this story on the back of Tristram Shandy, Cloud Atlas, and Northanger Abbey has unearthed some previously ignored aspects of the novel that are quite illuminating. Chief among them is this whole concept of the narrator. In the case of the previous three novels read in class, the narrator is (mostly) an actual person who is relating a story to a reader, who is either a specific person or anyone in general. Tristram Shandy, in particular, took this concept to a whole new level, with a narrator who does a terrible job at telling his life story, calling on the reader to read the book not as an autobiography, but as a story of someone who tries but fails at telling a proper autobiography.

Going into Frankenstein, a novel celebrated primarily for its horror themed plot, one expects the narrative to simply tell the story as it is. This is a story, after all, about a scientist who creates a monstrosity by dabbling into the forbidden sciences, and is thrown into a harrowing ordeal as he is tormented by his creation. What more could one ask for in a story to be drawn in? Alas, this is not necessarily the whole picture of Frankenstein.

It becomes increasingly clear within the first third of the story that there is another aspect to this story: that of one's perception of events and expectations of what lies beyond those perceptions. The monster is a scary hodgepodge of organic parts and as such Victor and the reader assume that it is inherently evil. In Chapter 7, the monster strangles William to death. A horrible thing to be sure, but is it really befitting the horrific nature of the creature? Most human beings are capable of strangling others to death. Why didn't the monster do something more grisly, like eat William and leave his mutilated remains on display? The story plays on our expectations of a monster to artificially inflate our perception of it as an unbelievably evil thing, even if its chosen manner of killing William isn't particularly monstrous.

However, on an even more implicit level, the actual narration of the story comes into question when the letters from Elizabeth and Alphonso start showing up. Throughout the narration, it is evident that Victor is narrating the events to Waldon, and not the reader. He frequently makes pauses in the middle of the story to directly address him before resuming. Therefore, as we read the story of Frankenstein, we are to assume at the same time that Victor is sitting there telling that very story to Walden as we read it. The problem is, how is it, then, that Victor can accurately recount what is said in these letters? It is hardly plausible that Victor, in his physically weakened state, is somehow able to recall every word of those letters with accuracy. As readers, we thus have to call Victor's reliability as a narrator into question, and this compromises the entire narrative as a result. Are we simply reading a story, or are we listening to a physically and mentally disheveled man recounting a story with no guarantee that his words aren't tainted by his biased perception of what actually happened?