The story of Frankenstein can be interpreted in many ways. The interpretation that I feel is the most common is the understanding that the story is a cautionary tale about the relentless pursuit of scientific knowledge and by using a perspective of cultural studies I will be able to support my feelings.
             By the end of the 18th century, the smallpox epidemic had claimed throughout Europe millions of lives and had brought on a crisis of faith within both the Catholic and Protestant churches. The formerly ungodly practices of medicinal healing were only beginning to gain acceptance in major universities as hundreds of cities were put under quarantine for their diseases and high death rates. Interdisciplinary learning within the scientific community was unheard of. If Victor Frankenstein were alive during this period, his practices would have been considered improper. Much more so than Edward Jenner's research on smallpox during the same time, this would eventually save millions of lives in 1796. Frankenstein's intentions were good, but even during this modern age of genetic engineering and cloning, the story of his creation remains entirely evil.
             Contemporary thought has allowed for great growth in genetic engineering in recent years; the evolution of science from the engine to the modern PC has occurred thousands of times faster than the evolution of our own species, from ape to human. New medications are discovered daily. However, had Mary Shelly's proposition of "playing god" been a reality in the late 18th century, and had Victor Frankenstein been able to take this dramatic shortcut in the slow process of evolution by creating life from death, the crisis between religion and science would have been definitely against science.
             Victor Frankenstein's intentions were good. He had wanted to rid the world of hereditary defects and bacterial disease by creating the perfect man. He would do this by applying electricity to the polar re...