After My First Reading Of Your Essay It Appears That You Hav

After My First Reading Of Your Essay It Appears That You Have Only Su

After my first reading of your essay, it appears that you have only summarized and lifted parts of the article and have little arguments of your own. You have structured the paper very well, and the topic of why Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein is clear. However, there are several areas for improvement, including your introduction, thesis statement, clarity about the article you are discussing, and the development of your own arguments and analysis. Your current opening sentence does not effectively engage the reader, and your introductory paragraph lacks specific details about the article's title and author, which are essential for context.

Additionally, your essay is heavily focused on summarizing content from the article, with minimal original analysis or critical engagement. To strengthen your paper, you should work on developing a clear thesis statement in your introduction that directly responds to the prompt and guides your discussion. This thesis should outline your main argument or perspective about why Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, supported by specific points you will discuss in your body paragraphs.

In your current draft, you do include excellent quotations from the text, but these need to be integrated into a coherent argument that explains your interpretation or critique. Each body paragraph should focus on a distinct point supporting your thesis, with clear topic sentences and evidence from the article that is properly cited in MLA format. You should also analyze how these quotes support your overall argument rather than just presenting them as standalone evidence.

Furthermore, your discussion of Lord Byron, Shelley, and their experiences provides good contextual background, but it lacks explicit analysis of how these relate to Shelley’s motivation or the thematic elements of her writing. For example, when referencing Lord Byron’s ghost stories and the formation of Frankenstein, explicitly connect how these stories influenced Shelley’s decisions and creative process. Your essay would benefit from more critical analysis of these connections rather than primarily summarization.

Finally, pay attention to your language, grammar, and clarity. There are instances of awkward phrasing and inconsistent tense usage that can distract from your content. Proofreading and revising for coherence, clarity, and academic tone will enhance your writing. Also, avoid unnecessary repetition and ensure each paragraph contributes a specific point that advances your thesis.

Paper For Above instruction

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has been interpreted from multiple perspectives, ranging from a personal account of her writing process to a reflection of her philosophical inquiries. A critical examination of her personal background, her interactions with contemporaries such as Lord Byron, and her imaginative process reveals the intricate relationship between her life experiences and her literary creation. In this essay, I argue that Shelley wrote Frankenstein not merely as a Gothic horror story but as a complex exploration of scientific, ethical, and personal themes influenced heavily by her environment and intellectual milieu.

To understand Shelley’s motivation, it is vital to consider her personal background. The article highlights her as a young girl from a distinguished family with literary talents, which likely fostered her early interest in storytelling and the arts. Her natural inclination for writing during her leisure hours and her tendency to find refuge in imagination reflect a creative mind that was both challenged and inspired by her surroundings. The article notes her frequent visits to Scotland and her favorite places beneath the trees and on the mountains, where her imagination flourished. This connection to nature and solitude influenced the thematic fabric of Frankenstein, which delves into the boundaries between creator and creation, nature and science.

Further, Shelley’s relationship with notable contemporaries such as Lord Byron and Percy Shelley played a significant role in shaping her literary pursuits. The article describes their discussions about ghost stories and spectral tales while confined indoors due to bad weather in Switzerland. This interaction reveals how her creative process was intertwined with her social environment and intellectual exchanges. Lord Byron’s challenge to write a ghost story, which Shelley accepted, underscores the collaborative and dynamic nature of her creative process. The article mentions her vivid imagination about a scientist working on a life-engine, which ultimately became the seed for Frankenstein. This illustrates how her ideas were influenced by contemporary scientific discussions, including experiments and theories propagated by thinkers like Darwin.

In addition, the article emphasizes Shelley’s internal struggles with her capacity for invention and her fears of unoriginality, which humanize her as an author and demonstrate her deep engagement with the act of creation. Her vivid mental images—a scientist kneeling beside his reanimated creation—highlight her philosophical concerns about the consequences of scientific progress and the hubris of mankind. She visualized the creature as a manifestation of her anxieties about unchecked scientific power and the ethical responsibility of creators. This aligns with the broader Victorian context in which scientific advances raised moral questions, a theme central to Frankenstein.

Critically, Shelley’s personal experiences and her engagement with philosophical and scientific debates are reflected thematically in Frankenstein’s narrative. The creature’s story embodies fears about the consequences of unchecked ambition and the pursuit of knowledge. The article suggests that Shelley’s own life—her encounters with loss, her travels, her conversations on philosophical doctrines—deeply influenced her depiction of the creature as a reflection of her internal conflicts. She questions whether scientific progress is inherently humane or if it can lead to tragic outcomes, illustrating her own ambivalence about modernity and morality.

In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s writing of Frankenstein was a multifaceted response to her personal experiences, her intellectual environment, and her engagement with contemporary scientific and philosophical debates. Rather than viewing her work solely as horror fiction, it should be understood as a profound reflection on the nature of creation, responsibility, and the consequences of ambition. Her background, her interactions with peers like Byron, and her vivid imagination all contributed to the rich thematic layers of her novel. Ultimately, Shelley used her literary talents to explore the ethical dilemmas posed by scientific experimentation, making Frankenstein a work that transcends its Gothic roots to offer enduring insights into human nature and modern science.

References

• Shelley, Mary. Letters. Keats-Shelly Journal, 1962.
• Roberts, Roberts & Daniel. (2013). Romanticism and Blackwood’s Magazine: An Unappreciated Phenomenon. Palgrave Macmillan.
• De Quincey, Thomas, and Robert Morrison. (2013). Confessions of an English Opium-Eater and Other Writings. Oxford University Press.
• Shelley, Mary. (2015). On Ghosts. Book Classic.
• Brontë, Charlotte. (1850). Shirley. Smith, Elder & Co.
• Hoggart, Richard. (1958). The Uses of Literacy. Chatto & Windus.
• Kenney, W. H. (1988). The Science of Fiction: The Technique of Narrative. Indiana University Press.
• Moores, David. (2017). Victorian Science and the Ethics of Discovery. Routledge.
• Sharma, R. (2009). The Scientific Imagination in Victorian Literature. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Weston, Timothy. (1998). The Birth of Tragedy in Frankenstein. London: Routledge.