Shelley's Frankenstein : your views

[Nikitta]

There are several other levels on which Mary was working, as noted in this thread (not to mention nearly two centuries' worth of critical analyses...); and, while it certainly began as a "ghostly" tale, as with nearly anything else to come out of that time, it quickly took on much more significance.

One thing to consider, too, is what she may be saying here about humanity (the creature) and its god(s) (Victor) -- about the relationship we have with the concept of our own creator, and the like; the "double" theme, which runs throughout the novel (a theme she would revisit more than once during her writing career); and our treatment of the "different" among us. It's a novel which repays rereading over the years, as it (and its themes) definitely grow with one....

I will take this to heart and try to revisit it at some later point, this time not skipping any of the forewords and such which went before the story, but which I skipped a good deal of at first because I wanted to form my own impression before reading other people's take on it, if that makes sense.

 

[j d worthington]

I will take this to heart and try to revisit it at some later point, this time not skipping any of the forewords and such which went before the story, but which I skipped a good deal of at first because I wanted to form my own impression before reading other people's take on it, if that makes sense.

Yes, it does. I think the majority of people -- even those who read such things -- tend to skip them until after reading the fiction itself these days (and perhaps the majority always have done so). For many, this allows them, as you say, to form their own impression first, and then compare it to that of others, either agreeing or taking issue with the other interpretations, but nonetheless often finding more enjoyment in both the literary work and the work about it as a result. (I'm one of those oddballs who reads everything, and in the "proper" order, from start to finish -- including all the front matter, notes, etc.... which can lead to some interesting experiences when I read different editions of the same work....)

Speaking of that last... what was the edition you read? Was it taken from the original (1818) text, or the later (1831) revised text? There are some differences: the earlier version is often a bit rougher around the edges; it is somewhat more sensational and melodramatic; and so on; but there are few major differences (if any). Still, I'd be interested in your reply, if you know....

 

[Nikitta]

Speaking of that last... what was the edition you read? Was it taken from the original (1818) text, or the later (1831) revised text? There are some differences: the earlier version is often a bit rougher around the edges; it is somewhat more sensational and melodramatic; and so on; but there are few major differences (if any). Still, I'd be interested in your reply, if you know....

They kindly inform me on the back of the book that it's based on the third edition of 1831.

 

[Jeffbert]

Sorry for reviving such an old topic, but I do have some to add:

I took a course called CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE, & FRANKENSTEIN a critical edition was the main book. I had no idea there could be so many different interpretations! Anyway, as I recall, one was an anti-Calvinist (not & Hobbes) view, something along the lines of the scientist made the monster just to see if it was possible to do so, & having succeeded, cast him away, because he was ugly (an understatement). As I see it, the implausibility of the creation of the monster is no more an issue than Gulliver finding a nation of tiny people (Lilliputians) or giants (forgot what they were called), as that story was clearly an allegory, so too, this one.

Victor refused taking any responsibility for creating the wretch, as though he had nothing to do with it, and constantly denied the monster's requests for his help/support. So, the Creator made us, casts us out of his sight, & damns us to an existence apart from Him.
Victor of Aveyron, a young boy found living in the wild in France, who was befriended by a scientist, who became famous because of him. But the man eventually cast him away, as he had gotten all the fame he could get. The boy was assumed born in 1788 & captured about 1800, & likely would have been known by MS when she wrote F; perhaps she named the scientist Victor in homage to Victor of Aveyron. The boy was about 11 and though the man tried to educate/tame him, he could only do so much, because the boy had lacked the appropriate human contact during his formative years, & nothing could make up for it (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron?qsrc=3044). So, the wretch, being thrust away, & deprived of human affection and kindness, etc., must also develop into a wild man. The difference being, the wretch remembers being cast out by his creator, while the boy apparently does not, at least not until the scientist discarded him, which is where his story ends. The wretch remembers his very reasonable appeals to his creator, and the constant denials in response to them.

It seems quite natural that the wretch or monster must develop a rather hostile attitude toward his creator, and as others shun him because of his ugliness, humans in general. This poor guy had nothing to do with his own creation, he exists by no fault of his own, & yet, he is an outcast. A face only a mother could love? Fat chance of that! So, to me, the important thing is that we must take responsibility for our actions, and that refusing to do so, can be rather costly. I do not so much fault the monster who lacks even the dignity of a name, for developing his attitude, it is the natural result of his situation. One could say he should know better, but logic Vs. emotion, which one prevails.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So, the Creator made us, casts us out of his sight, & damns us to an existence apart from Him.

This sounds like Biblical allegory. Was that intended? I'd never thought of the story in that way.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It was wet, the holiday was spoiled, so they all went off to write stories. I think these things can be over analysed. Electricity was recently just beginning to be understood ...
Luigi Galvani discovered that the muscles of dead frogs legs twitched when struck by an electrical spark in in 1780. Probably the main inspiration.
Volta realised that Galvani was in error regarding it as a life/animal phenomenon, around 1799 he invented the battery.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Volta#Volta_and_Galvani

Shelley had travelled through Europe in 1814, journeying along the river Rhine in Germany with a stop in Gernsheim which is just 17 km (10 mi) away from Frankenstein Castle, where two centuries before an alchemist was engaged in experiments. Later, she travelled in the region of Geneva (Switzerland)—where much of the story takes place—and the topics of galvanism and other similar occult ideas were themes of conversation among her companions, particularly her lover and future husband, Percy Shelley. Mary, Percy, Lord Byron, and John Polidori decided to have a competition to see who could write the best horror story. After thinking for days, Shelley dreamt about a scientist who created life and was horrified by what he had made; her dream later evolved into the story within the novel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstien

It's pretty much the first Science Fiction. We live in the Electric Age, which started in 1800. Though most of our Electricity still comes via steam, Commercial Steam Engines date from 17th C. not the 19th.

Co-coincidently Lord Byron's daughter may have been the world's first computer Programmer.
Ada Lovelace (born the next year after the holiday, 1815)

More off topic, a Mechanical Programable computer was never going to be practical, though Babbage's work made UK a world leader in Machine tools. The Z1 was an electrical computer less than 90 years after Ada'a death. People now worry that a Computer A.I. will be a real life Frankenstein's monster. Likely this worry is purely a source of material for thrilling stories than reality, even if A.I. is any more possible than the Monster.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Was that intended?

I'd have thought not.

 

[Jeffbert]

This sounds like Biblical allegory. Was that intended? I'd never thought of the story in that way.

It was not thought out, but rather, occurred to me as I was typing. I had already the idea of relating the story to Calvinism, as the class had examined one such critique, but, as I could not find the appropriate article in the book, I deleted a paragraph I had written. Going back to that earlier paragraph, the thought occurred to me. I did find a reference to such a critique, written by Jane Goodall, but it merely gave it a passing reference. http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/AJVS/article/viewFile/970/1382.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's an interesting idea. But as C.S. Lewis wrote, people find all sorts of stuff the author didn't intend at all. Dead authors can't argue back.

 

[Jeffbert]

True, that was the essence of the literature class I mentioned earlier. I think I still have my notes from that class, maybe I will look for them.

 

[BAYLOR]

I saw the original films Frankenstein as a kid . I didn't discover Mary Shelly's books until many years after. I was struck by just how differeent the book and original Boris Karloff film were. The monster went from being articulate in the novel to being an almost mindless brute in the film.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't remember it being a very good book at all, at least not in terms of following modern rules of how a novel should work, but it's certainly an important one. I'm afraid that my lasting memory was of the concept being better than the execution.

 

[Randy M.]

My $0.02 cents: I would guess by the time Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein she would have read the Bible. Even for atheists it would have been common reading at the time since so much other reading -- fiction and non- --- drew on it. The parallel between Frankenstein/monster and God/humanity is largely implied by all the rhetoric concerning some things man is not meant to know, and man should not intrude on God's provenance, etc. That was extended by the sub-title, "The Modern Prometheus," drawing in classical allusions.

Randy M.

 

[Jeffbert]

In reference to Ray McCarthy'sMar 20, 2015 post, & bringing up the term FRANKENSTEIN COMPLEX, though only by mentioning AI & fears of it, I think that we need not worry so much about robots, as we should worry about humans. Asimov assumed, quite reasonably so, that the designers of AI would include protections against it turning against us; hence, the 3 (4 including the zeroth) laws.

In reference to Randy M.'s ,May 4, 2015 post, medical ethics is a topic of controversy; my dad died of thirst, while under a nurse's care. As he could not even attempt to swallow without choking, they decided it was better to let him just wither away, dehydrate, thirst, starve, etc., rather than make him drink, & choke to death. I wonder what Shelley would have thought about 20th/21st century ethics?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Asimov assumed, quite reasonably so, that the designers of AI would include protections

I think the three laws were a literary device originally, so as to suggest the "robot" couldn't go wrong, and then like sealed room murder mystery, create the mystery of the "faulty robot" and the solving of the mystery usually involving a loop hole. Not all Asimov "Robot" stories, but most of them.
The fourth law is exactly the sort of thing you don't want. Was Asimov just being creative 20 or 30 years later, or ironic or did he really think it was a good idea. Unlike the claims in the stories, there is no mathematical basis for them. Non-A.I. autonomous and semi-autonomous robots already exist, some are weaponised. None have the three laws. In Frankenstein the people (and SF's first "mad" scientist, as it's really the first true SF story) are the real problem. Robots and A.I. aren't a problem, people are. Actually there is no evidence to suggest yet that genuine A.I. (as opposed to stuff marketed as A.I.) will ever exist outside of fiction.

 

[j d worthington]

Jeffbert: I'm glad you did. The more recent posts here seem to have wandered from the direct topic, into precisely the sorts of things which help to keep this piece of literature relevant... the very type of discussion which, from what I've gathered from her writings, Mary herself would have been glad to see.

Ray: The thing is, Mary herself began this sort of discussion of the novel (and, by extension, the entire "competition" at the Villa Diodati) early on.

Brian: The subject of atheism, of God's responsibility to his creations (and vice versa), etc., all were very prevalent with that crowd; a Biblical allegorical angle is almost certainly consciously there. Mary, for one, had a very ambivalent view of such matters, alternating between something close to agreement with her more "freethinking" husband and something approaching a truly devout religious approach. The fact she was troubled by such matters crops up quite a lot, not only in her letters and the like, but throughout her fiction, where it is, if not a major theme, at least a notable one.

Baylor: A correction for a very common error: The James Whale Frankenstein of 1931 with Karloff was by no means the original film adaptation. The first one I am aware of was done in 1910 by Thomas Edison; there was at least one other silent version (long lost), titled Life Without a Soul (1915). Here's the Wiki section on the silent versions of the tale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_in_popular_culture#Silent_era

You can also see the Edison film here (scored, rather appropriately, with Saint-Saëns' "Danse Macabre"):

 

[Jeffbert]

R.U.R. is about humanity being destroyed by its creation; Frankenstein is about other things, mentioned already, & may indeed include man being bitten by his own foolishness, rush to create, w/o sufficient forethought about the possible consequences; though, I think it may actually be a balance between those two: the poor monster, cast aside & forgotten, & being bitten by one's own folly. It is interesting to compare the elements of these stories.

 

[Jeffbert]

I recall the description of Dracula in his coffin: eye wide open.