In analyzing Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, overemphasis is given to the relationship between Victor and his creation, while ignoring the surrounding cast of characters. This overemphasis skews moral and philosophical analysis of both Victor and his creation; as characters such as Elizabeth, Clerval, and Justine pose important moral questions in relation to the text, as well as to Victor and the monster themselves. For this response, we will focus on the character of Clerval.
An easily overlooked character in analyzing Frankenstein is that of Henry Clerval. In contrast to both Victor and the Monster, Clerval seeks distinction on the ethical merits of his actions, as opposed to scientific distinction or the monster’s desire for approval. Victor states of Clerval, “(that) “his hope and his dream was to become one among those whose names are recorded in story as the gallant and adventurous benefactors of our species” (Shelley 31). This places Clerval as an interesting foil to both Victor and the monster – Clerval provides a gallant, almost satirical standard by which to measure both. The parody-like nature of Clerval is not lost on Shelley; in later stages of the novel, Clerval’s newfound interest in science causes Victor to note, “in Clerval I saw the image of my former self” (Shelley 170). Clerval’s pure appreciation of science and nature provides a stark contrast to Victor’s twisted understanding. In relation to the monster, Clerval represents everything he is not – well bred, attractive, and universally welcomed.
However, Shelley’s ultimate note on Clerval is subdued – his death becomes a quick after-note in the rapidly unfolding conflict between Frankenstein and the monster. While it’s much better handled in a response of greater length, Clerval poses an interesting moral standard by which to measure both Frankenstein and the monster.