Upon my first reading of “Frankenstein,” I was shocked to find that Shelley decided to conclude the novel by killing both of her main characters. Through my lens of “Frankenstein” as a tale of empathy, I believed that the death of one character or the other would allow readers to understand where our empathies should ultimately be directed toward. For instance, if Victor alone had died, readers might see a reflection of Shelley’s own survivor’s guilt as a parent, and her internal desire for her child to have lived instead of her. On the other hand, if the monster had died, we may have seen a reconstruction of Shelley’s experience in having lost her child and view Victor’s reaction to the death as an indication of her own coping mechanisms to trauma through him. Alas, the conclusion of “Frankenstein” reminds us that the novel was never meant to be a direct reflection of Shelley’s life or experience. The twisted relationship between Victor and his monster is the manifestation of the unspoken and intrusive thoughts and feelings shared by both a mother and her child, which ultimately ends with the death of both characters.
Shelley’s depressing conclusion could have been for many reasons - perhaps Victor and his monster’s death is a warning for mothers of the shame of their negative feelings toward their children, such that these feelings will only lead to horrible consequences. Alternately, it is possible that the death of Victor and his monster is the most peaceful conclusion to their relationship with one another. Their synchronized deaths could be a representation of what Shelley wished for herself, in which case readers might feel empathy for Shelley in this interpretation of the ending. Irrespective, it is clear that Shelley’s own trauma impacted her construction of Victor and his monster’s gruesome end, and I hoped to capture the peaceful auras that both characters find as they conclude the cycle of suffering and trauma sourced from their author, Mary Shelley.