on
3.5/5
Non-Fiction
- Get link
- Other Apps
Rating: 4.5/5
Pages: 216
Started: 8 January 2023
Finished: 21 January 2023
Summary:
On a dark and stormy night, scientist Victor Frankenstein imbues a cobbled-together body with lightning, bringing it to life. But when it opens its eyes, Victor feels only horror. His creation is a monster, huge and ugly and terrifying. So he lets it escape, and feels relived that it's gone from his life--until his younger brother is killed, strangled by monstrous hands that could only belong to Victor's creation. Sent nearly to madness by hatred and regret, Victor must embark on a journey to hear the creature's story, then decide whether it deserves a companion or the violence and rage of his revenge.
Thoughts:
I loved reading this book! I thought it was exciting and accessible and fascinating to discuss from a standpoint of science and discovery, as well as that of humankind and creation. Shelley's writing was endlessly entertaining; I'm sure I underlined at least fifty quotes just because I thought the phrasing was gorgeous or hilarious. I did find it interesting that in modern media, the creature is considered a monster, but in the book Victor is equally abhorrent, if not as monstrous in actual deed.
Below are reflection questions that I filled out as part of reading the book for History, which I think sum up the rest of my opinions pretty well:
Frankenstein Reading I
Note: I do not necessarily hold the belief that God created the natural world; I am mostly using the name as shorthand for the natural forces of creation, as opposed to man-made power.
1. What do the opening and initial setting of the novel imply?
The novel opens with Robert Walton’s letters to his sister, detailing his travels to the North Pole. The man is venturing into an unknown place, somewhere never before explored by mankind. This mood of an exciting yet daunting search for discovery sets the tone for the book, a less academic parallel to Dr. Frankenstein’s later explorations. Yet where Frankenstein’s experiments are driven by human power, and human desire, Walton’s are based entirely on God-created nature. For readers opening the book prepared to read about a monster, these letters about natural adventure are disorienting.
2. Who is the stranger Captain Walton allows on board his ship and why is he in such a rough condition?
The stranger Captain Walton invites onto his ship is none other than Victor Frankenstein, exhausted from his journey as he searches for the monster of his own creation, who has escaped.
3. What are Walton’s motives for exploration? How does this compare with Victor’s motives?o
Walton’s goal is to go into the unknown, to fill in the edges of the map. He wants knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Though he is exploring what already exists, working with God’s power of creation rather than against it, his goal is ultimately the same as Victor Frankenstein’s. Frankenstein also wants to advance his field, to accomplish something that has never before been done.
4. How would you describe Victor’s family circumstances and his social background? Is this significant? Explain.
Dr. Frankenstein comes from a wealthy family and a happy childhood. He is described as conventionally attractive. He has good friends, and a supportive and kind family. Elizabeth, the woman he is interested in, is his day’s feminine ideal taken to the extreme—beautiful, gentle, basically the real-life equivalent of Snow White. This makes him quite annoying, in my opinion, but also an imprintable character, so that readers could see themselves in his situation. But Frankenstein has also had a close experience with death. Elizabeth almost died, and then his mother did. He describes his experience without much emotion (“She died calmly; and her countenance expressed affection even in death” p32) but based on the fact that he later becomes so obsessed with life/death that he creates life, the moment may have influenced his subconscious more than he knew (thanks, Mr. Vannelli, psychology, and Freud).
5. What event excites Victor? How does this come to shape Victor’s views of sources of knowledge about the natural world?
Dr. Frankenstein’s conversation with his professor, M. Waldman, reinvigorates his interest in natural science. The fact that a conventionally attractive and well-mannered younger man is the catalyst for passion reflects in a very interesting way back onto Mary Shelly and her fixation on beauty. But it was the idea that he could discover something altogether new that fully committed the scientist to his work (“In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific purist there is continual food for discovery and wonder” p39). The possibility of such a discovery drove Frankenstein to want nothing more than to make one.
6. Consider where and how “science” takes place in the story, what does this suggest about the scientific process?
The portrayal of the scientific process in the novel was one of the things that most surprised me while reading: it was basically non-existent. I started reading with the assumption that the creation of the monster would take up a significant section of the book, yet there were less than six pages dedicated to the process, and even then none of the science was included. I suppose it makes sense since Shelley didn’t have any education in the sciences and thus couldn’t have described actual science accurately, but the speed, lack of detail, and results make science seem closer to magic. This suggests that in the early 19th century, science seemed mysterious, magical, and fast-paced.
7. What is the relationship between Victor and his friends and family? Is this significant? Why/Why not?
Frankenstein is a very self-centered character. He thinks of his friends and family when it is convenient and ignores them when it isn't. That being said, he does seem to care about them. He loves Elizabeth, cares for his friend, and felt real grief and guilt when his little brother was killed by his monster. If the monster hadn’t hurt his family, he might never have felt a need to stop it, so his love for his relations is relevant to the plot. But ultimately the narcissus-like image on the cover of my copy of the book is a perfect symbol of Victor and the way he sees himself—as the center of his world, akin to God.
8. What does the novel suggest about the relationship between science and nature? Does this connect with our own time? Explain.
Shelley’s Frankenstein creates the impression that science, though backed by nature, is ultimately separate from the world created by God. Frankenstein uses the blueprint of the human system, and harnesses lightning to bring his creation to life, yet all symbolism sets the monster as something other. Using an idea similar to that of the Uncanny Valley, Shelley describes the monster as humanoid but inhuman. It’s larger, paler, and more gruesome than a human. When it later escapes, in one scene it is highlighted against a natural background but distinctly separate from that background.
9. In your estimation, what is the source of life which Victor discovers and what is foreshadowed?
My understanding is that lightning or electricity is the source of life that Dr. Frankenstein used to bring his monster to life. By harnessing nature to create life, the doctor has upset the balance of the world. To bring the universe back into equilibrium, I think life must now be taken.
Frankenstein: Volume I pgs 34-58
1. What are Victor’s motives for his creation?
Frankenstein wants to find a way to bring the dead back to life. Because of his mother’s death, and Elizabeth’s near death, he is obsessed with life and its restoration, and he succeeds in bringing something unalive to life.
2. Are Victor’s motives different/similar to the rationale that spurs scientific exploration today? Explain.
I think Victor’s motives are almost identical to the motivations of scientists today. He was interested in the subject, spurred on by good professors and the possibility of discovery. He wanted to fix a problem he saw in the world using his knowledge and creativity. And though he did succeed, his creation did not have the intended results. The monster is a lot like antibacterial products scientists have created, which kill most bacteria (like the monster is technically alive) but the ones it misses are the mutations that make the bacteria stronger, sometimes doing even more harm than the original bacteria would have done (the monster equivalent of that idea is what I think might happen later in the book).
2. How is the creature brought to life? Is the creature simply the result of composite parts being brought together, or something more complex
The creature, unnaturally created of dead body parts created and joined together by Frankenstein’s own hand, is brought to life through real, natural lightning. In my understanding, the creature’s life force has a degree of nature to it, but its existence, its body, and its mind are a man-made perversion of the gift of life.
3. What does the making of the monster suggest about the relationship between mind and body? Does the author’s portrayal of the creature argue in favor of Locke’s theory of tabula rasa? Explain.
The monster is created with enough knowledge to escape and to kill—the ultimate symbol of an evil and corrupted mind—so the monster doesn’t fit with the idea of tabula rasa, or a blank slate at birth. However, the monster is born of science, not nature. Based on Frankenstein’s brother’s youth and innocence, as well as his family’s grief at his death, the child—born of nature to a woman—seems to have a blank slate. So perhaps rather than arguing completely for or against Locke’s theory, Shelley seems to be suggesting that beings born properly start their lives with a blank slate, whereas those created in a perverse fashion do not. However, this doesn't make much sense, since Shelley strongly believed that people born out of wedlock should not be condemned or scorned. Maybe instead of proper birth, Shelley is hinting that natural birth, as opposed to creation, is what gives someone a blank slate.
4. Can the story be read as a feminist critique of scientific discovery and the exploration of the material world? Explain.
Through a lens of the attributions we talked about in class, relating nature to femininity and science to masculinity, the story does seem to give importance to gender in the field of creation. And the idea that a human-made thing is monstrous and evil is a warning against the dangers of human curiosity, pride, and use of knowledge. However, I don’t think the two ideas fit together under the idea of feminism. There are no rights given to women—so far, the only female character is a frustratingly stereotypical piece of male-gaze cardboard—and the argument that women/nature should have dominion over creation, while believably made, has nothing to do with equality. It instead serves to further separate the dominions of man and woman, for better or worse. It casts a negative light on man, though–not just in his stupid hubris and need for the power of creation, but also in his inability to clean up after his mistakes.
5. What central themes of the novel have you identified so far? For each theme find a related quote from volume 1 that is connected to your theme. Identify at least 2.
science
“In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder” (39).
nature, healing, goodness
“ I remember the first time I became capable of observing outward objects with any kind of pleasure, I perceived that the fallen leaves had disappeared, and that the young buds were shooting forth from the trees that shaded my window [...]n I felt also sentiments of joy and affection revive in my bosom” (50).
spring symbolizes birth and renewal, whereas fall is decay and mortality
it is nature, and its natural creation, that brings Frankenstein joy
life and death
“I thought I saw Elizabeth, in the bloom of health [...] her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (46).
discovery, power, and hubris
“ But my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man” (41).
Frankenstein: Volume II pgs 59-102
1. What role does society/family/friends/Nature play in the story? How do these factors affect Victor’s development?
Throughout the novel, Mary Shelley portrays nature as healing or purifying, and society as corrupting and condemning. At the start of volume II, Frankenstein and his family remove themselves from society in degrees to heal. First, they retire to a smaller home in the country, and when that doesn’t work, they go to a secluded and beautiful mountain retreat hoping for catharsis. Society, whosejudgmentss killed Justine and corrupted the monster, is an evil force. Nature, however cruel, is a beautiful force capable of removing humans from their obsessions with their own lives.
I think that Frankenstein’s friends and family have a very minimal impact on him, to be honest. He’s so self-centered that he only really seems to care about them for their money, their beauty, and their capacity for death.
2. Consider the monster’s self-described education (first experiences in nature, & observations of the family) – is it more nature or nurture? What was the author’s intent? Do you agree/disagree with this?
I think the monster’s development is a very clear parallel to the development of mankind. Starting with birth, the monster is helpless, alone, and afraid of the dark. His senses and ability to think are almost non-existant. Then he discovers fire and starts to slowly move toward a mental state conducive to productive society. He feels primitive (and adorable!) compassion towards a group of people who are an archetypal example of the positive side of humanity. He goes through a bit of a teenage or philosophical phase where he reads a lot of books about death and stares dramatically into a mirrored lake, which parallels the beginning of humankind’s foray into education and art. Finally, he experiences the dark side of society, its unacceptance of difference, and its closed-minded inability to look past its need for palatable facades.
All told, I think themonster'ss “education” can neither be attributed entirely to nature nor nurture. The monster doesn’t seem to have much of a sense of self—its diction is regular and bland, and its actions are all very logical and basically human. Yet while humanity does teach it some important lessons, the only “nurture” it receives is disgust. Though that does lead to some actions, the anger the monster feels, and the choices it makes, feel quintessentially human, much more understandable and sympathetic than whiny narcissistic Victor. Instead, I would say the monster is a blank slate with the vague traits of humanity and acted upon by the detached mechanisms of both nature and society.
Ultimately, through the monster’s humanity, I think that Shelley is trying to show that we are all a little monstrous, all acted upon by society in the creation of our presentation to the world.
3. Who are the De Laceys and what significance do they have for the story at this point? Explain: Are they an ideal family?
The De Laceys are the family the monster surveils and finally makes contact with, to unfortunate ends. The De Lacey’s are very much an ideal family. They are an exemplary sample of human kind—sympathetic, loving, and educated. By watching them, the monster is able to gain an understanding of how good humanity can be, and of what it would have to do to also be good. However, the goodness of the family also makes their rejection of the monster even harsher.
4. Has Victor’s “experiment” gone wrong? Was it doomed from the start?
I don’t think Victor’s experiment has gone wrong so much as Victor has gone wrong. The experiment worked—the doctor created a living being capable of movement, thought, and reason. If he had been able to get over his aversion to the monster’s countenance, and instead nurtured it into an ideal specimen of humanity, then the experiment would have been very successful. It was only Victor’s self-obsession and his inability to be a normal, compassionate, responsible person that made the experiment end in murder and misery.
5. What does the creature ask of Victor? Is this a reasonable request? Should Victor follow through on this? Explain your reasoning.
The creature asks Victor to create a female version of it. I think it’s request isn’t unreasonable in terms of wanting a companion, some personal connection not inhibited by society’s attitude toward his appearance. Yet I don’t see how Victor can ethically follow through on his acquiescence to the monster’s wish. Women are not objects to be created to satiate a man’s need, and creating more of something already not accepted is not a viable solution to the problem the monster and Victor are facing.
6. At the conclusion of Volume II, with whom do you sympathize with more: Victor or the creature? Why?
I think sympathy and moral agreement are two separate, and equally important, questions. I sympathize with the monster—people are meant to exist in community of some sort, and being alone is a sad fate. However, I cannot morally agree with the monster’s need.
7. What ethical and moral considerations does Mary Shelley’s story raise at this point in the novel?
The only time readers ever get to feel the horror of the monster’s appearance is through the reactions of others. We never actually experience the monster’s countenance, and thus cannot feel the abject horror the other characters do. Instead, we witness the monster’s growth into something very human and sympathetic. Because of this, I believe Shelly poses a question about the ethicality of making judgments based on appearance.
One of the biggest moral concerns in the novel is that of creation—Who is allowed to create life?
This is closely followed by one of the biggest ethical concerns: Frankenstein abandons his creation moments after it is brought to life, leaving the monster to develop on its own and come to its own murderous conclusions about life. If the scientist created the monster, why should he be able to detach himself from it?
Frankenstein Vol. III
1.What does the story suggest about the qualities of being human? Who is more human, Victor or the creature?
The story suggests that to be human is to feel love for good and regret for evil. Readers sympathize with the monster when he feels a connection to the steretypically good De Lacey family, and feels pity for Victor as he grives his loved ones. Since both charactes have moments of emotional connection and regret, I would say they are more or less equally human, although they are sympathetic in vastly different ways.
2. What makes Victor a “Modern Prometheus” as the alternate title suggests?
In the ancient greek myth, Prometheus was an immortal Titan who saw the helpless squalour that humankind lived in. Out of pity, he went against the command of his father and brought fire to the humans, enabling them to begin civilizations. Yet when his father discovered what he had done, poor Prometheus was bound to a stone, cursed to have his liver pecked from his body each day by a flock of birds. Just as Prometheus was punished for enabling humankind to develop logic and free-will, and therefore the ability to do evil, Victor is punished for enabling his own creation.
3. Is the anatomist Andreas Vesalius a historical Victor Frankenstein of sorts? Explain your position
In terms of successfully achieving something otherwise thought impossible and abhorrent, I do think Frankenstein is a fictional parallel to Vesalius. Both used previous scientific research to do their own experimenting despite the disapproval (assumed, in Victor’s case, since he never told anyone about his plans) of parts of their society. However, in terms of in terms of royally messing it up, the two aren’t particularly similar. Our medical knowledge would look very different today without Vesalius’s work, but Frankenstein refused to tell anyone about his process so that it could not be duplicated. Also, going off of the paintings of Vesalius, he felt no disguist toward his work, whereas Victor abandoned his child upon seeing how ugly it was.
4. Things go terribly wrong... who is more at fault in the novel, Victor, the creature, or society? What is your reasoning here?
I would say that Victor is mostly at fault for the tragic outcome of his experiment: he cretaed the monster and then abandoned it, leading to all the other horrible things that happened. He, however, is a product of his sociey, specifically society’s obsession with physical beauty. If he had not been revulsed by his creation, much murder could have been avoided. The other peoples’ (the De Laceys’) societally-derived obsession with beauty also had an impact, but ultimately Frankenstein holds the blame for the horrors committed by his creation.
5.What criteria can be used in determining good vs. bad scientific pursuit? Can scientific pursuit be “neutral”?
I think the question of good versus bad within the context of society almost always relies on its impact of help versus harm. A good scientific persuit would help significantly more than it would hurt. This question is a scientific debate that has existed for millenia, probably because it’s so complex. Is evil worthwhile in the name of the greater good? Is animal testing wrong, and if we’re categorizing help versus harm, do we count animals the same as people? I do think a neutral experiment is possible—neutral would mean no one was positively or negatively impacted (ex: a non-invasive psychology survey about household behaviours)---but seems very difficult to achieve, and in many fields it is likely impossible.
6.Should the boundaries of science be pushed why/why not? What does the author suggest (consider the final words of Victor pg. 152)?
I think that the boundaries of science have to be pushed sometimes or else we will just keep reliving the same suffering. Our world is better for vaccinations, for example. But I also think there are boundaries, and science experiments done for their own sake are not usually on the right side of those boundaries. Shelley, I think, agrees. Victor Frankenstein’s last words (“seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent ones of distiinguishing yourslef in science and discoveries” (211).) are a warning against science for the sake of fame or glory. In 19th century literature, last words often contain a life truth, and the doctor’s certainly seem to reflect his views on discovery and pride. A little earlier, Frankenstein also talks about his relationship to his creation (“Peace, peace! Learn my miseries, and do not sek to increase your own [...] Like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in eternal hell” (203-4).), urging Walton to avoid the same mistakes he made. Victor, the paragon of the obsessed and narcissistic scientist, played God, and he was burned for it. .
Quotes:
"But the fangs of remorse tore my bosom, and would not forego their hold" (73).
"How ignorant art thou in my pride of wisdom!" (194).
Words:
Pernicious (adj) having a harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way
Pedantry (n) excessive concern with minor details and rules
Capacious (adj) having a lot of space inside; roomy
Dross (n) something regarded as worthless
Paroxysm (n) a sudden attack or violent expression of a particular emotion or activity
Diffident (adj) modest or shy because of a lack of self-confidence
Vacillating (pres. part.) alternating or wavering between different opinions or actions; being indecisive
Ignominious (adj) deserving or causing public disgrace or shame
Adduced (v) cited as evence
Obdurate (adj) stubbornly refuse to change one's opinion or course of action
Syndics (pl. n) government officials in some countries
Dilatoriness (n) tending or intended to cause delay
Acceded (v) to express approval or give consent (with "to")
Pertinacity (adj) adhering resolutely to an opinion, purpose, or design
Precipitated (v) to throw violently
Inured (v) to accustom to accept something undesirable
Execration (n) the act of cursing or denouncing
Viands (n) items of food
Multiplicity (n) the quality or state of being multiple or various
Puerile (adj) juvenile, childish, or silly
Indolence (n) inclination to laziness
Succor (n) relief or aid
Enjoined (v) to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition
Sophism (n) an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid, esp. used to deceive
Lour (v) to look sullen; to be or become dark, gloomy and threatening
Acme (n) the highest point or stage; something that represents perfection of the thing expressed
Chamois (n) a southern European antelope-like little guy
Profundity (n) intellectual depth
Presentiment (n) a feeling that something will or is about to happen
Insuperable (adj) incapable of being surmounted, overcome, passed over, or solved
Diffidence (n) the quality or state of being unassertive or bashful
Assizes (pl. n) judicial inquests
Irradiation (n) the apparent extension of the edges of an illuminated object seen against a dark background
Transitory (adj) not permanent
Adjuration (n) a solemn oath
Disencumbered (v) freed from or relieved of an encumbrance
Opprobrium (n) harsh criticism or censure
Contumely (n) insolent or insulting language or treatment