Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Frankenstein
>
1c. Volume I, chapters 1-7 (1818) or 1-8 (1831)
Elizabeth wrote: "...I don't know what kind of a psychotic breakdown I'm trying to describe, but I think he's going there and I think the unnamed creature is in his mind...."Elizabeth, I'll only comment, be wary of bringing 21st century logic and knowledge to an early 19th century story. Even so, you are bringing us possibilities on the mental state(s) of Victor. Shelley does demonstrate some of the difficulties in self-recognition and self-awareness, as in assuming self-responsibility.
Susan from MD wrote: "To be honest, for me, if it all happened in his mind, then it is a less compelling story - "I agree totally. And I don't think at all that that's what Shelley intends. I believe she intends us to believe in the creature as an actual being. The other would be a more modern conception, I think.
Lily wrote:Elizabeth, I'll only comment, be wary of bringing 21st century logic and knowledge to an early 19th century story. Even so, you are bringing us possibilities on the mental state(s) of Victor. Shelley does demonstrate some of the difficulties in self-recognition and self-awareness, as in assuming self-responsibility...."I really have trouble suspending reality; I had the same trouble with Ovid's Metamorphosis with all those Greek gods.
Everyman wrote: "I'm surprised that, having seen the creature, Frankenstein doesn't wonder at all how he survived the two years with no money, how he got food, clothing, shelter, how he got from Ingolstadt to Genev..."I found this odd as well. I think I would have so many thoughts and questions that it would be somewhat overwhelming.
Not only the questions you mentioned, but I think I would marvel at his speed and relative grace in getting about, his ability to survive, etc. When VF last saw the creature, he was sort of hulking about the apartment.
I also wondered why the creature left VF's apartment - I don't recall the story noting this. I realize that VF was ill and avoiding him, but there was relative warmth and safety there. More on this later, as it becomes relevant in next week's discussion.
Susan from MD wrote: "I also wondered why the creature left VF's apartment "Well, for one thing, he had to eat. And when the landlord came by for the rent (rents were paid in person back then, no checks mailed to the landlord), how would he react?
Everyman wrote: "Susan from MD wrote: "I also wondered why the creature left VF's apartment "Well, for one thing, he had to eat. And when the landlord came by for the rent (rents were paid in person back then, n..."
And he was curious to find out about this world into which he had been placed. Like Data, he wants to learn and understand.
Lily wrote: "Data??? What did I miss?"All of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," evidently.
I just read Frankenstein up to about chapter 9 and am reading a free version downloaded onto my iPad. I therefore don't have the version with books as well and from what I have gleaned from comments with quotes, I like the 1818 version better. I have only done a cursory review of the myriad of comments thus far! Good discussion! My main addition (and it might be redundant) is that after Frankenstein saw the first flicker of animation in his creature, he fled to his room to fall into forgetfulness by sleep but was disturbed by dream and later was awakened by the creature ..whereupon he states: " I beheld the wretch-miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed: and his eyes, if eyes they may be called , were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks". This being the first real interaction between creature and creator….but instead as with the baby grin or smile winning over the parent, the creator flees in horror and abandons the same! If one were to imagine the creature a baby becoming aware of the world and being aware for the first time of his caretaker in whom all his trust and hopes have right to repose, only to have the parent flee in horror! A sad and tragic thing indeed.
Laurele wrote: "Lily wrote: "Data??? What did I miss?"All of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," evidently."
[g] Yes! Thanks! (I did.)
I am struck by the importance of "beauty" implied in this story. (Another interesting study on the topic: History of Beauty and On Ugliness by Umberto Eco.)
Sue wrote: "My main addition (and it might be redundant) is that after Frankenstein saw the first flicker of animation in his creature, he fled to his room to fall into forgetfulness by sleep but was disturbed by dream..."We haven't talked about the dream yet. Any thoughts on its importance?
Also, I'm kind of surprised that nobody has commented yet on the question whether, as he bemoans, Frankenstein is really a murderer, either in legal or in moral terms.
Lily wrote: "I am struck by the importance of "beauty" implied in this story. "Good point. Frankenstein judges his creation entirely on the basis of appearance, without any consideration for its possible intelligence, character, goodness or evil, etc. It's "egad, this thing is ugly, I must flee it."
But that sort of fits in with Romantic thinking, which at least as far as nature was concerned but was almost obsessed with the beauty of the natural world.
And if you look at the illustrations of both Percy Shelley and Byron, they are both quite beautiful young men. Did this have any impact on MS's thinking?
Everyman wrote: "Also, I'm kind of surprised that nobody has commented yet on the question whether, as he bemoans, Frankenstein is really a murderer, either in legal or in moral terms. I find it difficult to say because the evidence is so circumstantial. Justine and the Creature are similarly accused and convicted -- the first by the villagers, and the second by Frankenstein. Both rush to judgment without enough evidence. As readers we are inclined to Frankenstein's point of view because he is the one telling the story, but as Elizabeth has pointed out, we might have cause to be sceptical.
Hmm…good question…is Frankenstein a murderer via his creation on legal terms?…seems perhaps forseeability or intention issues might come into play on such a question. I don't think Frankenstein of course for saw or intended his "creation" to kill ….or should he have foreseen such a possible consequence…and thus still at fault….oh, it would be a bit of a legal conundrum as so novel! Morality…is an whole other issue (albeit they do arguably interplay).
Lily wrote: "Elizabeth, I'll only comment, be wary of bringing 21st century logic and knowledge to an early 19th century story. Even so, you are bringing us possibilities on the mental state(s) of Victor. Shelley does demonstrate some of the difficulties in self-recognition and self-awareness, as in assuming self-responsibility. ..."Good advice. The following paragraphs are copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
"Alchemy is the art of liberating parts of the Cosmos from temporal existence and achieving perfection which, for metals is gold, and for man, longevity, then immortality and, finally, redemption. Material perfection was sought through the action of a preparation (Philosopher's Stone for metals; Elixir of Life for humans), while spiritual ennoblement resulted from some form of inner revelation or other enlightenment (Gnosis, for example, in Hellenistic and western practices)."
"During the 17th century, practical alchemy started to disappear in favor of its younger offshoot chemistry,[12] as it was renamed by Robert Boyle, the "father of modern chemistry".[13] In his book, The Skeptical Chymist, Boyle attacked Paracelsus and the natural philosophy of Aristotle, which was taught at universities. However, Boyle's biographers, in their emphasis that he laid the foundations of modern chemistry, neglect how steadily he clung to the scholastic sciences and to alchemy, in theory, practice and doctrine. The decline of alchemy continued in the 18th century with the birth of modern chemistry, which provided a more precise and reliable framework within a new view of the universe based on rational materialism."
Per the above information about alchemy, it seems it was a dying discipline, but not completely dead, maybe. Frankenstein's father discouraged him from reading on the subject, even though the book was found in his father's library. Frankenstein discredited his father's opinion because he did not offer an explanation. "My father looked carelessly at the title page of my book and said, 'Ah, Cornelius Agrippa! My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash."
"If instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded..."
Frankenstein has a similar experience with one of his professors at the university, Krempe, but in contrast to his father, did know what he was talking about.
My point: Seems like Frankenstein may have had a streak of rebellion in him, although he applied himself to the university teachings for a while and then deliberately entered an area that had been discredited. Is he showing the rebellion of a young man trying to find his own way and to seek fame?
Everyman wrote: "And if you look at the illustrations of both Percy Shelley and Byron, they are both quite beautiful young men. Did this have any impact on MS's thinking? ..."And most pictures of MS portray a rather attractive woman. So, yes, immediate surroundings likely impacted MS differently than might have friendship with Diane Arbus. As you say, she, her husband, Byron, their circle belonged to the Romantic movement, with its emphasis on natural beauty. But, somehow my reaction, insofar as to the Creature and beauty, is that MS is touching on something very primal.
My head has been contrasting all the Frankenstein film posters with Pygmalion's statue and the plethora of art re: Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The results of the contrasts so far are not totally bimodal, but rather continue to raise questions about a topic that under-girds more than we perhaps care to admit -- how do our perceptions of beauty and of ugliness impact our judgements.
Morally I do think Victor is an accomplice to murder. Not necessarily for creating the creature in the first place, but by rejecting and abandoning him without knowing what he would do. Creators/parents have responsibilities even if they assemble their offspring from leftover bits and belatedly realize they've made a terrible mistake. ;-) If we consider Frankenstein in the role of parent to his creation, is his mother the creature's grandmother?
Wasn't her death one of VF's motivations for obsessively seeking the secret to creating life?
Yes, Christina, I agree…ethically if VF created this being, he needs to follow through on such an arguably errant but significant endeavor….VF was negligent in not contemplating that the less than beauteous being would remain as such once animated/brought to life…and VF was remiss in not contemplating what were his responsibilities to the creature as well to society for creating such a creature. His fleeing was certainly a head in sand approach.
As to the dream…yes, that is curious indeed! The first fitful sleep of VF after seeing his creation come alive involved the dream of his kissing Elizabeth and she then appears as the corpse of VF's mother..…perhaps both are deemed as something beautiful but resulting in great cost….from VF's mother dying from an illness brought on by her attending Elizabeth during her sickness to VF's horror resulting from his assiduous attention to what he had deemed his wonderful scientific endeavor …hmm….a possibility but certainly there are others…..
Christina wrote: "Morally I do think Victor is an accomplice to murder. Not necessarily for creating the creature in the first place, but by rejecting and abandoning him without knowing what he would do. Creators/pa..."I assume that's why Shelley has him fall into a long and delirious illness immediately after the creature comes to life. It explains why he doesn't follow him immediately, thereby complicating the situation. What's more problematic is why he doesn't chase after him when he comes across him again outside Geneva. The reason is supposed to be his great climbing skills, apparently: "...another flash discovered him to me hanging among the rocks of the nearly perpendicular ascent of Mount Saleve." If VF really does feel so wretched about what has happened, I imagine he would follow the creature up the mountain, even at his own peril.
On another note, I wonder whether this story is the origin of "it was a dark and stormy night..." We entirely take for granted that thunder and lightning are staples of a good horror story, but who started that, i wonder?
Kathy wrote: "On another note, I wonder whether this story is the origin of "it was a dark and stormy night..." We entirely take for granted that thunder and lightning are staples of a good horror story, but who..."I suspect that some of the German ghost stories they were reading to each other those evenings had a goodly dose of the equivalent.
Christina wrote: "Morally I do think Victor is an accomplice to murder. Not necessarily for creating the creature in the first place, but by rejecting and abandoning him without knowing what he would do...."I agree. In fact many of VF's actions are vicious. The secrecy in which he operates shows that he knows that cooler heads, if they discovered what he was up to, might try to dissuade or stop him. One of the marks of the wise man is that he takes counsel, but VF wants none of this--and so what he does is folly.
Then there's his strange blindness to the effect that his creation's animation will have on himself, never mind others. No sooner does he succeed in animating his creation than he is filled with horror. This means that he lacks prudence: he is guilty of the vice of recklessness or rashness.
And his failure to deal immediately with the consequences of his actions, by simply running away from his monster, is an act of cowardice--another vice.
Then, instead of facing up to the consequences of what he's done and maybe preventing further damage, he remains in an anguish of self-pity. He lacks fortitude, and instead shows cravenness.
Victor Frankenstein, the type of the mad scientist, is indeed quite a piece of work.
A piece of work indeed, Paul. Here's another failing--he blames his father for not telling him why the book he was reading was trash. Why did he not simply ask his father to explain his reasoning to him?
More on "it was a dark and stormy night": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_was_a...Note the Goodreads mention under "Board game"!
BTW, I realize MS didn't actually use this phrase, but it is certainly called to mind by the dramatic weather!
Paul wrote: "The secrecy in which he operates shows that he knows that cooler heads, if they discovered what he was up to, might try to dissuade or stop him. One of the marks of the wise man is that he takes counsel, but VF wants none of this--and so what he does is folly."Interesting take on that. I tended toward thinking that he worked in secret because he didn't want to share the secret he had discovered with others (many inventors work in secret if they can for this reason), and also because even if he didn't think the project was improper, some of the things he was doing, robbing graves or charnel houses for example, certainly was. Is there an indication in the text I missed that he thought it was a wrong thing to be doing?
Paul wrote: "Then there's his strange blindness to the effect that his creation's animation will have on himself, never mind others. "Oh, absolutely. He is so focused on his work that he has no time or interest in considering what happens when it's done. I think in this he may well have been in the same mind frame as some of those who worked on the Manhattan Project, or maybe on the development of germ warfare weapons (napalm?) or other horrific weapons? Could any decent person really work on these things if they thought hard and long about what the consequences of success would be?
Everyman wrote: "...Could any decent person really work on these things if they thought hard and long about what the consequences of success would be?..."Does that logic apply to fields like coal mining in black lung conditions? Or tobacco growing, selling, advertising? A myriad of similar industries. Or on developments with unforeseen consequences, often as offshoots of areas that are highly beneficial, like the proliferation of drug-resistant microbes?
With some scientific achievement, the unexpected consequences are hard to identify and discoveries can be double-edged swords. Electricity is obviously a benefit to society but can be used to torture someone. The Manhattan Project was seen as justified when Hitler was taking over Europe and was thought to be working on his own atomic bomb - the question is should the project have stopped when Germany started to lose the war or it was learned that they were not going in that direction? Antibiotics and antivirals have saved lives but also increased the development of drug resistance.
Lily wrote: "Does that logic apply to fields like ..."You're depressing me. All true. And all very depressing.
Everyman wrote: "I tended toward thinking that he worked in secret because he didn't want to share the secret he had discovered with others (many inventors work in secret if they can for this reason), and also because even if he didn't think the project was improper, some of the things he was doing, robbing graves or charnel houses for example, certainly was....."I'm sure that's true--he didn't want to share his secret. And yet note that afterwards he didn't think anyone would believe his secret, even after he had proven that it worked! If he doesn't think anyone will believe him when he's already released a walking, talking monster, it's hard to see why he would be concerned about others' learning what he's up to before he has achieved his goal.
But I think the lawbreaking aspect is enough. Robbing graves and ripping apart dead bodies is not a trivial offense. VF says:
Darkness had no effect upon my fancy, and a churchyard was to me merely the receptacle of bodies deprived of life, which, from being the seat of beauty and strength, had become food for the worm.
Frankenstein sees the cemetery only as the parts department for his project, but the families of those dead people would see things far differently. The only valid reason to break a law is because the law itself is unjust, or because some higher moral principle is at stake (and I know there are those who would deny one or both of those reasons). Frankenstein would no doubt claim the latter, the higher cause of scientific discovery for the betterment of humanity. But a cooler head would realize that that call is not his alone to make--especially when it comes to using body parts that don't belong to him. And indeed, looking back, he says:
A human being in pefection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquillity. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule.
So I'm thinking that Frankenstein himself is certainly conscious that others will perceive wrong in what he's doing, and, considering his own response to his "success" later on, he may well have a premonition of it beforehand--it is, in some sense, the burr under his saddle that keeps him working so obsessively, shutting out all distracting thoughts.
Paul wrote: "If he doesn't think anyone will believe him when he's already released a walking, talking monster, it's hard to see why he would be concerned about others' learning what he's up to before he has achieved his goal."Perhaps because, having done it, he's horrified at what he's actually created, and is afraid he will get blamed for meddling with nature and perhaps excommunicated from the Church for playing God.
Edit: I see I should have read your whole post before jumping to my response.
I'm reading a bit slower than the others, due to a massive move, but I'm coming along. Shelley is very much signaling things in the background chapters on VF's childhood and education: First, it occurs to me that he is really a medieval magician/occultist masquerading as a scientist who studies death. His family, as he notes, is not very well grounded in the sciences. But even his family, without a science background, referred to his readings as 'trash.'
He is certainly fascinated by decomposition, a field which today is called taphonomy and is extremely important in the forensic sciences. But leaving modernisms aside, it occurs to me that if you fill in the gaps, VF is probably using as much occult theory as 'science' in raising his dead. And the pp who mentioned killing animals: I agree, probably vivisections, sadly. These chapters leave me to believe he probably left behind the moral code in childhood, although he didn't act on them until later. I'd like to blame the death of his mother, but his obsession began before then as he was reading in secret.
I'm reminded in some ways of Confessions of a Justified Sinner: the perspective of the story telling certainly gives one to think it's written by a reasoned person and not a raving lunatic, which is likely enough.
On Victor keeping his work a secret:The discovery being kept secret serves at least 3 purposes that I can see. The reader is pulled in a bit more by being included in on a secret that others are excluded from knowing making it more personal. The consequences and suffering are more concentrated on Victor and thus more fully relayed to the reader by Victor who is narrating this part of the story. Maybe it is also kept secret to prevent the story from getting too bogged down and redundant with one or more long dialogs between the opinions of the various characters concerned about the “morality” of the experiment and what could happen, when the rest of the book demonstrates the what did happen.
In attempting to comment more on Paul's comment about Victor working in secret I found these passages which reflect on the 3 motivations that Victor states to be interesting as well.
1) The thrill of discovery and wish to advance scientific knowledge.
When success raised me to enthusiasm, life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world.
Since he keeps this project to himself, does this expression indicate there may have been some “ego” involved as well? If so, would this explain some of the secrecy he maintains – to keep it “his” discovery?
2) He initially desires a creator/creation relationship as a father/son relationship.
A new existence would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.
I found myself thinking this reasoning a little shameful and a bit Jeffrey Dahmer-ish. Victor does not seem to be bothered by this so I am not sure how much this motivation may promote secrecy.
3) The expression of the wish to re-animate those who had died.
Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.
This motivation seems to suggest he was thinking of further experiments to develop the capabilities exposed by his discovery into something more practical which would again require secrecy to allow him alone to develop it further.
David wrote: "On Victor keeping his work a secret:The discovery being kept secret serves at least 3 purposes that I can see. The reader is pulled in a bit more by being included in on a secret that others are..."
I like your analysis. Thanks.
Yes, I rather suspect Frankenstein wanted to keep secret his theory as to how to create life until he had "tested it out" so to speak…. until proven or disproven. He may have feared he would be mocked ….but to be able to provide proof of his theory, that is another thing. Abandonment or refinement/further experimentation (likely still in secret) naturally would follow lack of success…Of course, then he took great horror in his "proof" (or rather in Charlie) and that was an entirely different basis for keeping such secret.
Of course, I do agree competition is oft present in scientific research. I recall hearing how my grandfather had to hurry to publish his paper when he heard there was another across the pond who might be doing similar research (turns out that the competition was just a rumor, if I recall..but it made me realize how important timeliness is in such matters).
VF is working on his creation, day and night, for two long years. But when at last he gives it the spark of life, he is seized with horror and runs away. Why?At this moment it cannot be because of anything the monster did. So some suggest that its coming alive brings VF the sudden insight that „playing God” is wrong. But I cannot remember Shelley (or VF) telling us so. In fact, the theme seems, at least at this stage, completely external.
What remains is esthetic abhorrence: „ … now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room …”.
There may be some poetical truth in the idea that something ugly will become ten times more horrible when it's alive (though the opposite might also be argued), but I feel we are in need of some additional explanation. Even if it is true that when the creature is later rejected again and again, its ugliness is always the trigger.
Bobbi wrote: "I'm reminded in some ways of Confessions of a Justified Sinner: the perspective of the story telling certainly gives one to think it's written by a reasoned person and not a raving lunatic, ..."I agree with this part. I'm not sure what you meant by the added "which is likely enough." Did you mean it was likely enough that he was a reasoned person, or that he was a raving lunatic?
David wrote: "On Victor keeping his work a secret:..."A really nice post.
I'm particularly grateful for your reminding us of that passage A new existence would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs.
I had glossed over that on my first reading. But it does perhaps tell us a lot about why his first reaction when Charlie was "born." He had worked so hard, I guess he wasn't looking at how beautiful or ugly the body was, or was just thinking that bringing it to life would instantly create that loving bond, and when he actually saw the yellow eyes and face, reality hit him and it was so different from his dream that he reacted so precipitously.
David wrote: "A new existence would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me."Natures? Was he thinking that once he created the first creature, he would follow it up with a whole family? What's the meaning of this "natures"?
Wendel wrote: "What remains is esthetic abhorrence: „ … now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart....I feel we are in need of some additional explanation...."
Haven't you ever met somebody who worked for a long time on some art or craft project only, when it was finished, to realize that it was really ugly, and even destroy it? Certainly authors have done that with works they labored over; when done, they realized the whole thing was garbage, and burned it.
Everyman wrote: "Bobbi wrote: "I'm reminded in some ways of Confessions of a Justified Sinner: the perspective of the story telling certainly gives one to think it's written by a reasoned person and not a raving lu..."The question of his sanity is implicit throughout this book, lol. But I am not yet far enough to judge!
Everyman wrote: "David wrote: "A new existence would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me."Natures? Was he thinking that once he created the first crea..."
Yes; that is what he is thinking. This first creation is just the beginning of his projected work. When he realizes just what he has created, the whole project falls apart.
I think we need to look back at Mary Shelley's own words in her 1831 preface to see how the creature was animated and why it was deserted:"Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley, to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated."
This was something that was very seriously discussed by philosophers and men of letters in those earlier days.
"They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin, [Erasmus, not Charles] (I speak not of what the Doctor really did, or said that he did, but, as more to my purpose, of what was then spoken of as having been done by him,) who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion. Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endued with vital warmth."
Here we have the means—galvanism plus something not yet discovered. Then we come to Mary's waking dream, which provides the central scene of her entire story:
"Night waned upon this talk, and even the witching hour had gone by, before we retired to rest. When I placed my head on my pillow, I did not sleep, nor could I be said to think. My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie. I saw -- with shut eyes, but acute mental vision, -- I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts [note that 'unhallowed'] kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, [galvanic engine fired by some sort of 'unhallowed art'] show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handywork, horror-stricken. He would hope that, left to itself, the slight spark of life which he had communicated would fade; that this thing, which had received such imperfect animation, would subside into dead matter; and he might sleep in the belief that the silence of the grave would quench for ever the transient existence of the hideous corpse which he had looked upon as the cradle of life. He sleeps; but he is awakened; he opens his eyes; behold the horrid thing stands at his bedside, opening his curtains, and looking on him with yellow, watery, but speculative eyes." [emphasis mine]
And thus the story begins.
Laurele @ 99. Your post is very helpful Thanks.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
History of Beauty (other topics)On Ugliness (other topics)
History of Beauty - On Ugliness (other topics)
Although a lot is still unclear in the first few chapters, some of the gaps are filled in as the story moves along.