In this essay, I will be analysing the language and structure presented within Frankenstein and The Tempest, and I will compare the ways in which monstrosity is presented in both books. Monstrosity is explored in various ways in different contexts on both books and many quotes are given to support these ideas. The definition of monstrosity is a thing which is outrageously evil or wrong.

The definition of social context is ‘the immediate physical and social setting in which people live or in which something happens or develops.’ It also includes ‘the culture that the individual was educated or lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they interact.’ In Frankenstein, the social context of this book involves the ‘aldini experiment’ which was a real experiment which took place in January 1803 in London. This event consisted the dead body of the murderer George Forster being taken to the Royal College of Surgeons, and being attempted to return the corpse to life. In the end, ‘as Aldini probed Forster’s rectrum, causing his clenched fist to punch the air, as if in fury, his legs to kick and his back to arch violently. It is clear that Mary Shelley grabbed a direct influence from this experiment in order to come up which the idea of writing this book. The Tempest on the other hand, examples of the book and play’s social context are in ‘The King’s Men” play where it was performed both at the outdoor Globe Theatre and the indoor Blackfriars Theatre and their plays would have had to work in either venue. Therefore, much dramatic effect was left up to the minds of the audience. A similar situation is given in The Tempest play when in Act II, scene i Gonzalo, Sebastian, and Antonio argue about whether the island is beautiful or barren. The bareness of the stage would have allowed either option to be possible in the audience’s mind at any given moment.

The first piece I am going to analyse is extract A : volume 2, chapter 8 from Frankenstein. In this extract, the death of Victor’s dear friend William happens and when exploring this extract we can identify strong and powerful language that adds to the equation of monstrosity. When the unnamed monster and William encounter each other, the monster thinks that William has yet to mature into the world’s aspects and is still of a baby mentality. In this case, the monster decides to ‘seize’ William, and ‘educate’ him as a ‘friend and companion’ so that the monster should ‘not be so desolate in this peopled earth’. When looking at the language associated in these sentences, we can see that the monster has used the word ‘companion’. The definition of this word is ‘a person with whom one spends a lot of time or travels with’. This is much different than that of a prisoner, and I believe the reason Mary Shelley has used this word is to indicate that the monster did not have any bad intentions of seizing young William. If anything, attempted to develop a friendship between the two in hope of survival in this cruel retched world, which had rejected his presence. In my opinion, I don’t believe the idea of monstrosity lies only upon the obvious idea of the ‘monster’s physical appearance’. William’s disgust towards the presence of the monster is also a example of monstrosity, and an example of this is in his reaction in the extract where it says “I seized on the boy as he passed, and drew him towards me. As soon as he beheld my form, he placed his hands before his eyes, and uttered a shrill scream”. The language in this sentence is significant because it proves that monstrosity is not only dedicated towards physical appearance but