Shelley's Frankenstein : your views

[j d worthington]

And also,theres only SO MUCH you can get out of a study of one book in 190 years.

Afraid I can't agree with that. We're still discovering new ways to look at Shakespeare and Chaucer, let alone Mary Shelley (or Lovecraft), where it's a much shorter period....

 

[Lobolover]

I dont mean from her whole life and input-I mean from one book.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Lobolover, I think some of the writers you mention write books better at producing the thrill of horror, the writing is more vivid and colorful, and the authors are more skilled at producing indelible images -- but that's what they are, images, and somewhat static, compared to the ideas and discussions that Frankenstein generates.

Professors of literature tend to be more interested in the ideas and discussions -- as well as books that bring up questions about the human condition, rather than celebrate the human imagination. (Of course there are writers like Poe whose works fit into both categories.) I think you can teach students to appreciate ideas, but how they respond to creativity is more personal. There are some things we do better to explore on our own.

 

[Lobolover]

Believe me,thats not why the only horror novel of whose existence they know is Frankenstein-its because it looks "edycated" to mention it,but it looks "un-edycated" to mention anything else.You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher (BY that teacher) and my curent literature PROFESSOR said she "isnt intersted" and chuchling said she doesnt think that horror has any quality.

 

[MontyCircus]

Unlike Dracula, which really ground to a halt as it came to the end, Frankenstein was fun throughout.

I have no idea why you have a problem with him learning quickly. This is the story about a dude who stitches bits of corpses together, reanimates it with...I don't think it was lightning in the book...wasn't it chemicals or something? Or was that Lovecraft. Anyway, it ends up being a super-strong, super-agile, super-intelligent being the likes of which the world has never seen.

But he learns to read quickly and you laugh. What?

That's like being halfway through a Star Trek movie and suddenly bitching about one particular advanced technology and its infeasibility (I see warp speed, I see holodecks, I see transporters, I see photon torpedoes...but PHASERS??? That's just silly!)

I really liked that particular bit, it's basically the most important part of the story. He really grew to love that family, and felt a part of it. But they attacked him. It was kind of like Kafka's Metamorphosis...in reverse...or something.

Sorry, I didn't do a thesis on Frankenstein or the history of 19th Century Gothic writing, so I'll leave all the uber-analysis to others. For me, I'll just say that there are a lot of old dusty classics out there, but I would define Frankenstein as an enjoyable read.

 

[MontyCircus]

Believe me,thats not why the only horror novel of whose existence they know is Frankenstein-its because it looks "edycated" to mention it,but it looks "un-edycated" to mention anything else.You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher (BY that teacher) and my curent literature PROFESSOR said she "isnt intersted" and chuchling said she doesnt think that horror has any quality.

hehe, she sounds like you asked her to watch the latest Saw movie. But even still, I'm sure there are film buffs that think Psycho is the only horror flick worth mentioning.

Casually dismissing an entire genre of literature. Wow. No matter how many degrees someone has, anyone that close-minded is an idiot and a robot.

You should tell her you don't think her classes have any quality, and back it up with plenty of footnotes and quotes

 

[Lobolover]

also,if anyone should get that impresion-I do NOT hate the novel,I just hate the over ratedness brought on by some critics.

 

[Lobolover]

Well,I kinda like her,shes sort of-weird and I mean WEIRD-she sways around class on the desks,rapidly exhales suddenly and has a tendency to not say almost anything during class and when giving a punishment,she gives one IMPOSSIBLE to get-like rewriting an article published in one issue of a daily newspaper published a week ago.

But yes,she kind of-cant handle her classes too much.

 

[Lobolover]

This also reflects the fact she didnt WANT to teach literature,but physics originaly,and had to consede to teaching literature.The school librarian and teacher,who has far better lectures (I listened to one between an empty door frame),she stil is sort of-off topic,if you get my meaning.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You may not have that experience, but I sure have-ive been looked on as short of a freak when I mentioned a horror novel OTHER then Frankenstein to a literature teacher.

Probably the teacher was just weary and impatient because you were about the 10,000th student who made the suggestion that you ought to be studying something else.

And arguing with students who think they know better than the entire academic community can be an endless process. They're never satisfied, no matter how carefully the teacher explains the reasons why a certain book was chosen and not another. Being dismissive is a more effective way to bring the conversation to a close, thereby allowing the teacher to get on with his or her work.

 

[Lobolover]

Oh,ive talked to her several times.I know her quite well,people say that around the institution,im omni-present-I spend alot of time talking to teachers.Anyway, she realy doesnt get too many sugestions for anything in particular to study,in fact,im the only one to do so as far as I know.

 

[Fried Egg]

I just finished reading this yesterday and whilst I liked it, I thought it could have been much better.

It seemed to me that the intention of the author was to impose a dilemma upon the reader as to who to sympathise with more, Victor or the beast. That the balance of sympathy should shift from one to the other as events unfolded and facts became revealed. I did not feel that dilema. From the moment the beast was created and promptly abandoned to the moment on Victor's death bed when he looks back on his life and re-affirms he did the right thing, my sympathies lay firmly with the beast.

If it had been more of a dilemma, I would have enjoyed this book far more. It is interesting to read HoopyFrood's comments on how he/she sympathised far more with Victor. To me, Victor was far more annoying. Despite the fact that Mary took great pains to paint him as someone highly regarded and deeply loved by the people that knew him, he came accross to me as completely self-obsessed and pathetic.

Nor did this strike me as an SF or horror story. Or at least the emphasis was not on thos elements but instead on the interplay between Victor and the beast and their emotional turmoil.

 

[AE35Unit]

I think the continuing appeal and status of this book is due to the whole legendary status imbued upon the story due to all the films made by hollywood. Plus the fact of its genesis- written by a famous poet's other half. The myth and The legend has become bigger,more important than the story which it overshadows.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I just finished reading this yesterday and whilst I liked it, I thought it could have been much better.

It seemed to me that the intention of the author was to impose a dilemma upon the reader as to who to sympathise with more, Victor or the beast. That the balance of sympathy should shift from one to the other as events unfolded and facts became revealed. I did not feel that dilema. From the moment the beast was created and promptly abandoned to the moment on Victor's death bed when he looks back on his life and re-affirms he did the right thing, my sympathies lay firmly with the beast.

If it had been more of a dilemma, I would have enjoyed this book far more. It is interesting to read HoopyFrood's comments on how he/she sympathised far more with Victor. To me, Victor was far more annoying. Despite the fact that Mary took great pains to paint him as someone highly regarded and deeply loved by the people that knew him, he came accross to me as completely self-obsessed and pathetic.

Nor did this strike me as an SF or horror story. Or at least the emphasis was not on thos elements but instead on the interplay between Victor and the beast and their emotional turmoil.

Surely this novel is SF in it's purest form? The furthestmost boundaries of science are explored by the author in creating a life from dead matter ;and this is no ordinary being , but a creature of immense intelligence and power and cunning.The novel explores what happens when the scientist plays at God, in this case a scientist with no morals or scruples.

In my opinion , this is such a brilliant story because it can be interpreted on so many different levels. None of the characters - Victor, the Creature or Walton the narrator - are portrayed in a good light ; all are selfish , egotistical and unable to empathise with others. Shelley explores the results of breaking God's laws by creating life , and also the development of thet resultant life when it realises not only that it's God is immoral and unethical but also that it is uncaring - even hateful - of it's continued existence.

 

[Dave]

I never had the opportunity to study this in an English Literature class, but I had always wanted to and found it on sale for £1.99!

Surely this novel is SF in it's purest form? The furthestmost boundaries of science are explored by the author in creating a life from dead matter ;and this is no ordinary being , but a creature of immense intelligence and power and cunning.The novel explores what happens when the scientist plays at God, in this case a scientist with no morals or scruples.

Scientific advances make more things possible everyday. There are still frequent moral arguments about whether we "should" attempt something just because it is now possible. Stem Cell Research using tissue from embryos would be one example. So, this is a very relevant book even today.

I'm not sure Victor had "no morals or scruples", he did draw the line at creating a female companion and did destroy his equipment. He does endlessly seem to seek some kind of forgiveness for the murders and deaths.

The fact that the Creature self-educates from a collection of books having learned to speak by watching a family for several months (it is never explained how he actually learns to read!) is hard to swallow ; the ability for an 8 foot montrosity to make himself blend into the background and shadow his maker unnoticed is quite frankly ridiculous.

If it is Hard SF it needs to be believable. I've read JD's review of the various literary explanations for the above, and they aren't good enough really! 5/10. However, that didn't bother me that much. What I couldn't stand was the travelogue and tourist guide parts of the book. Who really cares where Victor travelled and the sights he experienced on the way, I wanted to know how he joined up arteries, attached tendons to bones and regrew nerves. the whole part of actually making the monster was quickly glossed over. If it was instead meant to be the horror story it set out to be, then it just wasn't horrific enough. I'd like to see the other two that were thrown away by Byron and Percy.

It seemed to me that the intention of the author was to impose a dilemma upon the reader as to who to sympathise with more, Victor or the beast. That the balance of sympathy should shift from one to the other as events unfolded and facts became revealed. I did not feel that dilema. From the moment the beast was created and promptly abandoned to the moment on Victor's death bed when he looks back on his life and re-affirms he did the right thing, my sympathies lay firmly with the beast.

Mine didn't! I thought that at least that part was effective, with the use of the three different points of view: Walton, Victor, Monster, Victor, and then Walton again. Though I'd agree with Victor being a pathetic character.

Overall, I enjoyed it. I disagree with AE35unit that it does not deserve its status.

 

[Connavar]

I think the continuing appeal and status of this book is due to the whole legendary status imbued upon the story due to all the films made by hollywood. Plus the fact of its genesis- written by a famous poet's other half. The myth and The legend has become bigger,more important than the story which it overshadows.

Famous poet ?

The guy is mostly famous today being her other half.

I have read historical bio about her saying in her life time she was big for other works than just Frankenstien. Thats the modern classic taste that only remembers Frankenstein.

 

[AE35Unit]

Famous poet ?

The guy is mostly famous today being her other half.

I have read historical bio about her saying in her life time she was big for other works than just Frankenstien. Thats the modern classic taste that only remembers Frankenstein.

Well yes. You see in certain circles he is recognised as a famous poet. For example many areas of Britain,and probably other countries,have what are known as Poets Corner,where each street is named after one. So there may be Wordsworth Way,Keats Avenue and,not far from where I used to live,Shelley Road. Named after Percy Byshe Shelley not Mary.
SF fans think of Mary Shelley.
Poets and readers of literature have Percy Byshe Shelley

 

[paranoid marvin]

As has been mentioned , Frankenstein is mostly remembered because of the horror flicks , which incidentally have virtually nothing in common with the themes of the novel . Rather than speaking eloquently about his internal grief , the creature is reduced to (at best) mindless grunts and groans.

The fact that the story is just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago is a tribute to the author , and one of the main reasons why it is just as interestng today as it was when written; that none of the questions raised are answered in any meaningful way mean that - unlike much fiction today - the reader has to uncover the answers for themselves - indeed to work out the questions too!

As regards the lack of gory details in relation to the creation of the creature...Well Ito my mind theerare several reasons. One is that the story - the whole story - is related by Walton in letters to his sister. Frankenstein has already told Walton that he will take his secrets to the grave. Secondly the intricaces of his work are unimportant to the telling of the story ; all that IS important is that the work is depraved and almost certainly illeagal. Most significantly Shelley was only 18 girl living in the early 19th century; her knowledge of medicine and biology would be practically non-existent.

All in my own honest opinion of course! My views on this novel have changed significantly over the last year - for the better I hasten to add! One of the great things about literature is that people can have equally valid opinions in direct contrast with each other!

 

[Connavar]

Well yes. You see in certain circles he is recognised as a famous poet. For example many areas of Britain,and probably other countries,have what are known as Poets Corner,where each street is named after one. So there may be Wordsworth Way,Keats Avenue and,not far from where I used to live,Shelley Road. Named after Percy Byshe Shelley not Mary.
SF fans think of Mary Shelley.
Poets and readers of literature have Percy Byshe Shelley

Mary Shelley is mainstream classic author. You read her along side Dickens,Poe other classics in school.

Percy might be big in UK but he isnt world famous. He isnt a Coleridge,Keats fame wise. He might be big in his movement,important. But so are many today forgotten poets.

 

[AE35Unit]

Mary Shelley is mainstream classic author. You read her along side Dickens,Poe other classics in school.

Percy might be big in UK but he isnt world famous. He isnt a Coleridge,Keats fame wise. He might be big in his movement,important. But so are many today forgotten poets.

You sure about that Con? If i ask anyone what Mary Shelley wrote they will say err Frankenstein,I then ask But what else did she write? And they will say Haven't a clue!