I would like to agree with such a classification because the entire plot concentrates on the idea of quest for scientific achievement and the unpredictable consequences of reckless experiments conducted by Victor Frankenstein. I think that Mary Shelley managed to present her story from the perspective of future scientific development the pace of which could become rapid and uncontrolled. The author relies on the level of technological and scientific progress typical for the 19th century to build the plot, but she tries to look into the future and the results of intimidating scientific ambitions. In my mind, Ginn presented enough evidence in order to support her thesis statement and proved the main idea of her research …show more content…
He considers the novel not as a work relating to science fiction but as a story about the supernatural experiment with natural conclusion. It is the strong and expressive language and exciting description of events which are praised by Scott in his review but not Shelley’s view to the future from the scientific perspective (Scott, 1818). He includes the lines from the text into the article and admires the emotional filling of the book. It is clearly shown in Scott`s review that he considers the very idea of a human-creator as outrageous and unacceptable. He does not imagine that science can ever achieve such results, because it would go against the natural laws of human life. Scott is sure that a person cannot play the role of the creator in any circumstances. In my mind, it is the main point which distinguishes his critical article from Ginn’s one. Ginn believes that the novel represents the idea of scientific progress which can be possible in future and can lead to unexpected