Frankenstein by Mary Shelley ~ July Book Club Online

[BooksAdmin]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome to join in.

"Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed."

Frankenstein  by Mary Shelley Frankenstein is a story many of us think we know but actually don't. Very few films have followed the novel very closely. The monster of the book is intelligent and soft-spoken. The themes are timeless and full of conflict. Join us as we read this fantastic story, created by 19-year old Mary Shelley, and share your thoughts about its characters and meanings. Reading Schedule (dated version of book--1818 or 1831-- precedes chapter breakdown): July 1-6:  (1818) Vol I, Letters, Chapters 1-5                (1831) Letters, Chapters 1-6 Last sentence: "My own spirits were high, and I bounded along with feelings of unbridled joy and hilarity." July 7-12:  (1818) Vol I, Ch 6-7, Vol II, Ch 1-4                  (1831) Ch 7-12 Last sentence: "......and the future gilded by bright rays of hope and anticipation of joy." July 13-18:  (1818) Vol II, Ch 5-9, Vol III, Ch 1-2                  (1831) Ch 13-19 Last sentence: "..... forebodings of evil that made my heart sicken in my bosom." July 19-24:  (1818) Vol III Ch 3-7, Letters                  (1831) Ch 20-24, Letters July 26-31:  Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions

Previous discussion questions and links

Questions for July 26-31:

Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.

Discussion Leaders: PatH and marcie

 

The full text is available online at literature.org and Read Print and Project Gutenberg -
Online version of original 1818 Edition

[PatH]

Welcome to all!  It's finally time to get down to business, immerse ourselves in the life of Geneva over 200 years ago, and watch what happens to an overambitious science experiment. Let's dig in.

[marcie]

Welcome, everyone! I look forward to the discussion with you.

[kidsal]

PROMETHEUS was the Titan god of forethought and crafty counsel who was entrusted with the task of moulding mankind out of clay. His attempts to better the lives of his creation brought him into direct conflict with Zeus. Firstly he tricked the gods out of the best portion of the sacrificial feast, acquiring the meat for the feasting of man. Then, when Zeus withheld fire, he stole it from heaven and delivered it to mortal kind hidden inside a fennel-stalk. As punishment for these rebellious acts, Zeus ordered the creation of Pandora (the first woman) as a means to deliver misfortune into the house of man, or as a way to cheat mankind of the company of the good spirits. Prometheus meanwhile, was arrested and bound to a stake on Mount Kaukasos where an eagle was set to feed upon his ever-regenerating liver (or, some say, heart). Generations later the great hero Herakles came along and released the old Titan from his torture.
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanPrometheus.html

[Mippy]

Good morning!
It's a bit early to answer a question in the header, but one point in our reading was especially interesting to me:   the experiment is told in details that leave the reader more or less in the dark.  We don't actually see the so-called man which Frankenstein created get up and walk around.  We don't know if he has a sentient mind.   We don't even know if he is evil or not.
                                                    
In other words, a considerable amount of suspense is generated in this early section of the book, a masterful accomplishment by such a young author.  

[HaroldArnold]

One of my favorite social history reading s has been “The Prince of Pleasure and His Regency, 1811 - 1820” by J. B. Priestley, published in 1969 by Harper & Row   This is a beautifully illustrated social history of the Regency (England 1812 -1820) now out of print that I found interesting enough to spark several repeat readings over the past 40 years.  Though I have never been a fan of the many monster movies including those based on the Frankenstein character it was Priestley’s biographical sketch of Mary Shelly and his Frankenstein comment that sparked an interest in this book leading me to read it and participate here.  I suspect that for me the sociological- historical background in which it was written is more interesting than the story itself.

[JoanP]

Harold, I'll be interested to hear more of the "sociological-historical background"  at the time the story was written.  Are we too early for Darwin's theory of creation, which discredited the Biblical story of creation - the Supreme Maker.

Mippy, I agree, Mary Shelley has accomplished much - considering how young she was at this time.  Her first attempt was a story of just a few pages, but her husband and Lord Byron encouraged her to flesh it out.  I'm wondering how much influence they had on the finished novel.  Even before her marriage, she was surrounded by intellectual parents and their friends.  A precocious child, in many ways.   It is interesting that Mary has referenced Prometheus - thanks for the link to the story of Prometheus , Kidsal - who "moulded mankind out of clay."   Note the wrath of the angry god, Zeus.  

And then she's  included the lines from, from Paradise Lost - (before the first Walton letter) -

"Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me man, Did I solicit thee,
From darkness to promote me?

Hasn't she begun the novel by expressing empathy if not sympahty,  for the  moulded man, who had no say in his creation.  I couldn't help but liken him to every child ever born. Mippy, I find it impossible to forget the smile on the face of Dr. Frank's handiwork when he first comes to life.  He actually smiled!  It was that smile that stays with me - but obviously  had no effect on his horrified creator.   I remember the first smiles of my own babies - when they first smiled, I felt they were truly human. "Sentient beings."

[marcie]

Good thinking here, early this morning.

Thanks for the information about Prometheus, Kidsal.

Mippy, yes there is a lot of suspense generated by not knowing much about the creation. Certainly a lot of conflicted feeling. How could Frankenstein completely ignore--even more, actively flee from--his creation? JoanP, I too was struck by the smile of Frankenstein's creation. At this point we are not sure whether the smile is willed or a muscle reflex.

 Harold, I too am interested in the sociological-historical-philosophical-scientific background of the time that Mary Shelley wrote the book but am fairly ignorant of it. I found a little information about the Romantic period at http://classiclit.about.com/od/britishromantics/a/aa_britromantic.htm.

JoanP, we are too early for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution but his father Erasmus Darwin had postulated ideas of evolution. Shelly's book was published in 1818 and the Voyage of the Beagle didn't take place until 1831. But I too was wondering, what was the scientific thinking of Shelley's time? Of course, Shelley sets the book earlier, in the 1700s (she only provides the beginning of the date in Walton's letters). There is some information about "natural philosophy" (Frankenstein's topic of study) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

[Ella Gibbons]

It's a story, a tale of terror, but it has much more to offer.  Didn't Victor Frankensteim hope, through all his studies, to not only create life but to heal the sick, stop the suffering, even prevent death,  His parents were concerned with the poor, even adopting a very poor child.

Those letters are still confusing me; perhaps because they are at the very beginning of the story.  At any rate, I must go back and read them again.

As to the appearance of the monster, if Victor had the capability to put "it" altogether, and I understand he had to make it gigantic in order to do so, why didn't he have the ability to cover the thing up so as to make "it" appear less hideous, even appear pleasant?   Of course, then, we would not have the horror of it.  I know, I know. 

[marcie]

Ella, yes the goodness and sense of duty to others less fortunate, with which Frankenstein was raised, is told in the early chapters. He originally did have lofty motives for undertaking the task of mastering life and death.

On the monstrosity that he created, it seems that it didn't appear so terrible until it became alive.  In the beginning of Chapter 5 Frankenstein says "His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful."

One question I've had is why Frankenstein couldn't have taken a newly dead whole body rather than piece one together but I can only quote you Ella: "we would not have the horror of it.  I know, I know." 

[PatH]

Kidsal, thanks for the link.  I notice that in one of it's versions Prometheus invented the useful arts.

Mippy, I hadn't thought of it that way--you're right about prolonging the suspense.  (Unfortunately, no suspense for me since I read the book many years ago.)

Harold, I hope you'll fill us in as we go on the intellectual climate of the time, especially as reflected in the characters.

JoanP, I agree that's a defining moment, when the creature smiles at Frankenstein and he doesn't smile back.

Ella, I think it's interesting how surprised Victor was at the appearance of the creature he made.

[Frybabe]

My first exposure to Prometheus was Ruben's painting at the Philadelphia Museum of Arts when I was a child.

Question: Does Frankenstein still serve as a warning to those who would try to reinvent or redesign nature? Relevant to today what with gene splicing and cloning experiments? And what about the now common practice of organ transplants? Organ transplants are mostly accepted now. But did they once create a collective wringing of hands and condemnation for "playing God"? I don't recall. I do remember the arguments over in vitro fertilization.

[marcie]

I can see why you remembered that painting, Frybabe. That bird pecking at Prometheus is hard to forget! http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/104468.html

You ask, "Does Frankenstein still serve as a warning to those who would try to reinvent or redesign nature?" That's a great question. Frankenstein says to Walton in Chapter 4, "Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature would allow."  Do we believe today that there are inquiries into areas that are "greater than [human] nature" and should not be undertaken?

[PatH]

Yikes!  I'm not going to forget that painting either.  It must really be impressive seeing the real thing.

[Babi]

  Well, the first new information I gathered was that Wollstonecraft was
not Mary Shelley's maiden name, but the name of her mother. I must say, choosing to use that name rather than Mary Godwin does enhance the Gothic aura. 
  It is my impression that our scientist did not have to make his creature
so huge, but that he did so for effect. He wanted to astonish the world.
 
 I see others are interested in the background of the period. I notice a marked emphasis on the role of women which seems to be in contrast to Mary Shelley's own history.
For example, the preface: the letters of Robert Walton to his sister.
  In re. his sister, he writes “You have been tutored and refined by books and retirement from the world, and you are, therefore, somewhat fastidious….”    Apparently ‘retirement from the world’ is the mark of a refined young woman. I suppose the second definition of fastidious is meant here:  “showing or demanding  the most delicate care.” This does seem a bit odd coming from a young woman who ran away with her lover at sixteen.

 

Do we believe today that there are inquiries into areas that are
"greater than [human] nature" and should not be undertaken?

A very good question, MARCIE. I think we would find believers in both camps on that issue. 

[HaroldArnold]

The following is a brief outline of the background of Mary Shelley and her meeting and marriage with Shelley:

Mary Shelly was born Mary Godwin the daughter of William Godwin, the most unconventional political philosopher of his day.  Some of his contemporaries would classify him a political Anarchist.  Godwin was well known as an anarchist since the publication of his most important work in 1793, an “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners.  Godwin was not a revolutionary in the Marxist sense as he sought no immediate change by revolution.  He was quite content to await the inevitable evolutionary change.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin

Mary’s mother also was a most unconventional early19th century English woman, who had published novels and nonfiction history and travel books plus her most noted writing, “ A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” in which she argued the most un-contemporary position for women educational and social equality.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft This latter publication certainly establishes here as an early feminist.

It seems Shelley had read Godwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political Justice” and was impressed with its denunciation of all authority and its demand for the abolition of marriage and wrote Godwin to tell him so.  The two began a correspondence that got Shelley an invite to the Godwin home where he met Mary.  This led to Shelley’s falling in love with 17 year old Mary a romance that became complicated by Godwin’s shaky financial position.    It seems Shelley had loaned Godwin at least 1000L When Goodwin found out about the romance he kicked Shelley out of the family circle necessitating the elopement.    

[PatH]

Thanks, Harold, that's important information.  What a background Mary had!  No wonder she was both strongly literary and willing to live unconventionally.

Mary's introduction to the 1831 edition comments a little on her upbringing.  It also describes the nightmare that gave her the basis for the plot.  It's worth reading.  How  can you tell if you have it?  The 1818 intro is about a page and a half, describes briefly the circumstances that led to writing the book, and is dated "Marlow, September 1817".  The later one is three times as long, is called Introduction to the Standard Novels Edition, and is signed M. W. S. London, 15 October 1831.  It also has a lot more detail about the house party that led to it all.  Here is a link that leads directly to it in one of the online versions:

http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/Frankenstein.htm#Introduction

[PatH]

Harold, I'm amazed at the 1000 pounds.  That was a huge amount of money.  Jane Austen's heroines often scraped by on 400 a year or so.  It must have led to a very touchy situation when Godwin looked to be unable to return it.

[marcie]

Babi, I don't have the book in front of me right now but I think that Frankenstein says that he made the creature so big because it was difficult and time-consuming to piece together smaller body parts.

Since the setting for the book is 20-100 years before the time Mary Shelley lived, she is likely trying to convey what it was like for a conventional woman to live in society. Babi, I too picked up on the "retirement from the world" and "fastidiousness" (ugh)
Harold, thanks for the background information. I'll read the introduction in a bit.

[PatH]

Marcie, that's what I remember too.  There were technical difficulties in smaller size.  I think you have the 1831 edition, so you probably have the introduction in your book.

I couldn't decide whether Elizabeth's character was supposed to represent outdated expectations, or just the general mindset of Mary's time.  What do all of you think?  Anyway, it would be interesting to compare what the strengths of the three childhood companions, Victor, Elizabeth, and Clerval are.

[Bookjunky]

One thing that impressed me was the insulation much of their lives was spent in. We are surrounded by so many in our daily existence it sort of boggles the mind to consider the time the characters spent in solitude and quiet or around only a few others. Out in the country it was so quiet and hard to imagine of the time for thought and contemplation uninterrupted by the  phone, tv and door.

The method of schooling with so much time spent alone with the books, even if they were considered out dated also struck me. Even at university Victor was doing much reading on his own, much more than most modern students. And there was so much more one on one time with his instructors.

Wonder what kind of evening discussions took place in the household of the author. Not sure if I would like to go back in time as a fly on the wall or not though.

I think I also need to read Paradise Lost now.

[marcie]

Bookjunky, what good points you raise about the insulation/isolation of people during that time and how much more reliant they were on reading and "self study" and on conversation if they were lucky enough to have someone to talk with whose opinions they respected. I remember that Walton was longing for someone like that on the boat before they found Frankenstein.

[kidsal]

I find it strange that Frankenstein wasn't more curious as to what happened to the creature when he came back to his room and the creature was gone.  He was relieved but you would think he woud be frightened that it would come back or that it was out on the street.

[Babi]

 Ah, yes, MARCIE...and PAT. I found the passage and you are correct. The
"minuteness of the parts formed a great hinderance to my speed"..and so
he decided to used bigger parts.  It is apparent that F. wasn't thinking
about his creation as a person; it was an accomplishment that he wanted
to obtain as quickly as possible. 

  While you are thinking of what Elizabeth's character might represent, PAT, consider the
picture given of Victor's father and mother.  “Everything was made to yield to her wishes and her convenience. He strove to shelter her, as a fair exotic is sheltered by the gardener, from every rougher wind, and to surround her with all that could tend to excite pleasurable emotion in her soft an benevolent mind.”    There is a strong element in this tale of  protection of the tender female by the men of her family.

[JoanP]

The 1818 intro is about a page and a half, describes briefly the circumstances that led to writing the book, and is dated "Marlow, September 1817"  PatH

Pat, it's my understanding that the first Preface, the "Marlow, 1817" - was written by Mary's husband, Percy Shelley - the 1831 by Mary herself?  I went back and reread the first one again and there was the line I had scribbled into my notes -

"The Event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin and some physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence."

Did any of you question this first sentence written by Percy Shelley - in 1817?  The Charles Darwin was born in 1809.  So.....another Darwin?

***************

Bookjunky, I was very aware of the insulation/isolation you speak of - but notice that the women seemed more resigned to their situation.  Men seem to crave friendship and the company of others.  Did you sense this?  I was somewhat surprised at this - because the author is a woman.  Did she comment on this resignation - and I missed it?  Do we have any indication of how women felt about their situation?

Men on the other hand crave friendship - starting with Walton, who pulled Dr. F. from the sledge and literally brought him back, breathing life  into him.
I'm just reminded as I type - of the story of Creation - God creating Man in his image.  I grew up hearing that He did so because He was lonely, wanted to share his Kingdom with Man.

As we talk about this bigger-than-life body Dr. Frankenstein labored over...I see "it"  as a man - (do you suppose it's anatomically correct? - or shouldn't I ask that?)   Was Dr. Frankenstein also lonely - was that what drove him to "create"  another being like himself.  If not, what drove him to do this?  What did he wish to prove?  If the created being had not been so horrible, what were his plans for him?  Or did he just want to prove that he had discovered the secret of life?

******

Babi - I just see your post now.  The image of women as fragile greenhouse flowers comes to mind.  Still wonder why MaryS. does not comment on this state of affairs - or maybe she is doing just that in an understated way?

So you believe that Dr. F created what turned out to be "the monster - not as a person, but rather as an experiment to bring life to an inanimate object.  He succeeded then, didn't he?  Does he believe the smiling being is a monster - or just a horrible-looking person?  I can't figure out what he intended to do with the big man - even if he had a pleasant face?

 

[Mippy]

I think Dr. Darwin was not Charles Darwin, but his
grandfather, born in 1731:  Erasmus Darwin

here's a link    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin

[PatH]

Darn, Mippy, you added your link before I could get in my evolution's missing link joke.

[HaroldArnold]

I thought the manner in which Frankenstein created the monster unexpectedly simple.  All that with just a 4 year, 19th century, college matriculation?  As I remember it the main details were conclude with the living monster in about one single paragraph.  In contrast I remember watching a TV rerun of “Young Frankenstein” a couple of years ago.  As I remember it involved a long stormy midnight Laboratory session with flashing lights, and weird sound effects to conclude the creation.  The books verbal description hardly seemed sufficient, but the positive result was certainly conveyed to the reader.

Today the creation of artificial life certainly seems within the range of scientific possibility.  I think I have seen news indicating that in the U.S. an administrative order has been issued blocking any such experiment. 

[PatH]

I thought the manner in which Frankenstein created the monster unexpectedly simple.  All that with just a 4 year, 19th century, college matriculation?

All the science in the book is too simple.  In one introductory lecture, Professor Waldman gets through the history of chemistry, an overview of its current state, and a couple of experiments.  Oh, well, she's a writer, not a scientist.

JoanP, I too thought of the creature as male, maybe because he doesn't look  like a fragile greenhouse flower.  But later events make it more evident that he is male, and presumably complete, though of course Shelley is too delicate to say so.

[Mippy]

Harold posted: Today the creation of artificial life certainly seems within the range of scientific possibility.   Perhaps there are ongoing experiments with genetic maniputation which are not, IMO, so-called artificial life.   No law made by the U.S. government would stop international scientists from continuing such experiments.
                                    
Scientists are already using the building blocks of existing animals and plants to make new modifications or hybrids.   Especially with agricultural plants, hybridization has been attempted since the beginning of recorded time.   I would not call such hybrids artificial at all.   Animal experiments are more apt to bring up issues of accountability and morality, which seems to be way beyond the present discussion.
  
The Frankenstein creation is wildly and completely science fiction!  Shelley did well to leave out lots of details, and keep the description of the so-called creation brief.  

[JoanP]

   Thanks, Mippy.  I need to be reminded from time to time that this is fiction...and also, as PatH says, Mary Shelley is a writer, not a scientist.   From the minute that creature smiled at his maker, I lost my heart  - and perspective.  The creature was no longer fiction to me...

   From one of the letters, before he was rescued by Walton, it seems that Dr. Frankenstein had been pursuing another carriage carrying a gigantic figure -
 What would he have done if he caught up with him?  Stay tuned...the plot thickens. 

[marcie]

What interesting thoughts here. It seems that Frankenstein, in his single-minded two-year endeavor to create life (he said he sometimes felt mad and not in control of himself) didn't think of the specific outcome. We learn that he had started with noble ideals (save mankind from disease; prolong life). It looks like he got lost in the pursuit. The temptation of knowledge was too great for him. I've found that in other books too. Some authors present the idea of "knowing too much" (eg. some accounts of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden) as an ultimate temptation. Faust made a deal with the devil for unlimited knowledge (and worldly pleasure!).

I don't know if I think that there are things that humans should not know. There may be things that we can't know. What do you think?

Anyway, Frankenstein had original ideals of his creations loving him as a giver of life and benevolent parent. He lost that vision when he saw, with horror, the much-less-than-perfect being he created. He ran out of the room and seems out of his mind. He doesn't want to think about what he's done and then, after meeting his old friend Henry Clavell, he becomes delirious with fever. So, some time passes and the creature he created is gone. All of you are right in saying that we are not given details about what Frankenstein thinks happened to him.

About the creation itself, you are right Harold and Mippy that the actual resolution of the experiment was not described. I looked back a few times to see if I missed it! Frankenstein does explain to Walton that he deliberately is NOT going to tell him about the secret of life that he discovered since he now thinks of what he has done as a terrible mistake. As you say, JoanP, we need to stay tuned to the next section which we'll start to talk about on July 7.

[JoanK]

What an interesting discussion!

I'm interested in people's emotional reaction to technology. It has long fascinated me that often the things which seem the most "cut and dried" (ie money and technology) evoke deep emotional reactions.

The issue with technology (maybe with money too?) is power. And Frankenstein illustrates those issues admirably. The sense of power that frankenstein feels as he is creating his creature -- now he has the power to create life. And the powerlessness he feels (and we feel) when his creature comes to life, and is beyond his control. Much of discussion about technology veers between those two poles.

[Ella Gibbons]

Why did Walton go on such a perilous journey to the frozen North?  We might ask why do all such men climb mountains, sail unforeseen oceans;  curiousity, adventure, and the glory and the power of having reached a goal no other men have attempted.  Walton wanted power, Frankenstein wanted power, the two men have much in common.

"I shall satiae my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before visited and may tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of man." - Walton

Reminds me of the going to the moon, putting footprints there.  What was said - "One large step for mankind" - or similar.  The power and the glory of all that space exploration has yet to be proven, except to say we did it.  Did we expect more?

Cloning is frightening don't you think?  Gene therapy is on its way here. 

[marcie]

Ella, yes I think that both Walton and Frankenstein are presented as men who wanted to do something never done before and they were driven by that goal. They both said that what they were doing was going to benefit mankind too. Walton's journey does remind me of going to the moon.

Ella and JoanR, both of you bring up the reaction to new technologies... and issues of power and powerlessness. That is giving me a lot to think about.

[straudetwo]

What a  very stimulating discussion!

Harold, in his # 15,  pointed to Mary Godwin Shelley's unconventional life, quite rightly so :  both before and after Shelley fell in love with her.  She was 16- years old at the time, and he had come to visit William Godwin, Mary's father.  On impulse, one imagines, he asked her and her stepsister Claire to sail with him to Italy. After six weeks or so there and in Switzerland,  they returned to England, homesick and penniless.

However,  Percy Shelley was already married.  
A few months after  being sent down from Oxford in 1811,  he eloped to Scotland with 16-year old Harriet Westbrook, to the  consternation of the Westbrook family.  How Mary's widower father reacted has not been recorded -- to my knowledge.

After Harriet committed suicide in 1816, Mary and Percy married. Together with Claire the threersome returned to Italy,  settled there, and joined Byron's  orbit.

Mary Shelley gave no name to the monster,  who (or that) is  known as Frankenstein after his creator, the student Victor Frankenstein. That, of course, is an error.
 
As we read, or re-read, this story, we should be aware of Mary Shelley's background, social and intellectual environment. Re-reading for me is a new and different experience.  

[marcie]

It's good to see you here, Traude. Thank you for sharing that information about some of Mary Shelley's background.

 I admit that before starting to read the book, I hadn't really thought about the name of the creation and always thought of him as "Frankenstein."

[kidsal]

Without curiosity we would still be killing animals with stones and eating raw meat.  The one thing I regret is that I will die and perhaps will never know WHY we are here?  To miss all the new discoveries and to see what the world will be like in a thousand years saddens me. 

[Babi]

A thought that occurred to me more than once during this period was 'this man badly needs an
intervention!'.  Frankenstein had isolated himself in his work and he gradually lost all
perspective.

 Good point, JOANK, about the lure of power in creating something new. I think many scientists
regard their goals in much the same way as a mountaineer regards a new challenge. They will
pursue it irregardless, not because it is wise, but because it's there and they can.
   There is little of ‘science’ taught to F. in the schools of Geneva; he was ‘self-taught’ in that respect .He read old books that spoke of things like a ‘philosopher’s stone’  and the ‘elixir of life’, and believed everything he read.

  Despite his love of science, I am also seeing a strong sense of 'destiny' in Frankenstein. (I'm going to start calling him Victor; it's shorter.)  .    There are frequent references to destiny.  Victor  describes the ‘passion’ which afterward ‘ruled my destiny’.  .Again he writes of destiny, saying it was ‘too potent”.  He writes of  “the storm that was even then hanging in the stars, and ready to envelope me.”

[PatH]

That's an important point, Traude, about the creature not having a name.  It says a lot about how everyone regards him.  People even name their farm animals, but not this sentient creation.

You have it right about what it feels like to do science, Babi.  It's unbelievably exciting to solve problems and find new little bits of the truth.