Frankenstein question

I agree with both comments.
Also, to me, the book was an analogy that we create our own monsters or problems. And it doesn't even have to be a monster, per se: It can be something you say that ruins you, or falling into a lifestyle that ruins you, or simply wanting what you shouldn't have or don't need that ruins you or brings about your own demise.

Well, Julie, you clearly believe in God, and thus your belief probably coloured the message you took away from this book. I, however, do not believe in God, and thus my interpretation is no doubt seen through that lens, and this being a book discussion, I would love to share this view with you.

What I took away from this novel was not that we should not create, but that we must take full responsibility for what we create. What Victor did wrong in this story was not the act of giving life to his monster, but his total abandonment and rejection of his creation.

For me the purpose of the novel is to take responsibility of one's own action! Frankenstein denied to accept the monster which was a turn point in the monsters life! I also agree with what you stated and it is perhaps about 'playing God' as well and how only He has the right to give life. But I think there are more social connotation in the novel rather than religious ones. :)

This is a lesson that one can draw from the novel quite easily, but I'm not sure we can really say that it was the author's intent. Both of Mary Shelley's parents were known for being freethinkers, and I don't recall ever reading much in her writing that talked about God or religion directly. I read Frankenstein in a college literature course once, and the interpretation I learned there was that Mary Shelley, as a motherless child who got shuttled between various relatives when she was growing up, identified with the monster, who couldn't find a place to fit in society and wondered if he should really have ever been created. But as in most complex works, I think Shelley left enough space in her writing for multiple interpretations of the message.

Or atleast, drive you mad. Isolate you.

I just finished and thought it was very much about how ambition can kill you?

Every day wimen give birth to children around the world. Therefore the purpose of the birth is to extend the life span of a single person with the child born. The "purpose" of this book is, as I see it, the possibility of am "man" to do the same as wimen do all day. He wanted to create a child of his own with his own tools. This was written in the book. Therefore the purpose of the book was the description what will happen when men create there own children. Are they as responsible as wimen are? And here is the difference. Victor was in the beginning not aware what he did. He created the "monster" and showed no responsibiliy for it. The monster fled an Victor showed no reaction. First when the monster showed up again and forced Victor to create a wife equal to the monster, he showed responsibilty for the mankind itself because he refused to do so. Also when the monster started to kill people.
In the end the "purpose" of the book is, to show this way from a uninterested person to interested parents. Like we do during the nine month of time til our babys are borne.

The book seems to me to clearly warn against the dangerous or wrong advancement of scientific progress (as considered in the context of the society of the time), as so far as to attempt to usurp nature, the idea of God, and create life itself...the rest of the plot plays out the consequences of such an abomination.

I am a Christian, but while there are several spiritual themes, especially near the end, I certainly do not think it is solely about man usurping the place of God.

Well, this book definitely has a Fall From Grace storyline. But I'm not religious. I saw this as a man who overstepped the boundaries of what is natural. There are all sorts of ways to view a theme like this, one of them referring to God.

Here's what I consider one of the best quotes in the book, "Oh! Be men, or be more than men. Be steady to your purposes and firm as a rock. This ice is not made of such stuff as your hearts may be; it is mutable and cannot withstand you if you say that it shall not. Do not return to your families with the stigma of disgrace marked on your brows. Return as heroes who have fought and conquered and who know not what it is to turn their backs on the foe.'" Chapter 24

I am studying this as a senior and have looked into the context surrounding the novel. Shelley was a Christian herself, and a strong believe of the romantic ideals surrounding the time. In the era there was a strong "battle of the beliefs" between the romantics and those who were following enlightenment ideals ( science and advancements). Romantics like shelley did believe in god and this IS seen in her novel, a reflection of her context on how her text turned out.
People aren't just adding god to it for the sake of it, no matter if you believe it or not Shelley DID believe in God and it was her book so she wrote about how humans should not play God.

I agree with the notion of the lack of responsibility has the potential to manifest in negative ways. The parable can be taken as the moral consequences but the religious overtones are there for a reason and I don't think that can be overlooked. If anything it is there because people know the stories of the Bible during the time this book was published and Shelley connected them in there for a reason. Although I think you can also see a connection with monsters manifesting without a mother as another possibility of a meaning of the book. I remember my high school teacher reiterating the Creature is not a monster, it becomes due to society... so there is another view about society's willingness to chase monsters when it comes in contact with something that doesn't belong in their social standards.

And speaking of all the interpretations of this book's "meaning" the craziest I've heard is a feminist view. Since Shelley's mother was one of the founders of feminist theory there is a view this book follows those footsteps. I've heard this discussed that Frankenstein's Creature turns into an abomination because it is man who brings it to life. Literally, a man. Midwives were responsible for the majority of child delivery and it started to become a science and where doctors (who were almost exclusively men) started interfering with childbirth. Thus, men who looked at the creation of life in a science perspective and not the nature perspective midwives had, created these little monsters.

So if Victor had been Victoria, Frankstein's Creature would not have been a monster. True Story.

This novel is a Greek tragedy for the scientific age. In many ways, this is one of if not absolutely the first work of modernist literature based on its themes, though it's obviously romantic in its structure.

Nevertheless this novel is undoubtedly about the necessity for responsibility. Going back to Oedipus, a great deal of tragedies have focused on the importance of the central character in accepting what he or she had done. Crime and Punishment (published nearly 50 years after Frankenstein) may be the best example, but Macbeth and Paradise Lost are worth mentioning, because it brings up the religious issue.

Mary Shelley was raised in a literary family and Milton's epic was a favorite of many of the Romantic poets of her era, so it is likely that she would have read it. Someone in this forum mentioned that God did what Victor did by abandoning His creation, and that's not true to anyone who has read Milton. Eve ate the fruit and convinced Adam to eat it because she wouldn't take sole responsibility and wanted him to fall with her if she did indeed "fall." They were punished because their lack of responsibility; it was not the sin itself, but the disobedience.

I bring this up to point out that the theme of taking responsibility for actions can be seen either scientifically or theologically, and I view this (published in Protestant England in a time of scientific growth) as a bridge of both.

Marne - I stand corrected; thank you for the clarification.

In my opinion, Victor and Elizabeth represent two parts of the human psyche. Victor is more scientific - wanting to know everything whereas Elizabeth is more of the nature/nurture being. Together they are complete - without Elizabeth, Victor is lacking. This shows in Victor's actions before Elizabeth joined him and after her death. The same goes for the monster. He wanted a mate but Victor would not create one for him so he remained monstrous and in the end they both died alone and unhappy. In college, we read this as a Beauty and the Beast story and it makes complete sense to me, although there are a million different ways this story can be read. I thought I'd share one of my takes on it.

Kathleen: except for the small detail that Charles Darwin was only 9 years old when Frankenstein was written. But these kinds of ideas were certainly in the air before him.

first of all, I was highly disappointed after reading the novel and it appeared to me more as a travel log of a person shuttling between different places rather than pain and agony except at the last part of book. Anyway I felt one lesson has been quite mentioned at top about taking full responsibility of one's action. Other than that it was a story of performing some action with such frenetic effort that you stop looking beyond it and considering its pros and cons.

well...I don't believe in god, but as I read the bible, I also found a creator who gave life, then got dissapointed of his creature and abandoned him, out of the eden. I found a lot of conections between the creature and Adam. I think the tone of the narration is very sarcastic, and gives light to: the role of women, the boredom of non working rich families of that age, and the soberb we, as humans have. I don't agree with you in this point, but hope not to sound rude, as English is not my mother tongue, just wanted to share my point of view.

I concur with Bryan and Marne, I think the cautionary interpretation that man/science should not meddle is vastly overstated... an interpretation that is coloured by the movie adaptations more than the novel. I see it as being far more a parable that we must take responsibilities for our creations - specifically that of parent and child... while I wouldn't say that it condemns every parent's decision to make a child, yet I think Shelley is questioning the reasons why we do so and that she is questioning the legitimacy of a parent to inflict life upon the lifeless: that the Creature's loneliness and existential angst is far from unique and the inevitable consequence of existence.

I always held the opinion that God shouldn't have meddled in those affairs either - or the hell have come up with a better concept. :D

At least Viktor had an excuse for the short comings of his creation, he was after all only human.

The "Created" are not necessarily the "Monster", especially when they have no means to escape their existence. The Creator is.

I just hate it when people come up with out of nowhere suggestion that really any book is about god. NO. Stop it!

Mary Shelley explained how she came up with the idea. You can of course interpret it as you like but really now, putting everything on supernatural things is a bit silly. Be responsible for your own actions. Victor Frankenstein tried creating a human being that turned out to be a monster. Of course it wasn't a monster initially. If Victor hadn't run away he could have made a relatively normal person out of the 'fiend'. But no and the monster ended up killing the people Victor loved. A sad, sad story. I just don't see how that has anything to do with a supernatural cause, besides that it's impossible to create a person out of dead tissue. We know that because of - SURPRISE! - science! And science was the inspiration for this book.

End of rant.

This book was actually a story she told her friends at a party.
She, and everyone attending, we're high on opium.
To me, this book is worthless, it has no meaning.
It is the ramblings of an opium intoxicated lady who wanted to impress her friends with a cool story.

This book was written at the time of Darwin's emergence; I found the prose to be an indictment of his theory of evolution, as only God can be the provider of a soul and spirit - humanity is more than flesh and blood. This is not to say that Shelley was religious - but back then more people tended to believe in the concept of a Creator God more so than today.

Can anyone see overlappings with "Frankenstein" and the science of human cloning?

She was thoughtful to his words as she studied the shadows of his face and frame. “No, that is not true. With or without me, you would still exist. No matter the creator, you are yourself and no other. You create your own emotions, your own desires and your own dreams and future.”

The purpose of the book was to create a horror story as proposed by Lord Byron during the summer of 1816. That story is well known by most. The interpretation of the novel? That's more difficult. This book can be interpreted many ways and I don't know that any of them are wrong. Kasandra pointed out the feminist angle and while she thought that was a bit far fetched, the feminist ideas of Shelly's mother absolutely show up in the novel. So interpret it how you want, I don't think there are many wrong answers here.

I have not read it yet, but I really like to do that)