After many bus rides to and back from work, I have finally managed to finish Frankenstein. Probably one of the first observations I made about it was how much it felt more-so science fiction than gothic/romantic (as it is usually referred as).  I had some trouble staying tuned into the story at times (although bumpy bus rides probably didn’t help my focus…). Mary Shelley’s prose was first person, but often second or third hand (one person telling another person’s story who was then telling yet another story). Nevertheless, it did make for compelling reading at times. Secondarily, whilst the monster’s creation and subsequent actions have influenced the plot well, the story is focused on the life of Victor Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, and his family. I have yet to see a movie rendition that focuses on this, not to say there isn’t one out there, but if you mention the name “Frankenstein” it is more often than not referred to as the monster rather than the man who created him.

Probably one of the biggest problems I had was that I did not relate to any of the characters probably because none of them had any redeeming qualities. Victor Frankenstein came off as arrogant and thought he could play God by “creating” a creature from bits and pieces of the dead and revived via lightning. The way he removes himself from the people that care about him (Elizabeth for instance) and drowns in his frantic pursuit of knowledge is heartbreaking. The creature had every opportunity to learn right from wrong and appeared to have done so, but ultimately let revenge and self-pity rule over his decisions. The cumulative havoc the two cause to those around them is shocking and pretty inexcusable. Whilst the characters can be sometimes relatable, I feel like the strength of the book lies through its conveyance of themes, and as Mary Shelley seems to promote (subtle, we elaborated on this in the seminar…), I may have benefited from giving the book a second read.

Nonetheless, it was pretty enjoyable. It wasn’t the most thrilling piece of literature we have read in Arts One, but again I tend to enjoy philosophical texts a bit more….

This isn’t the first time I’ve read Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus, but it also isn’t the first time I’ve found it enjoyable. Both readings I found the first 70-80 pages as a crawl, but really heated up after the Monster becomes apparent to Victor.

A teacher of mine once mentioned how Frankenstein is arguably the first piece of Science Fiction to which I’d have to agree, although it’s not too significant in my opinion. The novel makes some mention of broad terms such as “Galvanism” and Alchemy as tools for the production of Victor’s man, but never goes into grave detail of how he sparked the lifeless body parts to function and spring to life a conscious being. To be fair, you can’t expect Mary Shelley to make a realistic depiction of the complex task creating life. In fact, majority of science-fiction simply slaps on scientific elements and words like Doctors, laboratory’s, beakers and of course the word “science” itself to give it a false sense of realism. The only thing that differs the fantasy genre and the science fiction genre is that fantasy is modest enough not to attempt to explain any of it’s super naturally occurring elements, while science fiction pretends to. But more importantly, the story of Frankenstein serves as a cautionary tale for mankind’s “forbidden flame” of creation through modern science.

Since the 1960s and the rise of knowledge of Human and Animal genetics, mankind is now in possession of being “Gods”. Cloning and genetic engineering is being attempted and advanced rapidly. Worst of all, there’s a likely possibility that despite firm international legislation, human cloning (Genetics wise, NOT the identical replication kind) is likely taking place all around the world. Every piece of produce we buy at the supermarket can be properly deemed “Frankenfood”, it has undergone selective genetic hybridization and conditioning. We can now control our food and environment surrounding us on a massive scale. The most horrifying revelation is we are on the brink of defying natural law with stem cell-research and our ability to recreate organs than mankind could never naturally reproduce or heal. Is this for the better of mankind or are we walking a fine line of playing God and overstepping our boundaries? How much control can we exert before civilization as a whole resembles nothing as it does today. It would be unfair to lead this slippery slope I’m describing to the ultimate conclusion of a dystopic society identical to Brave New World, but it could potentially lead to an outcome bearing some similarities.

Just reflect how far mankind has come within the last century. The automobile Flight, Space Travel, the Human Genome Encoded, Division of the Uranium Atom and Nuclear intercontinental weapons. Cloning and even synthetic organisms like microscopic nano-machines have been created. It’s evident our knowledge and capabilities is exponentially growing. Just how long will it be before a mother and father will be able to talk to there doctor about whether or not they want their child to be a blue eyed boy and with the body of an athlete? Perhaps I’m too paranoid, but I still pray to God or whatever force lies out there that such a day will never come.

When I was younger I went through a phase where I only read old British and American classics. While I read most of them somehow Frankenstein managed to slip through the cracks. Perhaps it was because I wasnt sure what horrors I would find (considering the fact that every cartoon had a Frankenstein mockery running around destroying things and the only image I had in my mind was of a large man running around with bolts in his neck in black and white) so when reading the book I was largely unprepared for the actual text. Everyone I know whose read Frankenstein love the book and I didn’t expect myself to like it as much as I did because when everyone loves something you start the book with certain expectations and more often than not those expectations are not met. However Frankenstein is one of those novels where whole paragraphs resonate and you are so intrigued by the whole book that putting it down is not an option.

I especially like Shelley’s way of writing because she turns descriptions into beautiful images through her use of words. Shelley also has a way of making you feel both pity for the “creature” and horror at what he does. Shelley has created a character so complex that on one hand he is an innocent and extremely lonely infant almost and on the other he is a cruel and diabolical monster of sorts. Perhaps if he was only feared and not isolated he would have resembled the Greek gods in his immaturity and immense power – a combination which is frightening in any form. Frankenstein himself is the creator of this being and his actions show us the consequences faced by any man who tries to become and behave like a god. Frankenstein is not only a book about monsters and the creator vs the creation but it is also about consequences and the cruelty of humanity. We all say and behave as if we would not isolate a creature because of its appearance but would instead judge it based upon its actions and, until the murder of William, the creature does not do any harm to anyone and he even helps out the De Lacey’s in their poverty. Frankenstein himself could not bear to look upon his own creation and I find that incredibly sad because the creature was his responsibility and perhaps if he had gotten even an ounce of love or kindness from anyone he might not have been as monstrous as he appeared.

Before having read this story, my only mental image of Frankenstein was a green monster who yelled unintelligibly and chased people around. But clearly the story has more much to it. It is interesting to look at this book and attempt to identify who the true monster in the story really is. The “monster” could be classified as a monster because he killed people, or because he is an outcast from society. But is he really the monster? Or is Victor the monster for creating such a creature? Victor decided to play the role of the creator, and made a beastly-looking animal without thinking about the potential consequences. Victor neglected to realize that any humanly thing, no matter how grotesque, will benefit from or even need some sort of companionship.

Victor created this monster and practically abandoned it out of fear. Between being cast off by society and also finding Victor’s notes about his disapproval of his existence, the monster felt isolated and lonely in the world. In my opinion, Victor Frankenstein could be classified as even more of a monster than the “monster” himself. He went against the rules of nature and created his own human, and then allowed the creature to roam free and kill people that he cared about. And was also too afraid of being labelled as a lunatic to fess up and tell people what he had done, even allowing someone else to be executed for a murder that he had an indirect hand in.

I found it interesting that the monster was able to pick up on the human’s language so quickly, and seemed to actually be a moralled person who later regretted his monstrous ways. I found the story as a whole very interesting.

            Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was a better read than the first time round. When I was in grade 11 I feel that I wanted to dislike the book to prove the point that Romantic literature is boring. Needless to say now that I am not the biggest fan of Romantic literature; however, the second time reading Frankenstein it was not as bad as I initially received it. Also I figured out exactly why I do not like it. I have to say Frankenstein has to be my least favorite character of all time. Sure you can say he is an anti-hero and he made a mistake playing with life and death. But really, what did he think was going to happen when he stitched together corpses? That they would magically make him into a perfect being? And also, what is up with all the running away. Sure his monster is pretty horrific and not too nice, but he did make him. Maybe if he stuck around and taught him stuff his monster would not have gone on and murders his family and other people. But then again, nurture versus nature… Which I have to say I am not completely sure it is nature. I feel that Frankenstein’s monster could be capable of being nurtured into an upstanding loving citizen, as shown through the part of him watching over the activities of that family. He grew to love, and when they did not love him he went out of control. I am not advocating that Frankenstein should have complied with his wishes, and I understand he was upset when he made the monster, but I do think he should have taken responsibility to look after him. Or attempt to. Also, it is not only his relationship with the monster and his way of running away when the going gets tough, there is just something else I do not like about him.

            Anyways, my favorite part in the whole book was how Mary Shelley shows you a bit of humanity in the monster as he grows to love and learns what is love. That is not to excuse his behavior later in the book; however, I like how she brings out the monster in him. Definitely not the Frankenstein story I was hoping for. But then again, maybe I just like clichéd stories.

Oh Rousseau, so poetic but almost to a fault. Throughout reading his discourse my opinion on his ideas changed between agreement and confusion at his claims. His statements on evolution morph between questions to statements that are incredulous to me. He says “how can scarcity drive men to cultivate the land unless the land is divided among them; that is to say, until the state of nature has been abolished?”  However, if man during his state of nature lived among wild animals (such as packs of wolves, or coyotes, or bears), in theory he would have had to learn about territory and division of land before interacting with other “humans”. As other animals mark and protect their territory, I assume it would have become apparent after sometime that the animals have their own space they don’t want taken away or trespassed upon. Man’s understanding of a division of land would have started with his instinct and understanding of how to survive amongst wild creatures and therefore would have developed an understanding of the importance of dividing the land.

I realize that there are faults in these thoughts, but I just can’t agree with his theory that the state of nature was as peaceful and calm as Rousseau depicts it because of the wildness of nature. He claims every other creature is exactly the same over the course of thousands of years and never changes, but how can mankind be just as much of a warm-blooded creature as the rest, and be the only animal to have evolved? Yes, humans have made huge leaps in evolution that make all the difference between us and wild animals, but contradictory to what Rousseau claims, an animal/species will change and evolve over the course of a thousand years (although minimally).

Rousseau has interesting thoughts to read, and I have enjoyed reading them but also have difficulty with taking him seriously after certain statements/claims he makes. Kevin, although I challenged you on your own blog post, after writing my own I understand what you were aiming for by deconstructing Hobbes and Rousseau’s theories of “laws”. Rousseau’s understanding of evolution has made me wonder if science has really changed so much of our understanding of the world today, then it did all those years ago.

After finishing Rousseau, I’m still not sure if I enjoyed reading his discourse. The poetic moments were a nice break, but don’t make up for some of his statements.

I have to say, Frankenstein was quite depressing.  Over the years, I’ve watched many adaptations, read many different versions, but the original story, while extraneously wordy at times was very depressing.  I found myself sympathizing with the monster at times and feeling repulsive at Frankenstein for his selfish actions.  Yet at the same time, I don’t find the monster innocent.

Frankenstein the Monstrous God?  Well that’s what Frankenstein did.  He played God and created life.  And some would argue, that like ‘God’ he released his creation into society and did nothing to help him.  Moreover, as much as Frankenstein may deny it, he had a fundamental role in shaping the monster into what he is.  For Frankenstein refused to even help the monster, attempting to destroy it.  Although his reasons were valid in a sense, they were motivated primarily by revenge.  Which kind of brings up how he could be any type of impartial god because he has emotions and is heavily influenced by them, but did not Zeus or Poseidon have emotions?  Thus, in a sense, Frankenstein was God of his monster, influencing almost everything that he did because of the way he created him and how he dealt with him.

The Monster, as he is known… the question that probably is most hotly debated is whether it is his fault or society’s fault or Frankenstein’s fault.  Well… I believe a lot of the blame is can be portioned to Frankenstein, but I am very aware that the monster made his own decisions.  The monster was kind, intelligent and at times, very compassionate.  However, he is also very vengeful.  The rage that led him to murder Elizabeth, William, Clerval and frame the murder on an innocent woman… That type of reasoning and decision making I detest.  Could not the monster have stood up against society’s taunting of him and did he have to succumb to the curse Frankenstein placed on him?  He had a choice.  While the choice may have been extraordinarily difficult and the manner of pressure placed upon the monster great, did the monster not admit he was monstrous?  It’s not a hard line evidence because just because he thinks he himself is monstrous doesn’t mean he is, but I find that although the monster, may have been born innocent, he certainly succumbed to society, to his curse to prove himself truly a monster.

That being said, I also think that society played a vital role in creating Frankenstein and The Monster.  Society, is the mirror that created the two monsters  Society at Frankenstein’s time made him push the limits, advance beyond what was deemed morally acceptable leading to him regressing his morals and creating life.  The Monster, was scorned by society, which reflected him as a monster, so much that the monster, became one in action and in appearance.

Comments are appreciated, sincerely,

Vincent

Frankensteinis one of those books that really just tugs at my heartstrings. It truly makes me upset reading it, almost to the point of tears. I read this a while back, and rereading it left me with the same emotions…

The reason I say this, is because the tale of the monster just is so heartwrenching to me. Although he causes so much destruction and devastation, it does not stem from an innately evil cause. It simply derives from a longing to be loved, to feel that another individual has some remote sense of care for you. I can’t consider the creature to be the true monster in this story, simply because he acts out due to an unsatisfied basic human desire; compassion and social interaction. He’s very comparable to a child, lashing out and misbehaving all to get attention. It actually makes sense, this analogy, as the monster is in his supposed youth when he begins to cause mass chaos, for he can think of no other way to deal with his emotions.

When we hear the creature’s account where he observed that loving family in the mountaintops, it truly evokes a very innate, natural sense of the need for companionship. All Frankenstein’s creature wants is love, yet the world cannot look past his grotesque external characteristics to see the individual inside. It truly portrays the shallow nature of humanity. In fact, it seems that Victor Frankenstein and all the others who abhor the creature are the true monsters. If they had merely put aside their external perceptions and focused on the truth of the matter, that the creature merely longs for affection, then no harm would have come to anyone. It truly speaks about human nature, and our pathetic judgment of others based solely on the most trivial things, such as appearance, religion, gender, etc. Frankenstein isn’t so much a story about monsters, but rather about the shallowness of humanity. I completely sympathize with the creature, although his actions are terrible, because not only is he cast out of society, he is made to feel like a demonic being. Can anyone blame him for reacting?

Although I don’t condone the actions of the creature, they are perfectly understandable, and I will always sympathize with him. He truly wasn’t the demon, but the society that shunned him. How can they blame him for what they started? He merely fought back against their mistreatment.