-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
-
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.
-
Welcome, everyone! I look forward to the discussion with you.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
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." ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Yikes! I'm not going to forget that painting either. It must really be impressive seeing the real thing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/Frankenstein.htm#Introduction)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin)
-
Darn, Mippy, you added your link before I could get in my evolution's missing link joke. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
;D 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. ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
-
Good news for me, my library has Priestley's book as well as his Literature and Western Man which I couldn't resist ordering also.
-
Jackie, that occurred to me too - do you suppose that by her portrayal of these women, Mary Shelley was actually commenting indirectly on their lot - early deaths, suicides, etc.?
An interesting observation on the fact that Dr. Frankenstein gave no name to his creation, Traudee. Do you think it would have been different had the creature been a pleasant-looking, affable fellow? Even that cloned sheep was given a name - Dolly wasn't it?
Babi - Dr. F's worsening alienation left no one aware of his need for intervention. He was so completely alone. Maybe someone from the faculty could have checked up on him, at least to check on the progress of his research. His family seemed to be sitting home in wait for a letter from him. He really was completely isolated with his creation. I wonder too why he didn't apply the principle of life he had discovered to another body or animal that had died. Wouldn't he have accomplished the same goal?
We meet Dr. F in the isolated land of ice and snow - in pursuit of his creation - obviously wishing to destroy it. I know I sound like a broken record, but why did Mary Shelley write of that smile? Didn't it signify that the creature recognized Dr.F as his creator - as his mother in a sense? And yet Dr. F is disgusted with the sight of his own "child." ( It strikes me that the world knows the creature by the name of "Frankenstein" - as if this is his surname.
What does this tell us about Dr. F - I see the question in the header. I guess it shows that Dr. F regards this creature strictly as a scientific experiment. He was not trunk to create a friend to keep him company. Also, it shows his lack of foresightedness. He hadn't planned what to do with his creature if he succeeded with the experiment.
-
Speaking of science, I was startled to find the book starting with polar exploration, and specifically with an attempt to find a "Northeast Passage", as opposed to the better known "Northwest passage." I did a little checking.
Apparently, Arctic exploration goes back as far as the ancient Greeks. But in Shelley's time, the main efforts were to find a way to get from the northernAtlantic to the Pacific Ocean without going all the way around either Africa or South America. The Northwest Passage would go through North America. But when Cabot failed at that attempt, there were a number of attempts to find a "Northeast" passage across the top of Russia.
Of interest to us was an expedition leaded by John Ross, that was organized in 1818. The news must have been full of this at that time, and it presumably was Shelley's inspiration. Ross was looking for a NorthWEST passage, but that wouldn't have suited the plot at all-- They had to have been going in Russia to make it plausible that Victor and the creature could have gotten there.
(Wickepedia Arctic exploration, John Ross)
-
I wonder too why he didn't apply the principle of life he had discovered to another body
or animal that had died. Wouldn't he have accomplished the same goal?
I'm finding a number of things as I read, JOAN, that raise similar questions. Choices or
actions that don't really make much practical sense. I suspect that the author opted for
those things that would increase the level of horror.
Victor's reaction to his creation not only shows lack of forethought, it was also an act of
shameful irresponsibility. I could understand an initial reaction of shock and horror. But
it was criminal, imo, to abandon his creature with no thought for it's needs or for possible
danger to the general public.
-
Victor's reaction to his creation not only shows lack of forethought, it was also an act of
shameful irresponsibility. I could understand an initial reaction of shock and horror. But
it was criminal, imo, to abandon his creature with no thought for it's needs or for possible
danger to the general public.
IMO too, Babi. His friends are very admiring of Victor, but he's a real moral coward when it comes to facing up to consequences of his actions.
-
Babi and Pat, it does seem that Victor was trying to avoid his own emotional horror at any cost. He kept his friends and family in the dark about what he had done and didn't seem to think that the creature he created had feelings or intelligence, even though his goal seemed to be to create a fully functioning man. The exterior of the creature was all that Victor could see.
Victor was raised to be thoughtful of others. It seems out of character of his upbringing for Victor to actively avoid his creation completely. Of course, we wouldn't have the story unless Victor responds in this way.
I found the following on a site about music in the romantic period but the site says that it applies to all of the arts. This was the atmosphere in which Mary Shelley was writing:
"Romanticism's response to Classicism was a more radical kind of expression, seeking out the new, the curious, and the adventurous. Romanticism is characterized by restless seeking and impulsive reaction. Romantic art differs from classic art by its greater emphasis on the qualities of remoteness and strangeness. A fundamental trait of Romanticism is boundlessness. Throughout the Romantic period, the human mind was peculiarly attracted by disproportionate and excessive features." http://www.aug.edu/~cshotwel/4350.Romantictraits.html
There is more about the romantic period at http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture16a.html written by Professor Steven Kreis.
He describes the following traits of the romantics that would have influenced Mary Shelley in her writing:
" Intuition was equated with that which men feel strongly. Men could learn by experiment or by logical process—but men could learn more in intuitive flashes and feelings, by learning to trust their instincts. The Romantics distrusted calculation and stressed the limitations of scientific knowledge. The rationality of science fails to apprehend the variety and fullness of reality. Rational analysis destroys the naïve experience of the stream of sensations and in this violation, leads men into error."
"The Romantics did not merely say that there were irrational ways of intuiting reality. They rejected materialism and utilitarianism as types of personal behavior and as philosophies. They sought regeneration -- a regeneration we can liken to that of the medieval heretic or saint. They favored selfless enthusiasm, an enthusiasm which was an expression of faith and not as the product of utilitarian calculation. Emotion -- unbridled emotion -- was celebrated irrespective of its consequences. "
It seems, according to the above writer, that analytical, "calculating" thinking was perceived to be inferiority likely to produce negative results-- as opposed to what they thought was the more "natural" state of individuals intuiting the world with all of their emotions. It may be a reaction to mechanical view of the world epitomized by Isaac Newton in the previous century. Both Walton and Frankenstein are described as loving the wondrous aspects of scientific exploration. It sounds like some aspects of science were actively deplored. Maybe some of you who have the background in science--or history of science-- that I don't have, would have some comments about what Mary Shelley might have been trying to portray in relation to science.
JoanK, I didn't pick up on the significance of the idea that Walton was looking for a "Northeast Passage" as opposed to the Northwest passage. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
I just found a relatively new book (2008 or 2009) called the Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science by Richard Holmes. I'm 32 in line at my library :-(
A review of the book quotes the author as having a different view of science in the Romantic period: "Though Romanticism, as Holmes says, is often presumed to be “hostile to science,” the Romantic poets seem to have been positively giddy — sometimes literally so — with scientific enthusiasm." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/books/review/Benfey-t.html
Here is some info about Richard Holmes: http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth119
-
MARCIE, I'm not sure of which chapter it is in, but VF's father disapproved of Victor's reading material telling him it was "trash" and later one of his first professors at the University said something similar about the subjects that he had read. As you stated, many people during this romantic period of history believed they could learn more by intuition, or emotions, than by science.
As BABI commented Victor gave little, if any, forethought to the needs of his creature after it was given life, but we are told of VF's surprise when it happened, when the creature smiled at him. Did he actually believe he could accomplish this life giving force, even though that was a goal he was striving to accomplish?
Close friendships are described in the book; Victor's father's close attachment to a fellow by the name of Beaufort, Victor's friendship with the adopted Elizabeth and later Victor's friendship with his professor Waldman. These friendships lead us,the readers, to believe that Victor should have become a friend to his creation, not so.
Which, the abandoned creature, or its creator deserves our sympathy? Both or neither, I say. It should not have happened, thank goodness, it is just a story.
-
Ella, lots of good points.
The reaction of Victor's father doesn't tell us whether he disapproved of science, and suggests he had some scientific knowledge. His basis for disapproval was that Paracelsus and Agrippa were outdated, which was quite true. Paracelsus, a Swiss alchemist born in 1493, was groundbreakingly progressive for his time, especially in medicine, but chemistry had moved on a lot by 1800, though I'm less sure about medicine. I don't know anything about Agrippa, but the footnote in my book suggests he was mostly an occultist and magician, not a scientist. Certainly the science professors wouldn't approve of them.
I, too was struck by the close, male-bonding type of friendships. There is also Walton's longing for a friend, and Victor and Clerval. Perhaps the intellectual isolation mentioned by several of us lead to strong feelings when a man did find someone who seemed to be on the same wavelength.
Who deserves our sympathy? This problem gets even more acute as the plot unfolds.
-
Victor did not dare tell anyone about his work. It flew in the face of established religion. Shelley himself was expelled from Oxford for publicly declarig his atheism.
The term "natural philosophy" was the earliest name for what we call science today. (I am also waiting for "Age of Wonder" at my library) Mary appare;ntly had a knowledge of some of the latest discoveries, even without formal education.
To me, the most inconsistent part of the story is Victor's total lack of curiousity when he returns home to find the creature gone. All he feels is relief. Did he hope that ;maybe the creature had crawled off and died somewhere?
-
Bellemere, I've been thinking about Victor's reaction to his his creation too. It was not at all what I'd consider a scientist's reaction to an experiment, was it? How should he have reacted? What should he have done? Notified the authorities, his teachers? Someone? Perhaps his reaction was one of shock - that makes sense to me. First he goes to his bed, tries to sleep it off. Then he leaves his flat - in an attempt to avoid what he has seen. But the enormity of what he has been able to do - that doesn't seem to have any impact on him at all.
"The term "natural philosophy" was the earliest name for what we call science today." Bellemere
[/b]
Where did Victor go wrong? He wants nothing more than to be a man of science. He follows the advice of a teacher he admires - "if he wishes to become a man of science, not merely a petty experimentalist, he must study every branch of natural philosophy, inculdeing math." Well he followed that advice - we're told that after two years, he has "learned everything" ;D - I find that pretty funny - until he suddenly realizes the secret of transmitting life. Hmmm...has be become a "petty experimentalist" after all?
I've never read this book, haven't read beyond Chapter V - nor do I remember anything more about the Frankenstein movies, except that a diabolical scientist created this monster in a lab - which turned out to be a danger to society.
I don't see Victor as this diabolical scientist - he seems to have had good intentions in his quest for truth. He wasn't a bad person. When Walton rescued him, he found qualities in Victor that no other man possessed - He found him "gentle, wise and culitivated." And yet Victor tells Walton that he "cannot ever begin his life anew." He is still a young man in his twenties, isn't he? PatH - right now I guess my sympathy goes to Victor Frankenstein - though I have strong feelings for that poor creature with the little grin on his face, who never asked to be born. Must I pick one or the other?
-
Thanks for that description of Romanticism, MARCIE. It does fit Mary Shelley's writing
perfectly. Remote, strange, impulsive reactions. It seems a bit odd that much as I enjoy
sci/fi & fantasy, I as repelled by this book. If not for this discussion, I wouldn't be
reading this book at all.
It appears that ‘chemistry’ was a very different ‘philosophy’ in it’s early days than it
does now. [Philosophical attempts to explain the nature of matter and its transformations
failed. The protoscience, Alchemy, was also unsuccessful in explaining the nature of matter,
but by performing experiments and recording the results the alchemist set the stage for modern
chemistry,] Wikipedia
Consider M. Waldman, a most sensible and gifted instructor. I like his advice, though it seems unworkable in this modern day of immense scientific material and the necessity for specialization. Still, if one doesn’t want to end with a one subject mentality, it still has merit. “If your wish is to become really a man of science, and not merely a petty experimentalist, I should advise you to apply to every branch of natural philosophy, including mathematics.”
-
Babi - I agree, Marcie's description of Romanticism does fit with Mary Shelley's writing - and even more understandable when considering that her husband and his circle of Romantic poets were constantly discussing these ideas in her presence -with her.
You were repelled by this story - I'm going to keep that in mind as I read further. Right now I am curious about where Mary Shelley is going with the book, her motivations and IF she is going to conclude with some sort of moral or warning about not fooling around with Mother Nature.
-
Hi, bellemere, it's good to see you here.
We're all curious about Victor's reaction to the creature. I think he's kind of like a hedgehog curling up into a ball and hoping all the bad stuff will go away. He can't face it.
JoanP--must we pick one or the other? Definitely not. Ella has already opted for both or neither.
It's good to have the description of romanticism. The book is certainly loaded with it.
-
Chemistry and alchemy have been mentioned, but I didn't pick up any mention of one of the main thrusts of alchemy: turning base materials into gold. Some alchemists were also looking for ways to achieve longevity and by extension, eternal life.
Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy)
Reading into the sub-links, I was surprised to see Isaac Newton listed as an alchemist. Apparently some verb outstanding scientists studied alchemy before they expanded into what we would call real science.
-
Thanks for the link, Mippy. A person could lose herself all day following up all the links. Some of alchemy remained valid in what we call real science, especially, techniques and apparatus.
I notice William Godwin and Percy Shelley are mentioned under alchemy in literature.
-
I decided to look up on Google Maps some of the places mentioned in the book. I found a spectacular view of Geneva from Mont-Saleve, the escarpment that Victor saw the monster climb. I envisioned something a lot smaller that it really is. It is about 3,000 ft. high. It's almost to the French border and almost 4 miles (if I figured right) from the Lake. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saleve_vu_du_ciel.jpg This photo is not the one I wanted. The one I wanted was closer to the edge shown here and looked down a little more rather than out. Oh well. If you look at the lake at the Geneva end, you will see a white thing sticking up. That is the Geneva Fountain: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1312148183066719370tBAzuP
-
I was looking for information about the University at Ingolstadt. I had difficulty finding a whole lot but I did find on page 407 of a travel guide a boxed article about why Mary Shelley picked Ingolstadt for her book (scroll down a little to see it).
http://books.google.com/books?id=38pxvHefrL0C&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=ingolstadt+anatomy+museum&source=bl&ots=ZjAmab7s55&sig=SEHVtNB-tmyLLwoAxfX0NOBAZhA&hl=en&ei=nXUyTLKIDcH-8Abov4nJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=ingolstadt%20anatomy%20museum&f=false
Here are a few pix of the exterior of the restored Theater of Anatomy.
http://www.ingolstadt-tour.de/wDeutsch/ausflugsziele/004_medizin.shtml?navid=11
Dr. Eric T. Pengelley penned in his 1986 "A Traveler's Guide to History of Biology and Medicine" this about the museum:
The Anatomy Theater of the University of Ingolstadt was built between 1723 - 1736, and it is the oldest north of the Alps. It was a major training place for medical doctors until 1800, when the university moved, and this magnificent building fell into private hands, eventually becoming a laundry! In 1930 it was rescued from complete decay, being purchased by the town of Ingolstadt, but it was not until 1969 that restoration was begun, with the subsequent establishment of a medical museum. In 1972 the University of Munich celebrated its 500th anniversary, and the following year the museum was opened. It is of interest to note that it is really the “brain child” of Dr. Heinz Goerke, a distinguished Munich physician, whose drive and dedication has created it in its present form.
The exterior part of the building is completely restored to its original form, and is most striking. At the back is a little courtyard garden, which was the original herb garden of the medical school. The historical displays are on two floors, arranged more or less chronologically, so that one gets a feeling for the whole historical development of medicine. Upon entering there are displays of Egyptian, Grecian and Roman medicine, and fascinating displays of “home medicine” in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The displays are not confined to cases of instruments, as is so commonly the case, but include large pieces of medical apparatus such as autoclaves, iron lungs, anaesthetic machines, etc., including the original sterilizer from the laboratory of Robert Koch (see Clausthal-Zellerfeld). The second floor is mainly devoted to military medicine, which has played such a large role in the development of medicine in general. This is a medical museum in a lovely setting, with rich collections and a uniqueness of character with which the visitor will not be disappointed.
-
What a lot of good information here today!
Bellemere, I think you have something in looking to society's mores at the time of Frankenstein or Mary Shelley to help interpret why Frankenstein didn't tell anyone about his work. You indicated that "it flew in the face of established religion."
I am with all of you who are wondering how Frankenstein could just let his creation go. JoanP, I agree that shock -- and his ill mental and physical health following his obsessive work of two years-- must have played a part. I'm also questioning whether his society's class system played a role. It seems that poor, uneducated people were considered inferior. Perhaps some were considered less than human. Frankenstein's creation --with his horrific looks and inability to communicate-- and the fact that he was actually pieced together by Frankenstein, might have seemed not at all human, or at least not fully human, to his creator.
Does anyone see clues in the book, or from other historical resources, about how educated people in Frankenstein's or Shelley's society looked at others in "lower classes"?
-
Ella, PatH, Babi and Mippy, you all bring up the state of the development of the sciences at the time. Frankenstein was caught up in alchemy and even Professor Waldman showed sympathy toward some of the alchemists. I am thinking that the place of science in her society, what scientists were doing, and how people viewed science, was part of what Mary Shelley was writing about. I'm going to keep watching for that thread as I read the rest of the book. Frybabe, I would think the above would also include the role of medicine which you bring up. Thank you for posting the links to those photos. I am not very good at translating the author's written descriptions of the various scenes into visuals. Those photos help a lot!
-
Something that strikes my attention if Victor's reaction to his creation and the utter prostration that resulted. The man lay for weeks in limbo being cared for by his friend. Was this one of the neurasthenic type of illnesses ascribed mainly to women in former times? Or something else? I have a hard time imagining someone staying in that state for that length of time. Or is it that our sensibilities have been so hardened by the crass, horrific things we are bombarded with day in and day out we no longer have the ability to have such strong reactions?
-
Good question, BOOKJUNKY. I think there was a tendency, in those
days, to think that the upper classes were more sensitive and high-strung than the rough lower classes. Having a breakdown, even in a
male, could be considered due to that highly aristocratic sensitivity.
I was somewhat relieved to read this comment:
"The time at length arrives, when grief is rather an indulgence than a necessity…." At least we can hope Victor recognizes the
truth of that, even tho' he apparently can endlessly indulge in the belief
that he suffers more horribly than any of his victims.
-
I don't know what happened but Letter's #1 Through #4 have disappeared from my Digital Text stored on my Dell desktop disk. Every thing else that was included in the download purchase is there but all 4 letters have vanished. I have been continuing my reading of the thickening plot through the middle chapters
-
Bookjunky and Babi, I agree that there seems to be a lot of "sensitive" reactions to events. I do think that Victor's two years working non-stop (barely eating and never doing anything other than working on his creation) finally caught up with him. He said during that time he felt he was going mad. So his prolonged illness could be due to his extreme physical and mental deterioration.
Harold, that is very strange about the missing Letters. You can read them online at http://www.readprint.com/chapter-8549/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley
-
Frybabe, that's a very useful link about the University of Ingolstadt. It seems to have been an intellectual hotbed at the time, and medically and scientifically advanced.
From the boxed portion of your article:
"Shelley originally became aware of Ingolstadt because it was the founding place of a secret society called the Illuminati. Its list of illustrious members included Goethe and Herder as well as Mary Shelley’s husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley."
I looked up the Illuminati--they seem to have been enlightened free-thinkers with political aims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati)
-
What wonderful pictures! I love the pretty colors that old buildings are painted in some of Europe (eg the yellow of the operating theater). I don't remember seeing them when I was in Geneva 40 years ago. They probably weren't there in Victor's time (?)
My main memory of Geneva is that I fell off a streetcar there. Lucky I wasn't killed.
Switzerland is the perfect setting for this story, containing a center of science at Ingolstadt and wild nature in the Alps.
-
We were talking about the Romantics. Reading ahead to next week's section, I was struck by how "Romantic" (in their sense) it is. Notice the place of emotions vs reason, and the attitudes toward nature. The literature is a reaction to the more formal "classiical" works that came before. In music, too, the "classical" style (Mozart) is replaced by the much more emotional Romantics (Beethovan, Brahms).
Maybe this is a more classical age. I find Shelley's emotionalism tooo much!
-
Those are beautiful pictures, isn't it marvelous how we can all see the same things, and share our views.
HAROLD, you can read the text online.
Several of you have wondered why Victor abandoned his creation. How else could the story continue? Either Victor must have killed the monster or locked him a cage - or what?
-
Several of you have wondered why Victor abandoned his creation. How else could the story continue? Either Victor must have killed the monster or locked him a cage - or what? No, I think in order to write a horror story (or ghost story?), the author was wise to allow the monster freedom to roam and to frighten everyone.
Yes, but the better the author, the more plausible s/he makes it.
-
That's interesting about the Illuminati, PatH. I hadn't realized that the movement was founded in 1776 in Ingolstad. They are a key focus in Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons."
Yikes, JoanK! You fell off a streetcar in Geneva!? I agree with you that Switzerland is a perfect setting for this book. I also agree with you that the Romantic period is not for me. These stories that rely on melodramatic events and continual hand wringing and angst are a bit too much for modern sensibilities. But the story is very detailed and amazing, I think, to have been written by someone not 20 years of age. Ella, I think you're reminding us of the practical view. It's a story and it wouldn't be the story it is if certain things didn't happen. If we question too many things, it might be difficult to continue. I'll probably question them anyway but will try to suspend my disbelief ;)
-
As I start into the next section, I am struck at how much this story reminds me of something that Edgar Allen Poe, and perhaps, Nathaniel Hawthorne might have written. Both were part of the American Romantic movement. Poe is listed as Gothic and Hawthorne as "dark romanticism". Both often use psychological and moral self torture to propel their works along.
-
Frybabe, That's good that you bring up other authors that might fit in this genre. It would be interesting to compare similarities. I've read a number of Poe's stories but I've only read Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.
Since most everyone seems to have finished the first section, we've put in the heading some questions for your consideration for the next section. Of course, please feel free to talk about any points that interest you. Pat and I are both very impressed with the attention to detail and breadth of topics that you all are sharing with the group. We look forward to more of your insights!
-
As I was reading this section of our book, I grew more and more impressed with the fact that someone 16 years old wrote it. Her writing style is a bit too flowery for my taste. However, by chapter 5, I became more connected. For the first few chapters, and the letters, I was almost ready to give up. Now, I think that I am hooked.
I am amazed at how knowledgeable about medicine of that time, Mary was. I wonder how far her education went? Do any of you know?
Sheila
-
My book has a section which compares the two versions. In the 1818 Frankenstein, his father, Ernest and Elizabeth took the trip into the mountains after Justine's death. Also, Elizabeth was not his cousin.
-
sheila, yes, I too am impressed with Mary's ability to write this novel at such an early age. The following site says that Mary was mostly self-educated: http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/mshelley/bio.html
"[After his wife died] William Godwin courted various women looking for a new mother for the two girls until he finally met Mary Jane Vial (better known as Clairmont) and married her on 21 December 1801. Mary Jane had two children, Charles and Jane, who later called herself Claire. Her stepmother did not encourage Mary Godwin's intellectual curiosity and did not bring her up according to her mother's principles. Mary never went to school, but was taught to read and write at home. Her father encouraged her to use her imagination, so she started "scribbling" at a very young age. He also gave her access to his extensive library of English authors. He allowed her to sit quietly in a corner and listen to his political, philosophical, scientific or literary discussions with his friends, among them the literary lions William Wordsworth, Charles and Mary Lamb, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and William Hazlitt. The only formal training Mary received came from a music master."
Kidsal, thanks for the comparison of the two editions. I wonder why she made Elizabeth his cousin in the edited version?
-
First, thank you Marcie for the link to the Letters. I did want to read them again since after my initial reading at the beginning of the book it was difficult for me (the reader) to understand their link to the plot as it develops through Chapters 1 and much of the remainder of the book.
Second I have wanted to add a final comment on regency society. True it was a closed society with full participation requiring money, and social position; the latter element seems to have implied a certain amount of education. Yet it was not entirely closed to new initiates. There was a small but growing new class of people with money made through their ability in new industry including coal mining war industry, mechanized weaving shipping and foreign trade. Though these new rich themselves may have lacked the social polish necessary for participation, they tended to educate their children who were certainly acceptable.
In any case descent through a 16th century title was not a requirement for acceptance in regency society. The requirement was the availability of money without having to spend too much time working for it, a degree of education, particularly wit and the ability to tell a funny story and engage in mature conversation, and the ability to relate to others in formal social situations. Those of you interested in further reading on this society might try to find the out of print J.B. Priestly book, “The Prince of Pleasure and His Regency” that I have previously mentioned. Also another particularly applicable title is “The 1826 Journal of John James Audubon.” Though 1826 is post Regency this journal vividly describes how well Audubon was accepted by and related to the lifestyle of the rich untitled, educated society in 1826 Liverpool, Manchester, and Edinburgh.
-
"Ella, It's a story and it wouldn't be the story it is if certain things didn't happen. If we question too many things, it might be difficult to continue. I'll probably question them anyway but will try to suspend my disbelief".
Someone called that a "plot of stupidity". The plot only works if the characters behave stupidly.
But Victor seems to be carrying it beyond the needs of the plot. It's difficult not to become very impatient with him.
Clearly, Mary was a very intellegant woman. Upper class women in England received very little in the way of formal education, but they could READ. Of course, there were no public libraies; they were dependent on what their families and friends could collect in the way of private libraries, and the conversation of those in their circle.
Mary seems to be one of those who used her opportunities to the fullest. I am reminded of another, the poet Byron's only legitimate daughter, Lady Lovelace. She loved mathematics, but of course no one would allow a WOMAN to study such an unfeminine occupation. But she managed to study under some mathematicians of the day, and eventually apprenticed herself to Chasrles Babbage who was building the world's first computer. She was the first to realize that a computer was only as good as the programs written for it. She became the world's first computer programmer. Since Babbage never finished building his computer, she never got to debug it.
-
Click the following for the Wikedia Articles of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace.. The Babbage machine that was never completed would have been a mechanical computer for calculating Mathematical tables accurately. It would have been like the early 19th century mechanical adding machines/ calculators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
-
Harold, I appreciate the information about education and society's requirements and the references to Priestly's and Audobon's books. I love the links to Babbage and Lovelace too. JoanK, Thanks for bringing up Ada Lovelace. I read her book Ada Lovelace:Enchantree of Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/Ada-Enchantress-Numbers-Selection-Description/dp/0912647094/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1278539896&sr=1-2-fkmr0) some time ago and learned quite a bit about her.
You are right, JoanK, that we don't want stupid characters. In this second section of the book, Victor is trying my patience too. Despite that, Mary does seem to be an intelligent writer, especially as we know that she learned only from reading and speaking with other bright minds and had no formal training.
-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
-
And let's not forget that Mary is not just a young girl scribbing out her thoughts without an editor to notice the inconsistancies and Victor's lack of forethought. If we are getting annoyed with the character portrayal - we have to include the noted Romantic poet, Percy Shelly as well. Mary wrote a much shorter story - and then he encouraged her to write a novel. Don't you think there was corroboration between the two - at least discussion of what we see here?? Perhaps we are annoyed at the style of the Romantics..."emotions over reason, as JoanK put it.
Quite a coincidence that Victor should see his creature in the woods on the way home for William's funeral - but for the sake of the story, I can accept that. Doesn't it seem that Victor jumped to the conclusion that his creature had murdered William? Was there any evidence pointing to the gigantic figure? Do you think Victor is overeacting? I do. The more I read, the more I feel for this creature. He doesn't stand a chance. Was Mary Shelley trying to evoke this empathy? Do you feel it - or am I alone on this?
- I don't know what to make of Justine Moritz. . Elizabeth seemed to harbor some resentment about the special treatment Victor's mother gives to Justine. Taken in as a servant, but then treated as one of the family - given an education
b]Harold,[/b] wrote - that education "was not entirely closed to new initiates. There was a small but growing new class of people with money made through their ability" How do you feel about Justine's good fortune to gain an education. Is Mary Shelley commenting here by providing an education for this - " girl of merit?"
The one question that I hope Mary Shelley addresses - the matter of the picture of William in Justine's pocket. There's no way I can believe that this creature put the picture in her pocket after murdering William. I need to know the reason that photo is there. Until then, the creature is innocent - and the real killer is still out there. I really was not expecting to take "Frankenstein the monster's side" before reading the book...to feel anything for him, but honestly, there is no case against him up to this point - all evidence is circumstantiol.
-
Chapter 7: VF, by happenstance, sees his creation for the first time since abandoning him the day after the murder. He automatically assumes, is convinced, that the "monster" has done the deed. No evidence mind you. His prejudice is showing. This irked me.
Chapter 8: Justine had possession of the picture (pendant?) which was given to William. VF didn't tell the judge for several reasons. One, cowardice. Two, no one would believe him. Three, Not only did Justine have the jewelry, but she also confessed to the murder. While the confession carried much weight back then, there is always the possibility that she was coerced into it by threat and ill treatment.
Shelley has painted a picture of the upper classes being refined, sensitive, sensible, incapable of doing evil deeds. The lower classes are portrayed as inferior, ugly, depraved, unintelligent. All things good on one side, all things bad on the other as is one's life could be evil or good, but not both.
-
MARCIE, thanks for that biographical information. Can you imagine being able to sit quietly
and listen to Wordsworth, Lamb, Coleridge!!
JoanP, thanks for reminding me how young Mary was when this was written. It does make a
difference. For an author that young, this book is a truly remarkable accomplishment. What I
find truly remarkable, tho', is that a creature that huge has not been spotted any number of
times. I have been expecting rumors of a giant to be spreading through the countryside.
Now I am really becoming upset with F. He is so wrapped up in himself and his ‘pain’.
His brother is murdered and an innocent young woman is found guilty, all due to the monster he created. “The poor victim, who on the morrow was to pass the awful boundary between life and death, felt not as I did, such deep and bitter agony.” Always, he is the most pitiful. He could end much of his ‘agony’ by simply speaking the truth. The young woman does not have that option. I am tired of F’s constant moaning and bewailing, feeling so sorry for himself.
-
Doesn't it seem that Victor jumped to the conclusion that his creature had murdered William? Was there any evidence pointing to the gigantic figure? Do you think Victor is overeacting? I do. The more I read, the more I feel for this creature. He doesn't stand a chance. Was Mary Shelley trying to evoke this empathy? Do you feel it - or am I alone on this?
I think Victor was jumping to conclusions with a remarkable bit of Romantic non-logic:
"He was the murderer! I could not doubt it. The mere presence of the idea was an irresistible proof of the fact."
In other words, "If I've thought of it it's true".
I agree, Joan, that Mary means us to feel empathy for the creature, and I do.
-
Comments:
From Chapter 8: “My Cousin replied, it was decided as you may have expected; all judges had rather that ten innocent should suffer, than one guilty should escape.” So much for the Swiss criminal justice system! The book seems to be describing a Swiss version of the Napoleonic criminal justice system under which 3 or more professional judges decided questions of fact as well as question of law. They did attach a great deal of importance on her confession even though it seems to have been urged by her priest confessor who urged it on her.
From Chapter 11 – 14; At this point the monster seems to take over the first person telling of his story wandering through high mountain snow and ice, eating berries and whatever he found, living in a hovel that overlooked a peasant hut occupied by an elderly man and a young woman and man. The monster from his hovel seems able to observe and develop an understanding of the presumed peasant’s melancholy life.
Here we see the monster is quite capable of showing human feeling in response to his observation of the peasant’s difficult life. He is able to amass a great amount of intelligence concerning the occupants through his observations. I found it hard to believe that one could amass so much information through such distant observation without being discovered by his subjects. But Mary Shelley seems to get away with her method and we do learn for the first time that the monster has his human side and is quite capable of expressing sympathy and understand for human dilemma.
-
JoanP, I think you've hit on the issue..that our dissatisfaction with the novel may not be specific to Mary Shelley but to this kind of novel of the romantic period. I didn't pick up on any resentment that Elizabeth felt for Justine. Elizabeth says in her letter to Victor, "I assure you, I love her tenderly." Later she is the one who tries to stand up to the judges on behalf of Justine. I think you're right that the picture found in Justine's pocket is a key. I guess we have to wait until later chapters to find out how it got there! It does seem that Mary Shelley is indicating that Frankenstein's creation was worthy of sympathy in the parts of his life that she has described so far. He sort of speaks like a Shakespearean actor. :-)
Frybabe, Victor says that he did try to talk to the judges about Justine but their cold response convinced him that "thus I might declare myself a madman, but not revoke the sentence..." As you indicate, there seems to be a pattern in these plot points. Victor says that something is so, and that's the way it is. PatH, I like your label: "Romantic non-logic." On the whole, I think you're right, Frybabe, about the portrayal of the classes as all goodness on the one side of the upper classes and debasement on the lower classes but there seems to be some leveling. I recall that in one of Elizabeth's letters to Victor she says that servants in Geneva are not treated as elsewhere..."hence there is less distinction between the several classes of inhabitants; and the lower orders, being neither so poor nor so despised, their manners are more refined and moral." Harold, maybe you could help us out here with your reading about the society of the time.
Babi, I have to admit that I was feeling as you--tired Victor's dramatic "moaning" about his lot, during this section. When his creation starts to tell his story, the novel picks up for me.
Harold, I do agree with you that the judges were relieved to have a confession. They were not going to look too closely at it.
Comments:
From Chapter 11 – 14; At this point the monster seems to take over the first person telling of his story wandering through high mountain snow and ice, eating berries and whatever he found, living in a hovel that overlooked a peasant hut occupied by an elderly man and a young woman and man. The monster from his hovel seems able to observe and develop an understanding of the presumed peasant’s melancholy life.
Here we see the monster is quite capable of showing human feeling in response to his observation of the peasant’s difficult life. He is able to amass a great amount of intelligence concerning the occupants through his observations. I found it hard to believe that one could amass so much information through such distant observation without being discovered by his subjects. But Mary Shelley seems to get away with her method and we do learn for the first time that the monster has his human side and is quite capable of expressing sympathy and understand for human dilemma.
Yes, Mary Shelley does seem to describe quite a few things that are not in synch with our modern approach. How could that poor family have that additional space where the creation hid and never check it? I wonder if in the writing of the time, readers didn't ask the kinds of questions we ask today? I know when I watch old movies, many seem very unsophisticated (as compared with those today)...even those that have won awards. It might be similar.
-
I recall that in one of Elizabeth's letters to Victor she says that servants in Geneva are not treated as elsewhere..."hence there is less distinction between the several classes of inhabitants; and the lower orders, being neither so poor nor so despised, their manners are more refined and moral."
Thanks, Marcie. That didn't sink in when I read the letters. I was wondering how they felt about the "middle class". Could we then consider that the servants were lower middle class?
-
I found it hard to believe that one could amass so much information
through such distant observation without being discovered by his
subjects
.
Exactly, HAROLD. He apparently not only learns speech, when he does
begin to speak in the story he sounds like a college professor of
considerable insight. When he learns to read the language, some short while after his creation, he is reading books at the high school/college
level. We are having to swallow a great deal to accommodate Miss
Shelley's romance.
And how does this huge creature live in a hovel so closely adjoining the
cottage that he can see and hear, and yet not be discovered?
-
I waited to comment on those first person sections until we all caught up.
The monster's learning all about human life is like the similar plot in many, many novels and movies, but Shelley's may have been one of the earliest versions published.
It reminds me of the Tarzan stories, and especially the movie Greystroke, where a boy raised by apes becomes cultured and humanized, up to a point. Here's a link about the film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087365/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087365/)
There are many stories about children raised by wolves or other forest animals, not to forget Romulus and Remus and the founding of Rome. Weren't there also German folk tales about such children?
The monster is, to me, child-like in these sections, learning about human culture and even learning that books tell information. He also does good deeds ... so is he indeed a monster?
It's like a fairy tale, and is the most interest part of the novel so far, IMO.
-
I was wondering how they felt about the "middle class". Could we then consider that the servants were lower middle class?
I'm not quite sure what class servants were, but it's interesting to contrast Justine and Elizabeth. Both were taken into the household from poor families. Elizabeth, really the daughter of a nobleman, but who had gotten permanently stuck in a foster situation, is raised as one of the family and considered suitable marriage material for Victor. Justine, of peasant stock, is educated, but still considered servant material. When Victor visits her in prison she calls him "Sir" and treats him with deference.
By the way, Victor and Elizabeth call each other "cousin" in the 1831 edition too, but this is a term of affection; they aren't related.
-
Frybabe, I'm not sure if there was much of a middle class when Mary Shelley was writing. She may have reflected the values of her own time or been trying to construct an historical novel of the previous century. A site at http://www.localhistories.org/19thcent.html says (about about a time a little later than Mary was writing): "In the early 19th century Britain was an oligarchy. Only a small minority of men (and no women) were allowed to vote. The situation began to change in 1832 when the vote was given to more men. Constituencies were also redrawn and many industrial towns were represented for the first time. The franchise was extended again in 1867 and 1883. In 1872 the secret ballot was introduced.
However in the 19th century at least 80% of the population was working class. In order to be considered middle class you had to have at least one servant. Most servants were female. (Male servants were much more expensive because men were paid much higher wages). Throughout the 19th century 'service' was a major employer of women." That would probably mean that there was even less of a middle class in the previous century.
-
Babi, you say "We are having to swallow a great deal to accommodate Miss Shelley's romance." Speaking of swallowing, how does that 8 foot giant live only on berries and roots that he is able to find? ;) Mippy, yes the story of how the creation became "civilized" in this self-taught way does remind one of Tarzan and similar stories. For me, too, his narrative got my attention in these chapters.
-
I had previously reported to you that I am reading the book on my Dell Desktop using the App software for reading the B&N Nook Reader software I am finding this reading from my 22 inch Dell Desktop screen quite easy and fast (for me being as I am, a slow but intense reader). I can be quite comfortable sitting back in my swivel office chair about two feet back from the screen wearing my computer glasses. As I read I highlight a limited number of passages earmarking them as subjects for future discussion and posts here.
There are however two negatives. First there is no way to copy passages and paste them into comments for posting here. In other words if I want to quote a passage out of the text here, I must type it word for word, a process that can be a considerable chore for a terribly poor typist like me. A second negative is that I have not yet discovered how to insert marginal notes in my on line text. The program offers me this option so I type the comment and click its apparent insertion, but where it goes I never know. In other words I, can’t find how to retrieve the insertion. Do any of you who use the Nook Reader know how this is done?
All in all I like the experience and do believe I will read future books on one screen or another quite likely an I-Pad that is scheduled for an August purchase.
-
Then for copying, you're no better off than those of us with paper books.
Harold, your description of the Priestly book was so interesting that I asked my library to put it on hold for me.
-
Speaking ow swallowing a lot, Babi and Marcie, before the creature runs off, he grabs some clothes because he's cold. How can an 8 foot giant wear normal sized clothes?
The hiding place of the creature is a miserable little lean-to plastered onto the side of the cottage. It's hard to believe no one would even look in to check for rats occasionally.
-
Harold, I found the following info in the NOOK manual online. It makes it sound like you only only view the notes from within the book.
navigate to the page
Click Highlights and Notes
View the notes for the page
Click next to see the next highlight/note
-
LOL, Pat. Yes, the creation found a very large cloak to cover himself at first.
-
Yes, Shelley knows where she wants to go and isn't too careful about making the way she gets there plausible. You sci-fi readers, is this common among sci-fi authors?
I agree with Marcie: in 1818, there was not yet much middle class in England. The middle class really grew with the industrial revolution. We have seen in other later English novels that later the upper class will look down on them, but in a different way. (crude and money-grubbing). In 1818, they don't exist for Shelley. Notice that the poor but virtuous cottagers are impoverished upper class.
-
Thank you marcie for your comment on how to access notes. I see when I mark off a section of the text I get a screen that offers two options, High light Selection and add note. So I first execute the highlight then return and add the note. Thereafter I now see I can read any note I made on any high lighted text by right clicking Edit Note. I can read it but again I can't copy it for inclusion in a post. Perhaps I'm expecting too much.
-
Harold, I didn't find any information about being able to copy the text or annotations or export the annotations. I don't know if other devices let you do that. It sure would be helpful.
Thanks to your recommendation of JB Priestly, I just got "Literature and Western Man" from my library. I look forward to at least browsing through it.
JoanK, the science fiction writers that I like don't rely on illogical plot points. I'm thinking that most readers of Shelley's time were not as used to critical thinking as they read and might not have questioned the logic. Perhaps they would just accept the novel as the author wrote it.
-
Joan K for me by 1818 the Industrial Revolution in England was in progress. The existence of a new capitalist class constituting the small but vocal middle class was the subject of the J.B. Priestly book and the Audubon 1826 Journal. Of course it was not the great mass of the population counted middle class today. It was the coal mine owners, factory owners, mill owners, ship/trading house owners, Bankers (who had financed the French Wars and also large yeoman farmers like Shelley’s family. This rising new capitalist class tended toward the liberal politically. By 1833 they had abolished slavery throughout the British Empire and passed the first of several governmental reform laws extending the franchise a process that continued throughout the 19th and into the 20th century.
-
Thanks, Harold, for that information. It's helpful to have history buffs participating in a discussion of this novel.
-
Yes, Shelley knows where she wants to go and isn't too careful about making the way she gets there plausible. You sci-fi readers, is this common among sci-fi authors?
Sci-fi authors have to be careful, because they have a very picky audience who will shoot them down for inconsistencies. But they're all over the map on this.
It's easy to forget how groundbreaking this novel is. You can make a good case for it being the first science fiction novel ever. Mary is definitely inventing, not reinventing, the wheel, and it's amazing that it's still a good read.
Marcie, I should probably remember from the Sci-fi site, but who are your favorite authors?
-
PatH, I have many favorite science fiction authors. My list changes frequently. Some I like are: Isaac Asimov, Michael Bishop, Ray Bradbury, Ocatvia Butler, Arthur C. Clarke, Harlan Elison, William Gibson, Ursula LeGuin, Lyda Morehouse.
-
Oh, yes, PatH. The cover of my book showed the creature dressed, for instance, in a jacket
whose sleeves came only to his elbows and trousers to his knees. Of course, that still doesn't
explain how he got that jacket over his shoulders.
JOANK, with the good sci-fi authors, they are very careful to see that their schemes are
scientifically possible. They even explain it as well as they can in layman's terms.
What do you think of this? “The first of those sorrows which are sent to wean us from the earth, had visited her, and its dimming influence quenched her dearest smiles.”
A long life does often bring us to a point where we are quite ready and content to leave the world behind. I suppose it could be part of a divine plan to ‘wean’ us from our attachment to this world. Not that everyone has that time given them to be ‘weaned’.
The idea is not an unfamiliar one, and I believe it is one of the popular ideas of that period.
Any comments?
-
Frybabe has just posted an idea in the Suggestion Box - what do you think of a Ray Bradbury title? Marcie's post made me think of Ursala Le Guin - I'd heard that she won an award for her latest book -
Cheek by Jowl (http://www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html) If you think you might like to read and discuss a sci fi choice, please stop in the Suggestion Box and let us know?
I never thought of Frankenstein as a sci-fi story, but of course it is, isn't it? The very first? Babi, if in fact Mary Shelley was the first, it was probably us to her successors to perfect the genre to the standard that you have come to expect.
Can you find the source for the quote in your last post? "The first of those sorrows which are sent to wean us from the earth, had visited her, and its dimming influence quenched her dearest smiles.” Are we talking about a young woman or someone who has led a long life? It would make a difference, no?
ps My book refers to the creatures "cloak" - perhaps the illustrator neglected to read the book or missed the cloak reference?
-
Victor is convinced that he is responsible for the deaths of Justine and William. I guess if I were in his shoes, I'd feel the same way. Especially since he believes that Justine was innocent. He refers to them as "the first hapless victims to my unhallowed arts." The first.
He considers suicide - but realizes he'd be leaving the rest of his family unprotected. He believes his creature is on a killing rampage. He believes he must avenge the deaths and stop the "Devil." I think this is logical.
But when he leaves the gates of Geneva and is free to roam, he finds solitude in nature, he finds consolation. He even sleeps. Isn't it curious that his solitude is interrupted by a confrontation with the very creature he is trying to forget? Yes, I was floored by the fact that the wretched being could speak - but even more by the things he said.
"All men hate the wretched."
Is Mary Shelley making a point here?
I'm not certain about his proposal to Victor - What does he see as Dr. Frankenstein's duty? To kill him, to take back the life that he gave him? If not, does the creature threaten to take the lives of Victor's family and friends? Is Victor up to this challenge?
I'm reading the creature's account with the same interest that Victor is listening for - the admission that the creature killed his brother, William. If that's the case, then I think Victor can go after him, without remorse. But without the confession, Victor has a moral choice, it seems to me.
-
Just a jump backward to Justine's confession. It was made, she tells Elizabeth, "to obtain absolution" but not fr the sin of murdering the child; she knows she did not do that. But absolution for her other offences, whatever they might be, was to be obtained by confession. Only her confessor would know whether she confessed to murder or not, and he would be bound by"the seal of the confessional" not to reveal anything she said.
Pm the question of the creature's learning process, Mary shelley seems to be endorsing the school of thought that says children learn what they see. Children could be considered "monsters" who are cute and appealing. They are formed by thier observations of how they see adults acting toward each other, to a great extent. Mary Shelley had "telescoped" the process in the case of the creature, but the principle is the same.
-
My prime suspect in William's murder was Ernest, the other brother. He was not as appealing, and was not very bright at his studies. He had to bear with everyone doting on William for his beauty, and praising Justine for her success at her studies. jealousy could have been the motive, and he was reportedly the last one to see William alive.Killing two birds with one stone. So much for my sleuthing.
-
It seems that Frankenstein is continually bedridden for days/weeks because of his nervousness about something occurring in his life. How could such a man gather up body parts and create a monster?
-
I can't give you the page, JOANP, since I've returned the book to the library. The reference
was to Elizabeth, as I recall, who of course was not old. It was in thinking of that comment
that I considered it in the light of those growing old and becoming more detached. I wondered
what others might think of it, since it does not seem at all applicable to young people. Another
expression of Romanticist thought, I assume.
(Incidentally, I am persuaded that illustrators rarely read the book they are illustrating. The
covers so seldom match what the descriptions in the story.)
Nervous prostration appears to be another Romantic idea of how a noble character would react. This occurred after the completion of the monster and Victor's horror at the result, tho', KIDSAL. Before that, all his nervous energy was directed toward the completion of his project. Our modern reaction, of course, would be that the hero should be of 'sterner stuff'. Languishing and moaning do not at all fit our ideas of a heroic type.
-
Good point about the confession, Bellemere. How come everyone knew what Justine had confessed to the priest? Maybe he made her cofess publicly as part of her atonement.
I agree, Kidsal and Babi, Victor can't stand up to anything without collapsing. Nervous prostration is an occupational hazard of Romantic heroes and heroines.
Babi, I once heard of a cover for a murder mystery whose picture revealed the gimmick, letting you figure out the murderer.
-
Loving the discussion. It fascinated me the creation hiding all that time in the little room watching and learning. Kind of makes me wonder where the brain came from that was put into him.
The way he did all the helpful things for his watchees at night showed a potential he could have had if those he encountered might have treated him better and embraced him a bit.
-
Kind of makes me wonder where the brain came from that was put into him.
Yes, Bookjunky, it's a quality brain. His learning curve, going from figuring out what words are to speaking in elaborate sentences with perfect grammar in 2 years, is even steeper than Victor learning all of science in a few years. Maybe Victor should have kept it for himself. ;)
The way he did all the helpful things for his watchees at night showed a potential he could have had if those he encountered might have treated him better and embraced him a bit.
Right on!
-
This seems to be one of the points of the story. If he is treated with kindness, he can be kind: if with hatred, he can hate even more. What do we think of that now?
-
“The first of those sorrows which are sent to wean us from the earth, had visited her, and its dimming influence quenched her dearest smiles.” This excerpt that Babi quotes is at the beginning of Chapter 9 after Justine has been put to death. The quote is about Elizabeth. Here is some more of the context:
"Our house was the house of mourning. My father's health was
deeply shaken by the horror of the recent events. Elizabeth was sad and desponding; she
no longer took delight in her ordinary occupations; all pleasure seemed to her sacrilege
toward the dead; eternal woe and tears she then thought was the just tribute she should
pay to innocence so blasted and destroyed. She was no longer that happy creature who in
earlier youth wandered with me on the banks of the lake and talked with ecstasy of our
future prospects. The first of those sorrows which are sent to wean us from the earth had
visited her, and its dimming influence quenched her dearest smiles.
'When I reflect, my dear cousin,' said she, 'on the miserable death of Justine Moritz, I no
longer see the world and its works as they before appeared to me. Before, I looked upon
the accounts of vice and injustice that I read in books or heard from others as tales of
ancient days or imaginary evils; at least they were remote and more familiar to reason
than to the imagination; but now misery has come home, and men appear to me as
monsters thirsting for each other's blood.' "
Mary Shelley's father, William Godwin, and her husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, were both atheists. It's not clear to me whether Mary Shelley is expressing her own view in that sentence or whether she is putting into Victor's voice a thought that would have been characteristic of the time, that from the beginning of their lives, people are beset by trials to wean them from earth (if that is the sense of it, the quote would apply to a person of any age, young or old)
-
JoanP, I don't think that the creation was asking Frankenstein to kill him..but only to listen to him and grant his wish (we don't know what the wish is yet).When he says what I quote below, my interpretation is that he's saying IF, AFTER YOU LISTEN TO ME YOU STILL ARE CONVINCED YOU MUST KILL ME, IF YOU CAN DO IT AND YOUR WILL IS TO DO IT, GO AHEAD AND TRY.
"Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder; and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man! Yet I ask you not to spare me: listen to me; and then, if you can, and if you will, destroy the work of your hands."
...
"Still thou canst listen to me, and grant me thy compassion. By the virtues that I once possessed, I demand this from you. Hear my tale; it is long and strange, and the temperature of this place is not fitting to your fine sensations; come to the hut upon the mountain. The sun is yet high in the heavens; before it descends to hide itself behind yon snowy precipices, and illuminate another world, you will have heard my story, and can decide. On you it rests, whether I quit forever the neighbourhood of man, and lead a harmless life, or become the scourge of your fellow-creatures, and the author of your own speedy ruin."
JoanP, I've been thinking along those lines too. You ask if Mary Shelley is making a point when she has the creation say "All men hate the wretched..." There were several times when I noticed that the author might be making social commentary. She does seem to have picked up on her mother's vindication of individual, civil rights.
-
Good point, Bellemere. As you say, Justine confessed to the murder of William because her confessor "threatened excommunication and hell fire" if she did not. I think that "confession" is used in two senses in that section of the book. She confessed to obtain absolution, as you indicated, in the religious sense but she also must have made a confession, in the legal sense, that was public to the judges. The morning after the trial, Frankenstein goes to court and "The person to whom I addressed myself added that Justine had already confessed her guilt. 'That evidence,' he observed, 'was hardly required in so glaring a case, but I am glad of it; and, indeed, none of our judges like to condemn a criminal upon circumstantial evidence, be it ever so decisive.'
I think that the last part of the sentence was another one of those remarks that Mary Shelley includes to point to injustices against individuals in the criminal court. There was only circumstantial evidence and it seemed that everyone involved in the case wanted Justine to confess.
-
Kidsal, I'm totally with you and Babi and PatH on your comments about the "nervous prostration" evident during the Romantic era. ???
It seems that Frankenstein is continually bedridden for days/weeks because of his nervousness about something occurring in his life. How could such a man gather up body parts and create a monster?
Bookjunky and PatH, I love your comments about the brain Frankenstein used in his creation. Bellemere, I think you are right when you say that Mary Shelley seems to be endorsing the school of thought that says children learn what they see.
This seems to be one of the points of the story. If he is treated with kindness, he can be kind: if with hatred, he can hate even more. What do we think of that now?
JoanK, I think that is often what happens but is hate the most effective response to hate? I'm not sure whether Mary Shelley is endorsing that view even though she has Frankenstein's creation express it. Justine doesn't respond to hate with hate. "She submits in patience to the will of heaven." When Elizabeth detects "an expression of despair and sometimes of revenge" in Victor she tells him to "banish these dark passions."
-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
What a hoot! I just noticed a Google ad at the top of my web page. It says "Frankenstein Study Guide" and takes you to their eNotes page with all things Frankenstein including quizzes.
http://www.enotes.com/frankenstein/?gclid=CKCGv5fK5KICFSQ65QodPVI7yA
-
The google ads are working, Frybabe! Is that the site that requires payment to subscribe?
-
Apparently so Marcie, I took another look, found the join now button and clicked. There are various prices listed. The pay for use feature is not immediately apparent, but what is available without joining is still interesting. Down near the bottom of the Navigate section is a link to Frankenstein Pictures. One is listed as Mary Shelley's first drawing of the monster. The illustrations below are not marked as to who drew them.
-
I once heard of a cover for a murder mystery whose picture revealed the gimmick, letting you figure out the murderer.
PatH
Now that must have been most irritating!
BOOKJUNKY, I couldn't help thinking that if the creature had written to this cottage family
first, explaining that he was the one who had done the helpful chores, and that he wished very
much to be their friend, but warning them that he was frightening to look upon, he might have
had better luck. (I'm assuming, since he could read, he could also write.)
He is thinking abstractly and pondering philosophically, and reading books which should be well beyond his comprehension . All wholly incredible. So, I’m looking at the thoughts Mary Shelley supposes for him, of course.
He is considering virtue and vice, and associates them, reasonably enough, with pleasure and pain. He admires the virtuous and wishes to emulate them. He is also able to realize that if his “first introduction to humanity” had been made by people different from his beloved cottage family, he would have felt differently.
No matter how much salt I apply, I’m finding this very hard to swallow.
-
Frybabe, I hadn't noticed those illustrations. Thanks for pointing them out. The original sketch by Mary Shelley of the Frankenstein's creation: http://www.enotes.com/frankenstein/pictures/mary-shelleys-drawing
Babi, yes, since Mary Shelley put those philosophical thoughts about society in the character of Frankenstein's creation, it's "logical" to assume that he could think himself out of the box of being "forced" to act the way he does in retribution. The book, however, does not follow this logical path.
-
Notice another feature of "Romantic" thinking in this book -- the valueing of instinct over reason. frankenstein just "knew" that the creature had killed William, and we are sure that he's going to be right. Whereas the logical proceedure of examining the evidence got it wrong.
-
That's a very good point, JoanK.
-
Frankenstein just "knew" that the creature had killed William, and we are sure that he's going to be right."" JoanK
Mary Shelley did such a good job eliciting our sympathy for the gentle, lonely creature, that I did NOT just know the Dr. Frankenstein was right. Till now, I thought she was going to prove the the prejudice against the ugly was unfounded...something like Beauty and the Beast. I also hoped that he would find someone who could love him for himself... Although in the back of my mind, there is a memory of a creature gone mad, wreaking destruction.
Now I've read the next chapters - and see how loneliness affected the creature -
" My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor, and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal."
Have you noticed an incongruency here? Victor, when on his own in the beauty and majesty of nature, is able to forget his woes - he finds Mother Nature a soothing distraction. Not so with the creature, who is living in the same beautiful spot in Mont Blanc. Maybe the difference is that Victor is free to roam, to return to his friends and family, whereas the creature is confined here? Did you notice Victor describing himself as " a miserable spectacle of wrecked humanity, pitiable to others and intolerable to myself?" The same description could be applied to the creature!
But I've jumped ahead...and will go back to Safie's arrival on the scene and the effect it had on the creature... now we learn more about his speech and how he came to be so well-educated. Is Mary Shelley making a wry observation that most education and learning could be
picked up in a month or two - from a book, an overview of civilizatio? Keep in mind that she herself did not have a formal education...
-
JoanP, I think you have hit on the difference between Victor and the creature in nature. Victor knows that he has a loving family to return to. He goes out into the wilds willingly. The creature has never known a family and is driven into the wilds of nature, though he does sometimes find solace in it.
I think you make a great point about parallels between Victor and his creation. We can be on the lookout for more.
We're moving on today to the next section and have some questions in the heading for everyone's consideration. Please feel free to respond to any of them or just share your own thoughts about the 1818 version: Vol II, Ch 5-9, Vol III, Ch 1-2 or 1831 version: Ch 13-19 or anything before.
-
I'm seeing many similarities between F. and his creation, JOAN. Mary
Shelley does emphasize the prejudice against the ugly, but the strongest element in her story seems to be immutable destiny. It is a view I have always protested and it is one of the factors that make me dislike this book. This perception of 'destiny' takes away our ability to make choices and take another road.
Both Victor and his creation blame others, or circumstances, for the
choices they make and insist that they could do nothing else. The creature does have the better right to lay blame, since his entire existence is Victor's responsibility.
-
Now we've read the rest of the creature's narrative. I'm curious to learn everyone's thoughts about the new developments of his knowledge and feelings.
-
I have decided to give up, on this book. It depresses me. I have read up to Chapter 10. I am tired to the negativity in Frankenstein. The book is too dark for me. I have never liked science fiction. So, I am going to read something that interests me.
Sheila
-
That's too bad, Shiela, but thanks for giving it a try. We'll meet again in some other book discussion.
-
Babi, I somehow missed your post, which landed 4 seconds before mine. Nice comparison. I don't believe in immutable destiny either. Victor, especially, annoys me by just standing around wringing his hands saying he can't do anything. He should have taken vigorous action from the start to try to undo or contain the harm he has done.
-
Sheila, I'm sorry that we're losing you from this discussion. Just to let you know.. all science fiction isn't "dark" (some science fiction authors are quite humorous) but as you can see from the posts, many of us are having some trouble with Frankenstein's lack of action and melodramatic hand wringing after he gives life to his creation. Babi and PatH, I'm with you in your opinion of Frankenstein and "destiny" or "fate." Has anyone read anything about how the Romantics viewed destiny and individual freedom?
Good point, Babi, about how both Frankenstein and his creation blame others for their actions.
-
Sometimes I think that I give Mary Shelley too much credit- for knowing what she is doing. I imagine that she is writing the story so that we will respond just the way we are doing. Is she using the characters to prove a point...is this actually social commentary? There seems to be a lot going on here, and she really seems to represent the thinking of the Romantics of her time -
I found this little essay - (very badly written :D) on Romanticism in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=17392) which seems to come close to clearing up. for me at least, where she was coming from on the matter of destiny or fate.
" The Industrial Revolution in England during the late 1700's was a time of great change. The populace was moving into cities, and people were disillusioned by the destruction of nature and the living conditions in the cities. In response to this disillusionment, people started to envision the world differently than they had before. They saw nature as all beautiful, powerful, and perfect. Previously, the inspiration for literature was law, order, and religion; now, it is in the writers imagination and powerful emotions. This change in the attitude of the people is called Romanticism. The Romantic Movement encouraged spontaneity, and acting with emotions, not common sense.
There was a new feeling of spirituality. People were seeking eastern concepts of nirvana, transcendentalism and being one with nature. Victor is a product of the Industrial Revolution. In reaction to people with Victor's characteristics, the Romantic Period is born. His beliefs are in science and the known world, which is the opposite of the Romantic ideal. He believes that he can conquer nature, and tries to be a god, but discovers that he cannot conquer nature and knows nothing on how to be a god."
Victor represents the exact opposite of the Romantic ideal - it is Henry Mary is holding up as the ideal. I think the author is as tired of Victor as we are...but she's trying to make a point. Gee. what was so very clear when I started out has gotten away from me now...
-
Good, JoanP-- I see it. He is the scientist, who thinks science and rationality can do anything. Instead, the power he has turns around and destroys everything he loves. When he loses his faitth in scientific knowledge, he has nothing. Only when he returns to nature, does he regain strength.
Frsnkenstein's monster has stood as a symbol, ever since it was written, of the feat that the power we, through science and technology, are unleashing will destroy us.
-
Wow, JoanK and JoanP, that's impressive.
JoanP: "People were seeking eastern concepts of nirvana, transcendentalism and being one with nature."
"...it is Henry Mary is holding up as the ideal."
Maybe it's not just coincidence that Henry wants to study Eastern languages.
-
Yes, JoanP and JoanK, your thoughts are very helpful to see the perspective from which Mary Shelley would have been writing. Hmm, I hadn't thought from that point of view about Henry's wanting to study Eastern languages. Good thinking, PatH.
-
Is she using the characters to prove a point...is this actually social commentary? There seems to be a lot going on here, and she really seems to represent the thinking of the Romantics of her time -
I think Mary is making several points in the book. A foot note in my book says:
"...the theme of the danger of a acquiring knowledge whose consequences cannot be controlled is also prominent in Mary Shelley's father's novel, Caleb Williams (1794), and in his Defence of Poetry, Shelley [that would be Percy] warns his readers that 'our calculations have outrun conception; we have eaten more than we can digest'."
So that particular point was an idea that was kicking around at the time.
-
PatH, I'm wondering what M.S.'s intentions are in describing the consciences of the creature AND of Victor. The creature seems capable of feeling and craving companionship - but he is capable of rage, even murder. Poor little William -
He had learned much from watching the cottagers and the way they love and respect one another. Very positive role models. It was only natural that he wants that for himself. But when William refused to be his "friend" - the creature shows his lack of conscience, doesn't he? Human life means nothing to him. there is no concept of right and wrong.
He learns from the lessons that Felix passes on to Safie - so that when hecomes upon that satchel of books, he is able to read - and understand them. From reading these books, he reaches conclusions that form his conscience. I'm not familiar with "The Sorrows of Werter," are you? Maybe Mary Shelley's readers were. What she writes is that the creature finds himself similar to Werter - and begins to question where he came from, and where he was going. Good questions. We all ask that, don't we?
Reading "Plutarch's Lives," he develops an admiration for virtue - and an abhorrence of vice - and we're told he admired peaceable lawgivers. So far, so good.
But when he read "Paradise Lost" - of the Omnipotent God - and his "happy" and "prosperous" and "beautiful" creation - Adam, he begins to sense Envy - and feels that he more resembles SATAN than Adam. When he confronts Victor, his creator, he asks, "Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?" That's a very good question, isn't it? What if Victor had taken more care and "created" a good-looking creature - would this be a different tale?
Now Victor has promised to create a female mate for the creature. What would you have done at this point? What should Victor have done? Will she be better looking? Will she too be appalled at the appearance of the male? Remember how V. assembled the male - from a collection of body parts in Geneva? Where on earth is he finding body parts for "her" in this deserted outpost on the Orkneys? Is there a point where Victor can make the right decision, or is it way too late. When did he go wrong?
-
What a lot of good points, JoanP.
Pat, I'm wondering what M.S.'s intentions are in describing the consciences of the creature AND of Victor.
Indeed, they both seem to have consciences, flawed in different ways.
The creature doesn't just kill William for refusing to be his friend. William says that his father is M. Frankenstein, and the creature realizes that this is the perfect way to start getting revenge.
-
I'm not familiar with "The Sorrows of Werter," are you? Maybe Mary Shelley's readers were.
Shelley's readers would definitely have been familiar with Werther; it was all the rage when it came out. We can also use it to date the action, since it was published in 1774. Here's what a reference book I have says: "..[it] became the bible of eighteenth century sentimentalism. Its hero, young, unhappy Werther, with his blue coat and yellow top-boots, his love of nature, and his worship of Homer and Ossian, was the idol of an age that delighted in a free display of tears and emotions."
I read it 40 years or so ago, but don't remember much detail. I got very impatient with Werther himself. As I remember, he falls in love, at first sight, with the fiancee of his friend, then shoots himself when he can't either get her to marry him or give her up.
-
JoanP, I think you have hit on an important and helpful way of looking at this book. The ever-present "woe is me" exclamations of Frankenstein and his creation can be nerve racking to our modern sensibilities. I think that we should focus, as you say, on the allusions in this book--the clues--that Shelley provides to the meaning, such as the references to Prometheus (the subtitle is The Modern Prometheus) and to Milton's Paradise Lost. I found a useful article at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1752380/prometheus_paradise_lost_and_shelleys.html?cat=38 that outlines some of the parallels between the words said by Frankenstein and his creation and the text of Paradise Lost.
What I now think I'm seeing is that Mary Shelley was trying to give weight to the ultimate situations of Frankenstein and the creature by showing what terrible pain and rage they were enduring and that they (representing certain aspects of mankind?) were on a course where there was no turning back.
PatH, thank you for that information about The Sorrows of Werther. I meant to look up something about the book since I am unfamiliar with it. It's good to have some information about literature that Shelley might have been trying to emulate to some degree.
-
I just watched the film, Frankenstein (1931, USA) Directed by James Whale, starring Colin Clive, Mae Clarke, John Boles, Boris Karloff, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan. I had only remembered the scene with the crowd with torches of fire from my previous viewing of this movie many years ago. This version is quite different from the book.
Though Boris Karloff played Frankenstein's creature in this version, he was not listed in the credits. There was a question mark after "the monster." The commentary said that they gave away free nerve tonic and had nurses in the lobby in various movie theaters. The movie was banned in several countries.
I'm wondering how much people at the time of Mary Shelley's writing were absolutely horrified by the concept of a man trying to create another human being (especially out of stolen body parts)? I may be wrong but I'm thinking that many people in the 21st century are more conditioned by science advances to not be completely shocked at the idea of someone creating a human being through artificial means. Maybe we can talk more about this when we finish the book next week or the week after.
There is a list of the films adapted from the Frankenstein novel through 1994 at http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/Pop/filmlist.html
-
Marcie, that's an incredible article about parallels between "Paradise Lost", Prometheus, and Frankenstein. I don't remember all the quotes from my 1931 version (it's obviously quoting the earlier one). If she toned this down, it would be interesting to know why.
In any case, it echoes a lot of stuff I felt, plus some stuff I never even thought of--for example, the bit about the fire.
-
Oh wow! So much to think about - these are incredible posts and links! Thank you!
PatH - thank you for sharing your memories of Werther's work - now I see how the Creature related to the hero after being rejected by his friend's fiancee. Couldn't take the rejection - and shot her!
Marcie, I looked through the list of movies you posted - the one that really got my attention was
Life Without Soul - This silent movie, the second film version of the novel (after Edison's Frankenstein, 1910), appeared in 1915, and was the first feature-length adaptation of Shelley's story.
I think it was the title more than anything that got to me - Life without a Soul. Is that the problem here? Victor has succeeded in sparking life into his creature - but one without a soul?
In the link Marcie provided on the parallels between Prometheus and Frankenstein, I noticed how Mary Shelley heaps all the blame on Victor -
*"Frankenstein has no affection for his creation, but reviles and abandons it. This dereliction of paternal/Godly duty results in a Pandora's box of evils being let loose with disastrous results for all within Frankenstein's world."
*" At the same time, Victor is cast in the role of the Judeo-Christian God as Creator, which places the Creature in the role of Adam. The Creature, however, is not tormented because of any transgression of his own. He is a fallen, outcast Adam as a result of Victor's transgression and the callousness of humankind."
OK, here's my question - is Mary Shelley holding Victor responsible for Frankenstein's actions because he turned his back on his own creature? - OR - because Victor created the Creature in the first place?
It seems Victor has not learned his lesson because we leave him in his makeshift lab - creating a female creature using the same formula - a female without a soul. ( Does Mary Shelley indicates where V. is getting the body parts for this one - or is that a detail that she has overlooked? The Orkney Islands as described - are pretty deserted...)
-
JoanP--you're giving us even more food for thought. Does the creature have a soul? He certainly has emotions and feelings, a conscience, and feelings of guilt. Does this give him a soul? Or can only God give him a soul? What does anyone think?
OK, here's my question - is Mary Shelley holding Victor responsible for Frankenstein's actions because he turned his back on his own creature? - OR - because Victor created the Creature in the first place?
Both, I think. Victor should not have made the Creature to begin with, but having done so, he has a responsibility for it. That's the argument the Creature uses to talk him into making a mate.
Mary didn't think through the business of going to the Orkney Islands to make the mate. (It's too dramatic to pass up.) Not only would it be impossible to get body parts, but Victor also needed lots of supplies and equipment. He brought stuff with him, but one forgotten item or broken part, and he's stuck.
-
Thus speaks the scientist (which Shelley clearly wasn't. She had no conception of the realities of labratory work).
Yes, that article changes the whole conception of the book, and brings out its mythic qualities. Those (the mythic qualities), rather than the writing, are clearly why it has survived, and the basic story has such a hold.
Notice, Victor as Adam fell because he bit of the apple of knowledge (here not the knowledge of good and evil, but knowledge of the process of giving life).
-
Yes, that article changes the whole conception of the book, and brings out its mythic qualities. Those (the mythic qualities), rather than the writing, are clearly why it has survived, and the basic story has such a hold.
I hadn't thought of it before either, but I'm sure you're right, JoanK. We recognize and respond to myth, even if it's not conscious. But there's a lot more too. Shelley knows how to tell a tale properly, building suspense and pacing things. And although I tend to be skeptical of romantics, they sure do know how pull off a dramatic background--the mountains around Geneva, the beauties of the Rhine, the creature charging off across the ice floes.
-
I never read "The Sorrows of Werther", JOAN, but I did read a satirical
little poetic critique. Sorry, I don't know the author.
"Werther had a love for Charlotte
Such as words could never utter.
Would you know how first he met her?
She was cutting bread and butter.
Charlotte, when she saw his body
borne before her on a shutter,
Like a well-conducted person
Went on cutting bread and butter."
I wholly agree, by the way, that if Frankenstein had created an attractive creature, this would have been an entirely different story. But, of course, what we have is just what Mary Shelley intended.
I don't know if I can agree with part of your analysis of Shelley's
writing, PAT, the part about building suspense. She announced in advance the deaths of most of the victims; no suspense there. We just had the aggravation of having hope snatched away from us early on. I really did not want Henry to die.
Victor and his creation; their conscience and arrogance. Like father, like son?? Victor’s creation is now explaining that his actions are the natural reaction to the treatment he has received at the hands of men. He says, “Let him live with me in the interchange of kindness; and, instead of injury, I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears or gratitude…” Left unanswered is the question in my mind, ie., “What benefits does this creature have in his power to bestow?"
-
That's funny, Babi. Indeed, it was Charlotte's charming efficiency in dividing up a loaf of bread among her younger brothers and sisters that attracted Werther to her. She wasn't indifferent to his death, though--she fell ill in the usual Romantic way.
What benefits could the creature bestow? Nothing remarkable, maybe loyalty and the service of a powerful and intelligent being?
-
That IS funny, Babi! I guess I'm one of the few who never heard of the Sorrows of Werther. This link (http://www.gradesaver.com/the-sorrows-of-young-werther/study-guide/about/) describes how wildly popular it was in Mary Shelley's time - so everyone knew immediately how she was describing the creature.
I've been thinking about the benefits this creature could have bestowed, had he been better received, Babi. Some of the answer goes back to the creature Victor has put together. Had he not been in such a hurry to create a body, had the creature been been more attractive (and not so big and overpowering) - he would have been something that Victor would have been proud to show off - to the world. He would have been hailed for his achievement - and perhaps the creatures very existance would have been a benefit to science, to medecine. Although I'm still thinking about this lack of a soul. Have human beings been successfully cloned in a lab - like Dolly the sheep? Do you think a cloned human would be born with a soul - identical to the that of its "host?" This brings us to the question - the definition of a "soul." Is it the life-giving force? Is this what Victor has created? That's quite a discovery, isn't it? Has science done this - other than to discover "cloning " the life-force of another living organism...
If Victor was trying to bestow life for the glory of having done so - that's one thing. If he was doing it to advance science for the sake of mankind, that's another. Is Mary Shelley clear about her character's motives?
-
JoanP, In Chapter 19, Frankenstein says that he sometimes refused to go on outings with Henry, alleging that he had other appointments. He spent some of this time "to collect the materials necessary for my new creation." Of course, months go by and it seems that the materials don't go bad. Maybe he was able to preserve them somehow.
That's an interesting question about "soul" and, as you say, JoanP, how you define it. Whether or not one attributes the idea of the potential "goodness" in individuals to the concept of "soul," Mary Shelley did seem to believe in the fundamental goodness of mankind. Babi, these ideas might explain the possibility that Frankenstein's creature might have lived in harmony with little William and others if he had been treated more fairly by society. In the introduction to my edition of the book, Diane Johnson says,"From Godwin, Mary had taken the notion that man i his wild state is a social being, capable of living, like the charming cottagers in her story, in affectionate cooperation. Yet society, after Rousseau's idea of it, is also the corrupting force. The rudimentary and ideal society of the cottagers is blighted by the monster, who, like Rousseau's natural man, is naturally good until he is embittered by his contact with human society and by learning. As he is educated to self-awareness, his resentment increases; he becomes a serpent in the cottagers' Eden. The cottagers pursue knowledge for the sake of cultivation, to refine and improve the sensibilities, and this relatively innocent pursuit is contrasted to Frankenstein's quest for knowledge, which has the object of tampering with or altering nature."
Frankenstein does seem to sense that he had lost control over his original quest to benefit mankind through his experiments with animation of the "life force." At the end of Chapter 19, he's reflecting on his process of creating the female creature and says: "It was, indeed, a filthy process in which I was engaged. During my first experiment, a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the consummation of my labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings. But now I went to it in cold blood, and my heart often sickened at the work of my hands."
I agree with you, PatH, when you say that Victor should not have made the Creature to begin with, but having done so, he has a responsibility for it.
There is an interesting article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279684/ about a possible source of Mary Shelley's (via her husband Percy) knowledge about experiments in "reanimation."
JoanK, I hadn't thought of it exactly in that way but I think you are right that "the mythic qualities, rather than the writing, are clearly why it has survived, and the basic story has such a hold."
I found an interesting exhibit at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/frankenstein/index.html sponsored by the National Library of Medicine.
-
That is very interesting. It shows not only M.Shelley's exposure to scientific thought of the day, but that restoration to life was a focus at the time.
-
Yes, from the little I've read, JoanK, there were various experiments on the restoration of life and creation of automatons in Shelley's time.
Oh, my. I've just watched the 10 minute 1910 silent film adaptation of Frankenstein at http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/8588/Thomas-Edisons-1910-Frankenstein-Movie-Restored. The quality isn't very good even though it has been restored; it's a bit difficult to see. What it emphasized to me is that the creature was thought to be evil because it "looked" evil. That's in the book too. People, including Victor Frankenstein, take one look at his "monstrous" creation and assume it's dangerous and to be feared. On the contrary, people in the upper class with their "fine brows and eyes" are immediately thought to be trustworthy. I've noticed that in other writing from earlier eras, including Jane Austen. A shortcut that authors give to describing a character with integrity and intelligence is to give him or her "fine eyes" and similar features.
There is also a surprise ending to the film.
-
I couldn't begin to address the question of soul/spirit in such a creation. Does a cloned being
have the same character and personality as the original? I don't even know that.
I also agree with JoanK, about the mythic aspects of this story being the reason for it's survival. Myths, I suspect, arise from our deepest fears and hopes.
Victor is now describing himself as ‘the slave of my creature’, governed by ‘the impulses of the moment’. Doesn’t this perfectly fit the description of Romanticism Marcie gave us earlier?
-
BABI:"Victor is now describing himself as ‘the slave of my creature’, governed by ‘the impulses of the moment’. Doesn’t this perfectly fit the description of Romanticism Marcie gave us earlier?"
Yes it does. And I suspect that that's the aspect of Victor that gets on our modern nerves.
PatH is on a plane, today, coming to visit me. She'll be posting the next few days from my computer.
-
Babi, yes, "governed by impulses" seems to fit our romantic hero/villain, who is rebelling against the Age of Reason. Here is another description of writing during the Romantic period at http://masterworksbritlit.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/introduction-to-romanticism.
JoanK, I'm wondering if some of that writing in the book is getting on our nerves because we are reading it so closely. In her introduction to the revised text Mary Shelley tells the reader that she was definitely going for a feeling of horror... the same terror she felt when she was in the waking dream state in which the idea for the story came to her. Sometimes some of the terror of a dream fades in the background when we talk about it in detail.
I hope that you and Pat have a good visit.
-
The spirit of "Frankenstein" did what it could to add a suitable tone to my trip. A huge thunderstorm took out the power the evening before, leaving me to pack by candlelight. The storm also took planes out of service, at least for Southwest, so schedules were messed up, the airports were a mess, and I got in several hours late, pretty wiped out. But it's nice here, not as hot as DC, and I love Joan's new condo.
Back after coffee.
-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
-
It sounds like you had a Frankensteinesque night, Pat, to get you in the mood for the end of the book. :-)
-
PatH and I went to a beautiful spot on the beach today, so I'm feeling all mellow, and not in a Frankensteinian mood. But the book had what was probanly the only ending it could have had.
It seems to me that if F knew enough to make a woman, he would have known enough to make one that couldn't have children. But then something else would have gone wrong, and the creature wpuld have been back, demanding something else.
-
JoanK, how nice that you and Pat had a good beach day. Good point about making the woman creature sterile. I didn't think of that.
SPOILER ALERT ABOUT THE ENDING
Do you think that the creature went through with his plan to immolate himself at the end?
-
I'm a little uncertain where everyone is in the book. I have some things I really want to chew over, but some are easier to discuss when we've read it all. Have most of you finished?
-
One thing I wonder: when Victor destroys the female he is making, the creature makes a threat. Why is Victor so certain he knows what the creature intends, and so blind to any other possibility?
-
Another thing I wonder: what is Elizabeth really like? She isn't very fully drawn, but we get some clues, especially in her letter to Victor when he is on the way back to Geneva. Does she fit in with the ideas Mary Shelly must have had of women and their role?
-
Victor still does not see where his guilt lies. “I felt as if I had committed some great crime, the consciousness of which haunted me. I was guiltless, but I had indeed drawn down a horrible curse upon my head, as mortal as that of crime.”
He persists in not recognizing that his creation’s rage and malignancy are due to being abandoned, feared and hated. He persuades himself that keeping his promise could endanger all of humankind. He has found a good excuse for not doing what he doesn’t want to do. (A
common enough failing among us humans.)
My eyebrows elevate when F. says things like: “I would have seized him, but he eluded me.” Just what was he going to do to this 8-ft giant if he had ‘seized’ him?
-
My eyebrows elevate when F. says things like: “I would have seized him, but he eluded me.” Just what was he going to do to this 8-ft giant if he had ‘seized’ him?
What, indeed, Babi! Victor makes several useless gestures like that. Somewhere else he makes a move as if to wresltle with the creature, but doesn't reach him. Later, he shoots at the creature at fairly close range, but misses, and the creature"eludes" him again.
-
Yes, Victor is fairly helpless and not too bright. I can't imagine him actually effectively stopping the creature -- he'd be too busy bemoaning something or other. (You can see, a littleof the romantic hero goes a long way with me).
"Do you see parallels between Walton and Frankenstein? How are they alike and different?"
That's an interesting question. I hadn't thought of that. Of course, Walton is also one who is pushing human knowledge beyond the limits. How does he escape the same fate as Victor?
-
Playing catch-up today - but last night I did finish the book so not too far behind. I just got finished reading your posts - there's so much here!
My first question - JoanK - did you anticipate the ending? When you wrote "The book had what was probably the only ending it could have had," I had to stop and think what ending I was expecting. I thought there were quite a few unanticipated twists that kept me turning the pages. Honestly, I had no idea how it was going to play out.
Since the story began on Walton's boat with Victor telling him his story, I did expect we were going to return to the boat at the end.
With so much to talk about, I'm not going to go to the very end - but I do need to comment on what Babi wrote -
"Victor still does not see where his guilt lies." I felt that too, Babi - he says on more than one occasion that he "does not find his past conduct blameable." I copied that from the book. He seems to be saying that his duty was to "assure the creature's happiness and well-being" - but claims he did the right thing by denying him a companion. That seems to be his excuse for not taking responsibility for the creature in the first place.
I found the two new friends, Walton and Frankenstein remarkably similar, but with a slight difference.
Victor is willing to give his life rather than give up his goal...to destroy his creation. Walton is willing to face great danger pursuing his glorious goal, but is unwilling to sacrifice the lives of his crew to go ahead with his quest once the ice clears before him. Has Victor learned anything from his own experiment, for which he sacrificed so many lives? Listen to him try to talk Walton and his men into facing perils, danger, even if it means death to accomplish Walton's dream. Walton is ashamed to turn around and return to England without accomplishing his goal. Victor made him feel that way. Victory after all, needs Walton to go after the creature, knowing that he himself is dying without accomplishing his own goal.
Walton put his men first. I think he is the better man. I don't see Victor as having learned anything.
I'm going to read over these last chapters to see if Victor has said or done anything to indicate that he owns up to his wrong-doing.
Maybe Marcie's right - maybe we should be reading the story to be horrified, since this is what Mary Shelley intended. That seems to be the focus of all the movies that are based on the book. (Marcie, I loved the 1910 film - an interesting ending, I'll agree!) Perhaps MS wrote the first draft as a short story in order to horrify her companions, but when lengthening it into the novel, I think that she went so far beyond a horror story, it is impossible not to consider the psychological and moral implications.
-
You all are bringing up such good points.
JoanP, you say: "Perhaps MS wrote the first draft as a short story in order to horrify her companions, but when lengthening it into the novel, I think that she went so far beyond a horror story, it is impossible not to consider the psychological and moral implications." You make a wonderful point here. Mary Shelley certainly did include more than necessary for a pure horror story. She includes references to several classic works of literature. She must want us to be aware of the comparisons.
PatH, you bring up an interesting question about Elizabeth. I wonder what she would have been like if Victor had abandoned his original work of creating the monster when he felt that the work was getting out of control and married her and let her live a normal life. She is portrayed originally as full of life and a mother figure to the younger children when Frankenstein's mother dies. She "contemplated with a serious and satisfied spirit the magnificent appearance of things." She aided the poor, respected all classes of people and tried to assist Justine Moritz, even to the point of testifying for her in court when everyone thought Justine was a murderer. She seems like she could have been a woman active in society.
When Victor takes off several times, for so long, Elizabeth contents herself with writing to him to keep him connected to the family and, otherwise, expresses her love in silent waiting. She even writes to him to say that if he has found someone else, he should feel free to tell her and break the understanding they had of being married. She puts her love for him above her own wants.
Babi and JoanK, yes Frankenstein does make feeble attempts to stop his creation. Rather than make rational plans, he emotionally gets angry at the creature and strikes out ineffectually. He seems of two minds regarding his creation and isn't able to act. He somewhat reminds me of Hamlet's "To be or not to be...."
-
I am assuming Frankenstein's story will be an object lesson for Walton.
It would be nice if it would do that much good at least. (Do I sound a bit
catty? Sorry.)
I can’t help wondering if F’s creation carried some of his own DNA. The creature thinks of himself as a ‘fallen angel” and like F., declares that “No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery can be found comparable to mine.” I had to stop and check back to be sure which one of them was speaking those words.
-
Easy to confuse which one is the "fallen angel," isn't it, Babi? I think in the context you quote, the creature is referring to himself as the fallen angel, but in other instances, it well describes Victor - and his sin of Pride.
"I can’t help wondering if F’s creation carried some of his own DNA"
Now Babi, that's a thought! You've got me thinking back to the scene where Frankenstein is working on the female creature - and his fear that she will bring forth an entire race of devils - "a curse on everlasting generations."
And now we are considering whether Frank's DNA is part of the life-giving force that he imparts to his creatures? I have a note in front of me from those pages - "in all probability she would be a thinking and reasoning animal." But when he destroyed "her" he felt he had left a "human being" on the floor. So what are these creatures of his - animals who look like humans? What makes them humans? They think, they reason... Is it okay to kill them?
I was struck by the creations comment - "You are my creator, but I am your Master." Why? Because he's bigger and stronger? How did you take that?
-
LOL, Babi. The "woe is me" comparisons of Frankenstein and his creation can be funny but it does seem that they are very similar. I read somewhere the idea that Shelley was creating a Jekyll-Hyde personalities or two aspects of one individual--a doppelganger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelganger) in the persons of Frankenstein and his creature.
For more on that interpretation see the 10 minute 1910 silent film adaptation of Frankenstein at http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/8588/Thomas-Edisons-1910-Frankenstein-Movie-Restored.
-
JoanP, those are intriguing questions, about what makes us human. Frankenstein hadn't finished creating the female creature...hadn't put the secret life force in the body parts that he was putting together. She wasn't yet alive, so I would say that he hadn't actually killed her. He does seem to want to destroy his male creation at the end, in revenge for his killing his family and friend... and supposedly to save others in the human race. Was "vigilante justice" acceptable in those days?
-
"vigilante justice" seems to be becoming more acceptable in OUR days. There is a TV program, "Leverage" devoted to it.
-
JoanK, I've recently begun to watch episodes of "Leverage" because I like the actor Timothy Hutton. It seems like fun, light entertainment. It reminds me of a mixture of Robin Hood and Mission Impossible.
JoanP, when the creation says "You are my creator but I am your master" I took that as Mary Shelley showing that the tables were turned and now the power over life and death was in the hands of the creation. He was trying to threaten his creator to obey his wishes about a female companion. Everything that Frankenstein did after he created the creature was because of his fear of/revenge against his creation.
-
Help! There are references here that elude me. Who is this Felix who ‘drove his friend from the door with contumely.’ And what is the reference to the ‘rustic who sought to destroy the saviour of his child”?
These are on pg. 257 in my edition. I haven't a clue.
-
Babi, that line stopped me too - even had to look up "contumely" - rudeness or contempt...
You remember Felix, the rustic ...with the blind father and sister Agatha - who wasn't really a rustic? He was in love with Safie? The creature spied on this family for quite a while - learned to read and write from watching them. Even helped them gather wood and do chores for them at night. He considered them to be his friends - wanted to be accepted and loved by them. The blind father seemed to accept him - but when Felix saw him with his father, he beat him - and "drove him from his door with contumely."
But I can't figure out "the rustic who tried to destroy the saviour of his child." Whose child?
-
JoanP and Babi, I think that the "the rustic who tried to destroy the saviour of his child" has to do with the scene early on when the creature tries to save a drowning child and the father thinks that the creature is harming the child and shoots him with a hunting gun, wounding the creature's... arm? I can't recall where he got shot.
-
I think it was the shoulder.
-
That 10 minute silent movie is amusing. "Frankenstein" with a happy ending! The frame: "Instead of a perfect being, the evil in Frankenstein's mind creates a monster." fits in with your doppelganger suggestion very well, Marcie.
-
As several of you have pointed out, Walton and Victor are sort of doppelganger in a different way. (Your doppelganger doesn't have to be your wicked side.) Walton feels Victor is the friend he always wanted, the sympathetic soul so much like himself, and a truly admirable person. Bits from Walton's August 26 letter:
What a glorious creature he must have been in the days of his prosperity, when he is thus noble and godlike in his ruin!
Must I then lose this admirable being? I have longed for a friend....but I ..have gaained him only to know his value and lose him.
What a lofty notion of Victor's character! Does it fit the rest of the book, or our notions of him?
-
"What a lofty notion of Victor's character! Does it fit the rest of the book, or our notions of him?"
No, it doesn't. Of course Victor must have been an unusual person to have both the ambition that he had (which is presumably what Walton relates to) and the genius to carry it out. But that side of him is not developed in the book: we see him as cowering and ineffectual after the creature comes to life.
Distroying the woman creature was an act of heroism, since Victor knows it will mean his own doom, but somehow that heroism doesn't come through to us. Perhdaps it is the culture difference, or Shelley's writing.
-
PatH and JoanK, I think that you raise very important points. What did Mary Shelley intend us to think of the character of Victor Frankenstein? I don't think he is portrayed as perfectly good and without fault nor is he portrayed as "evil." Are we supposed to be sympathetic with him or not?
Not only does Walton sing his praises, even his creation, whom Frankenstein created and abandoned, characterizes him the following way right after Frankenstein dies: "I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery..."
I'm not sure if I wholeheartedly agree with Harold Bloom's interpretation of Frankenstein and his creation (in the Afterword to a Signet Classics publication of Frankenstein) but it is persuasive:
"The monster is at once more intellectual and more emotional than his maker; indeed he excels Frankenstein as much (and in the same ways) as Milton's Adam excels Milton's God in Paradise Lost. The greatest paradox, and most astonishing achievement, of Mary Shelley's novel is that the monster is more human than his creator. This nameless being, as much a Modern Adam as his creator is a Modern Prometheus, is more lovable than his creator and more hateful, more to be pitied and more to be feared, and above all more able to give the attentive reader that shock of added consciousness which compels a heightened realization of the self. For, like Blake's Spectre and Emanation, or Shelley's Alastor and Epipsyche, Frankenstein and his monster are the solipsistic and generous halves of the one self. Frankenstein is the mind and emotions turned in upon themselves, and his creature is the mind and emotions turned imaginatively outward, seeking a greater humanization through a confrontation of other selves."
-
I found a description of the Romantic hero that seems to match Frankenstein to a great extent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero
The Byronic hero typically exhibits several of the following characteristics:
* a strong sense of arrogance
* high level of intelligence and perception
* cunning and able to adapt
* suffering from an unnamed crime
* a troubled past
* sophisticated and educated
* self-critical and introspective
* mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
* struggling with integrity
* power of seduction and sexual attraction
* social and sexual dominance
* emotional conflicts, bipolar tendencies, or moodiness[citation needed]
* a distaste for social institutions and norms
* being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw
* "dark" attributes not normally associated with a hero[citation needed]
* disrespect of rank and privilege
* jaded, world-weary
* cynicism
* self-destructive behaviour
-
Here is a review of the book by Percy Bysshe Shelley. It focuses on Frankenstein's creation as holding the moral of the story. http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/PShelley/frankrev.html
-
Thanks, JOAN. I didn't remember the cottagers name was Felix. And MARCIE, I had forgotten that bit about the drowning child entirely. It is a pity, really, to see that this creation of F's was capable of being warm, caring person and to see him so violently rejected because of his frightening appearance.
PATH, Mary Shelley certainly keeps trying to make a great and noble hero out of her Professor Frankenstein. Even the creature that hates him is made to refer to him as “the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men”. I see that Marcie noted the same quote.
No, sorry, I can't buy that. But he does clearly fit many of the descriptors that Marcie listed for the 'Romantic' hero.
-
I had totally forgotten that the creature had saved the drowning child, too, Babi. If you were to judge the creature from the start - I'll never forget the smile he gave to Victor at the moment of his "birth" - all he ever wanted was love and acceptance. He has been judged wholly on his appearance, which horrifies everyone, including the one who made him. Don't you wonder what infirmity or whose appearance inspired Mary Shelley?
Marcie, I really had to smile at some of the things Percy Shelley had to say about his wife's book - he seems to be questioning the source of her inspiration too...
"We debate with ourselves in wonder as we read it, what could have been the series of thoughts, what could have been the peculiar experiences that awakened them, which conducted in the author's mind, to the astonishing combination of motives and incidents and the startling catastrophe which compose this tale. There are perhaps some points of subordinate importance which prove that it is the Author's first attempt. The interest gradually accumulates, and advances towards the conclusion with the accelerated rapidity of a rock rolled down a mountain. We are held breathless with suspense and sympathy, and the heaping up of incident on incident, and the working of passion out of passion..."
Since the beginning, I've been watching for Percy's input into his wife's novel. I have to say, that as the suspense and passion grows, I'm seeing a more mature mind than an 18 year old girl - though I do see a young person's imagination at work. Percy's review only confirms to me that he was more involved than he lets on - For example -
"The scene in the cabin of Walton's ship, the more than mortal enthusiasm and grandeur of the Being's speech over the dead body of his victim, is an exhibition of intellectual and imaginative power, which we think the reader will acknowledge has seldom been surpassed. "
Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these are comments made by a proud husband concerning his young wife's remarkable talent.
-
It's interesting that the review is phrased as though Percy didn't know the author or her intentions.
-
Victor may be an intellectual wonder and a Romantic Hero, but I still think he's a moral coward. He's like a little child who has done something wrong and hides the evidence (puts the broken vase in the closet or whatever). He can't bear the possibility of losing the respect of his family and friends if they find out what he has done.
He does finally tell the story to a magistrate, but only after everyone whose good opinion he needs is dead. Yes, I know that now there is finally enough evidence to be convincing, but I still think he's a coward.
-
This is the windup period, in which we talk about anything we still want to say about any part of the book, Frankenstein movies, background material, anything.
Further attempts to figure out the Creature's character:
When Victor is trying to persuade Walton to kill the Creature, he says "He is eloquent and persuasive, and once his words had power even over my heart; but trust him not. His soul is as hellish as his form, full of treachery and fiendlike malice." Is this right?
-
Well, after Victor destroys his hopes of a companion, I guess you could fairly say the creature was 'full of ....fiendlike malice'. I think the treachery could more fairly be attributed to Victor.
He has betrayed his creation in many ways.
Continuing with Walton’s narrative, (pg. 251 F. speaking.) ”In a fit of enthusiastic madness I created a rational creature, and was bound towards him, to assure, as far as was in my power, his happiness and well-being." He knows this, yet he has never once made a sincere effort to
fulfill that obligation. He finds it easier to excuse himself by swooning and taking to his bed.
Perhaps Mary Shelley unintentionally had another first in her book; the non-hero!
-
Babi, I'm going to agree with you - Walton has emerged as the hero, hasn't he? "Non-hero" is a good description - Walton has done nothing really heroic - or has he?
Frankenstein did not return Walton's friendship - he was using Walton to accomplish his goal of destoying the creature. Even on his deathbed, Frankenstein expressed the hope that another scientist might successed where he had failed. He learned nothing and expressed no remorse. Walton on the other hand was sorely tempted to follow the advice of his new "friend" - If he continued on his quest to explore futher than any man had gone, he would achieve glory. Frankenstein used all his powers of persuasion on Walton's crew, but when they expressed fear to their captain, Walton decided not to go on.
This would cost him everythng he ever hoped for - his friendship...and his chance for glory, but he made the decision to turn back. Maybe he was a "hero" after all.
-
"You (Victor Frankenstein) are my creator, but I am your Master.” I too noted this statement by the monster. As a practical matter It is certainly a true description of the situation in the later chapter where it was uttered. Earlier it had seemed to me that the idea of creating a female monster as consort for the monster seemed a possible pragmatic solution. Let the two of them seek happiness the Brazilian jungle; let the Europeans live in monster free peace. There are of course obvious consequences to the plan including the moral objection of dumping the problem on the Brazilians, and more seriously the spectra of a future super race of monster off spring rising to attack Europe. These considerations must have been the reason for Frankenstein’s abandonment of his earlier agreement and his destruction of his work on the female monster. As the plot approached its end the monster certainly had the upper hand; he was most certainly his creators master.
-
Modern literary critics including J. B. Priestly who I have mentioned in earlier seem inclined to express amazement over the fact that a 17 year old girl could have produced the imaginative first novel that “Frankenstein” certainly is. They base their conclusion on the fact that Mary Shelly had been home educated by tutors during which her only outside contacts were social occasions in her father’s house and a limited number of family visitors. Of course many of these were rather high powered intellectuals including Percy Shelley with who she eloped just a year before Frankenstein was published.
Shelley’s influence is certainly apparent, particularly in introductions and in contemporary commentaries. I do not doubt that Shelley and other friends were factors in its publication, but I am not really too surprised by the idea of a high school girl writing an imaginative first novel. In fact what age group would possibly be better equipped by imagination to write such a first novel than a 17 year old girl? Older women and men might become better writers and have a much greater experience pool to draw on, but for sheer imagination (which is what Frankenstein is) authorship by a 17 year old girl should not be a surprise.
-
"This would cost him everythng he ever hoped for - his friendship...and his chance for glory, but he made the decision to turn back. Maybe he was a "hero" after all."
Yes, if Walton and Frankenstein are echos of each other, this is the big difference between them. Walton turned back because he saw the danger he was creating for others (his crew). Frankenstein did not see that danger until it was too late. Is Shelley making a point here?
-
Harold, I agree with you about the imagination of the very imaginative young Mary Shelley. She seems ahead of her times in some of the ideas she wrote about. She says, in the Author's Introduction, that she grew up in the countryside of Scotland. "I wrote then but in a most commonplace style. It was beneath the trees of the grounds belonging to our house, or on the bleak sides of the woodless mountains near, that my true compositions, the airy flights of my imagination, were born and fostered.... After this my life became busier, and reality stood in place of fiction. My husband, however, was from the first very anxious that I should prove myself worthy of my parentage and enrol myself on the page of fame."
I wonder how much of the melodrama and how much background and "reasons" given for this or that is in Mary Shelley's story because it stems from her own young imagination or because she thought her husband or others expected those kind of sentiments and writing.
-
I am reading all of your thoughts about Victor Frankenstein and his role as antihero or even as villain. I am ambivalent about Frankenstein and I think that Mary Shelley may have been too. We know that the Romantics valued individual freedom over societal restraints. Mary Shelly had read the works of her father William Godwin, including his popular novel, Things as They Are or The Adventures of Caleb Williams, "which tells the story of a servant who finds out a dark secret about Falkland, his aristocratic master, and is forced to flee because of his knowledge.... At the conclusion of the novel, when Caleb Williams finally confronts Falkland, the encounter fatally wounds the Lord, who immediately admits the justness of Williams' cause. Far from feeling release or happiness, Williams only sees the destruction of someone who remains for him a noble, if fallen person. Implicitly, Caleb Williams ratifies Godwin's assertion that society must be reformed in order for individual behaviour to be reformed...." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Godwin).
Romantics, including Percy Bysshe Shelley, very much admired the Fallen Angel, Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost, one of the three books from which Mary Shelley has Frankenstein's creation learning about humanity and civilization.
The noble, fallen person is admired, much as everyone (even the creature that Victor created) seems to admire Victor Frankenstein though they may think he was blinded (fatally blinded it turns out) to some of the realities of his creation.
Frankenstein's final words to Walton are "Farewell, Walton! Seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries. Yet why do I say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed." Shelley didn't end the dialog with the first sentence after Farewell. She added .."yet another may succeed."
My interpretation is that it may be that the fatal flaw was not in taking on the task of creation but in the careless execution. Frankenstein made the creature so big because it was faster to work with larger "parts" and he didn't work out the need to have the parts stretch with motion. He didn't think through how he would help the creature's intelligence and emotions to develop. If he had created a wonderful-looking being, would there have been the ensuing problems?
And regarding Walton, is it his decision to turn back, or does his crew make it impossible not to do so? His crew refuses to go on and threatens mutiny. Walton says, "Thus are my hopes blasted by cowardice and indecision; I come back ignorant and disappointed. It requires more philosophy than I possess to bear this injustice with patience." It seems like Walton does want to be an explorer and contribute to mankind through his explorations.
-
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.
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/frankenstein/frankensteincvr.jpg)
"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 (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/readerguides/Frankenstein_Shelley.html)
Questions for July 26-31:
Thoughts on anything in the book and film versions.
Discussion Leaders: PatH (rjhighet@earthlink.net) and marcie (MarcieI@aol.com)
The full text is available online at literature.org (http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/) and Read Print (http://www.readprint.com/work-1355/Frankenstein-Mary-Wollstonecraft-Shelley) and Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84) -
Online version of original 1818 Edition (http://www.brian-t-murphy.com/FrankensteinV1.htm)
-
I've had a great time over the past several days watching films related to Frankenstein. My public library has a good collection of DVDs. They were very good. Has anyone else seen any Frankenstein-related movies?
10 minute 1910 silent film adaptation of Frankenstein: http://www.trailerspy.com/trailer/8588/Thomas-Edisons-1910-Frankenstein-Movie-Restored.
Boris Karloff Frankenstein: The Legacy Collection
--Frankenstein with commentary by film historian Rudy Behlmer
--Bride of Frankenstein with commentary by film historian Scott MacQueen
--Son of Frankenstein
--Ghost of Frankenstein
--House of Frankenstein
--theatrical trailers for all the films except Son of Frankenstein
--poster and photo galleries for Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein
-- discussion by Van Helsing director Stephen Sommers of the pervading influence of Universal's Frankenstein's monster in the horror movie industry.
--The Frankenstein Files: How Hollywood Made a Monster: looks back through the history of the Universal Frankenstein movies --She's Alive! Creating the Bride of Frankenstein: examines the making of Bride of Frankenstein.
--a short film called Boo!
Boris Karloff Frankenstein: Anniversary 75th Edition
--Frankenstein with commentary by Rudy Behlmer
--Frankenstein with commentary by historian Sir Christopher Frayling
--"Karloff: The Gentle Monster" featurette
--"The Frankenstein Files: How Hollywood Made a Monster" featurette
--Feature-length documentary Universal Horror
--"Monster Tracks" interactive pop-up trivia
--"Frankenstein Archives" poster and still galleries
--"Boo! A Short Film"
--Theatrical Trailer
Gods and Monsters
--Gods and Monsters: a film about the later life of James Whale, director of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, with commentary by director Bill Condon
--The World of Gods and Monsters: The Making of
-
I hadn't watched the silent version before. It's a hoot! The power of love conquers all! The begining is a classic:
'Frankenstein leaves for college--- two years later he has discovered the secret of life."
You can tell Shelley never had any formal education; no one who has would have THAT much faith in it!!
-
You can tell Shelley never had any formal education; no one who has would have THAT much faith in it!!
JoanK
;D
-
;D Very funny, JoanK! ;D
In 1823 Mary Shelley's father told her of an English Opera House production of a play entitled Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. Though inspired by her novel, the play departed from it freely — as playwrights, filmmakers, and political cartoonists have done ever since. Shelley's original novel, memorable for its story and ambitious in the large questions it poses, has invariably been simplified and distorted, sometimes almost beyond recognition.
http://www.phobos-deimos.com/History/Frankenstein/Frankenstein%20History.htm
She was so young when she wrote this, she must have seen a number of the spin-offs from her story. I'll bet she was amused...and it meant that people would keep on reading her book...
-
JoanK :-)
Thanks, JoanP, for the site about the spinoffs and background. The spinoffs must have helped to increase the sale of her book, even though they were quite different from it. Subsequent spinoffs, such as some of the movies, were even based on scripts for stage plays, and not on the original book.
In hearing the comments (on the documentaries on the Frankenstein DVDS) of people who saw Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and other horror films of the early 1930s, I'm now pretty sure that many readers of her day would have been shocked by some of the things in Mary Shelley's book. Maybe they even were sorry for Frankenstein during all of his "woe is me" wanderings. Sensibilities have certainly changed over time.
The DVD documentaries said that the censors questioned hundreds of items in director James Whale's Frankenstein and Bride Of films as being too shocking for movie goers at the time. Some examples I remember are: showing dirt being shoveled onto graves; showing the creature being given an injection in his neck; "blasphemy" spoken by the Frankenstein character when he says he knows what it is like to be god)
-
Well just yesterday I finished reading the final chapter XXIV. I suppose this final chapter constituted aa acceptable ending of the story with the Monster telling Robert Walton, that his mission of murderous revenge was over with the death of Frankenstein. He seems somewhat sorry for his necessary murders of the 5 innocent Frankenstein relatives and friends. He promises no more terror acts and contemplates his own terminating death as blessed relief from his life of social isolation and loneliness.
I have been wanting to read this novel since I first read the J.B. Priestley comments on it so many years ago. Thank you for initiating this discussion. Also I am glad I read it in its digital form. The text on my computer seemed quite easy to read and understand. I plan to use digital editions for other books either on a computer as I read this one, or on a digital reader such as the Kindel, Nook, Apple I-Pad and other. Incidentally Dell is about to release its own small screen computer-(5 inch) tablet device next week and plans a larger 9 inch screen version next year.
-
The DVD documentaries said that the censors questioned hundreds of items in director James Whale's Frankenstein and Bride Of films as being too shocking for movie goers at the time. Some examples I remember are: showing dirt being shoveled onto graves; showing the creature being given an injection in his neck; "blasphemy" spoken by the Frankenstein character when he says he knows what it is like to be god)
I wonder what the censors would have thought of the one Frankenstein movie I've seen. This is the 1994 "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", with Kenneth Branagh as Victor (he also directed). This is one of the most gruesome, bloody movies I've seen. I have a high tolerance for movie gore, and it was almost too much for me.
In some ways, it's a very good job. Branagh sticks more closely to the book than others; especially, in the relationship of the Creature to Victor, thinking of Victor as a father figure. There is a pathetic moment in the final conversation between Walton and the Creature, when the Creature says "He never gave me a name". Instead of heading off for the North Pole, the Creature makes a funeral pyre for the dead Victor, and throws himself on it--a good change. And the spirit of University life is well captured.
But Branagh has made some pretty unfortunate changes. Victor's motivation is supposed to be that his mother died in childbirth (unnecessarily graphic) so he wants to conquer death. When Elizabeth is murdered, he reanimates her, with unfortunate effects. And a lot of other changes that have faded since I saw it. I'm not about to watch it again to check.
-
Thanks for the movie review PatH. I think I will continue to refrain from watching it. I am not a horror film lover. The few horror books I've read I seem to take better. I guess I just don't have the knack for imagining things gory, well, not as gory as the films anyway.
-
JoanP
She was so young when she wrote this, she must have seen a number of the spin-offs from her story. I'll bet she was amused...and it meant that people would keep on reading her book...
JOAN, I was reminded by your remark ot Liberace, when his work
was criticized, remarking that he "cried all the way to the bank". I
still grin at that one.
-
That's so funny, Babi. ;D
-
This has been such a fascinating and rewarding discussion of a book I don't think I would have picked up had it not been offered here! Thank you Marcie, thank you, PatH for keeping us moving and for providing so much extra information along the way to liven things up. You're the best!
Thanks too to everyone who participated here,. you added so much!
-
Thanks PatH and Marcie for a most interesting discussion. I've enjoyed all the comments.
-
I've enjoyed the discussion too and everyone's thoughtful interpretations and informative links and resources prodded me to learn much, much more than I would have on my own. Thanks very much to PatH and all of the participants.
-
This has been an amazing discussion, thanks to the high quality of the thoughts you all came up with, and Marcie's fearless leadership. I can hardly believe all the meaning we wrung out of the book.
Thanks to everyone for making it so worth while.
-
I am another who would never have read this book if it had not come up for discussion. And as usual, I learned how much I didn't know about
it. My thanks to two terrific leaders and to all who showed me the things I had missed.
-
Here I am at last. As I had feared, I did not have the time to participate in the discussion but I kept up with it by following the detailed exchanges as best I could. I had mentioned at the outset that I have read the book and had not thought I'd ever want to read it again. Please let me explain.
I read the book a long time ago when I attended the U. of Heidelberg and took classes in comparative literature on European Romanticism, including the lives of the representative authors. In this case Mary W. Shelley, her husband, Percy, Byron and his satellites.
After all these years it is impossible to say why the book made me uncomfortable then and why I disliked Victor so heartily. I hasten to add, it was/is not the flowery writing style because it is same used also by French and German Romantic poets/writers. (The German symbol for the Romantic period is the blue flower. )
But here was my chance to read this classic again together with this great group. I got a library copy and, reluctantly at first, I read. As the discussion deepened, certain details suddenly spilled out of a forgotten drawer of my memory that had miraculously opened.
My impression now is no different. I am still uncomfortable with the concept of the story as told by Mary Shelley. The indirect narrative by Mr. Walton is a well known literary device, a "frame" to get into a story. My opinion of Victor is similar to whatPatH said in her # 191.
With reference to chapters 21-24, I agree with Marcie that Victor showed fear of his Creation, and for good reason as we see. He also seems to have been tormented by restlessness (the hasty trips between Geneva and England), perhaps even an unacknowledged feeling of guilt for rushing ahead and "cobble" together a living being without giving any thought to what actions the Creature might take independently of its (presumptuous)creator, or how impossible it might be for him to disavow what he had created.
Mentioned in the book without much detail is the university of Ingolstadt which Victor is said to have attended. Ingolstadt is a German town in the state of Bavaria. There was a university in Ingolstadt at Mary Shelley's time, a Catholic university. (Catholicism is the prevailing denomination in Bavaria.) A university still exists but as a secular institution; the Jesuits have withdrawn.
Many thanks to Marcie and PatH for their guidance and gratitude to all who participated in this outstanding discussion and provided both background and new insights.
-
Traude, you certainly were not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the book. I'm glad you made it into the discussion to share some of your thoughts about it.
-
This was a great discussion. Like most of us, I'd heard about Frankenstein forever and never read it. And, as usual with our great leaders and participants, we discovered so much to talk about and learn. Thank you all.
-
Thanks to you great DLs, Marcie and PatH. Due to lots of guests and way too many workmen underfoot, as we tried to fix up this old house, I could not participate very much. It was enlightening to read everyone's comments. Thanks to all!