Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Frankenstein
>
1c. Volume I, chapters 1-7 (1818) or 1-8 (1831)
I'm glad to be reading Frankenstein. I thought the book was about some guy cooking up a monster, that sort of looked like a man, in his basement.
Elizabeth wrote: "I'm glad to be reading Frankenstein. I thought the book was about some guy cooking up a monster, that sort of looked like a man, in his basement."Quite!! I was very surprised how few words were in fact taken up by VF's studies, tests and creation of the monster. It almost made it seem that anyone could come up with a patched-together bloke with just a six-week MOOC under their belts ;-)
Very happy to be reading this, Laurel - I enjoy gothic lit in general, but this is in a class apart.
I was very interested early in Chapter 1 when VF says "No creature could have more tender parents than mine." No creature?? That seems a very strange thing to say. Is he comparing himself with is own creation, which he also calls his creature?
His fascination with the ancient writers Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus with their ideas of "raising ghosts or devils" brought to mind Don Quixote and his fascination with the early romances and bringing to life knights in armor and the ideas of chivalry. Both, it seems to me, are engaged on impossible quests based on long discredited ideas. Only Victor's turns out not to be impossible.
Thunder and lightening is obviously a motif here. In Chapter 1 we have the incident of the blasted oak tree. [See note 1 below]At the first lecture of M. Waldman which Victor attends W says of present scientists that "They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven..."
The incident in Chapter 6 where VF, out in the storm, sees the creature for the first time since its creation, happens during a violent thunderstorm.
But, contrary to some film versions, there is no lightening on the night of the creature's "birth." Rain, yes. But no mention of thunder or of lightening, and no mention of electricity.
I find this very interesting. Why the emphasis on electricity and lightening when, at least so far, they are not to play any role in the creation of the creature?
Note 1: Interestingly, the 1818 edition has, right after this incident, "The catastrophe of this tree excited my extreme astonishment; and I eagerly inquired of my father the nature and origin of thunder and lightning. He replied, “Electricity;” describing at the same time the various effects of that power. He constructed a small electrical machine, and exhibited a few experiments; he made also a kite, with a wire and string, which drew down that fluid from the clouds."
The 1831 edition changes this to "Before this I was not unacquainted with the more obvious laws of electricity. On this occasion a man of great research in natural philosophy was with us, and, excited by this catastrophe, he entered on the explanation of a theory which he had formed on the subject of electricity and galvanism, which was at once new and astonishing to me. "
One thing I don't understand. If VF got his body parts from morgues, charnel [a term GR's spellcheck doesn't accept] houses, and makes him obviously humanoid with presumably human parts, why is he so gigantic? Why isn't he normal human size?
Everyman wrote: "His fascination with the ancient writers Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus with their ideas of "raising ghosts or devils" brought to mind Don Quixote and his fascination with the early roman..."Well said.
Everyman wrote: "Thunder and lightening is obviously a motif here. In Chapter 1 we have the incident of the blasted oak tree. [See note 1 below]At the first lecture of M. Waldman which Victor attends W says of ..."
I think galvanism is the key here--the demonstrations that body parts could be enervated by an electric spark.
Ch. 4, 1818:
"IT was on a dreary night of November, that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs."
NOTE:
spark of being
Although the exact scientific premises are carefully obscured, this phrase, plus the formative adolescent memory of the great thunderstorm coming down from the Jura Mountains (1.1.9), strongly implicate electricity as the "vital fluid" that gives life.
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/V1note...
Everyman wrote: "One thing I don't understand. If VF got his body parts from morgues, charnel [a term GR's spellcheck doesn't accept] houses, and makes him obviously humanoid with presumably human parts, why is he ..."He says somewhere that he wanted to create a new species that would adore him. How he got an eight-foot creature from ordinary human parts is beyond me. I guess that's one of the places where we need Coleridge's suspension of disbelief.
We may add that thunder & lighting belong to Jupiter. The night the creature came to life it was quietly raining because someone borrowed these attributes.On galvanism: http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Defi...
And here is a possible use of an electric battery (in the upper left corner):
"A Galvanized Corpse by H.R. Robinson, 1836. Jacksonian editor Francis Preston Blair rises from his coffin, revived by a primitive galvanic battery, as two demons look on. A man on the right throws up his hands as he is drawn toward Blair, saying: Had I not been born insensible to fear, now should I be most horribly afraid. Hence! horrible shadow! unreal mockery. Hence! And yet it stays: can it be real. How it grows! How malignity and venom are 'blended in cadaverous union' in its countenance! It must surely be a 'galvanized corpse.' But what do I feel? The thing begins to draw me . . . I can't withstand it. I shall hug it! Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division. LC-USZ62-11916"
From: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenste...
On the creatures size: we are told that VF found it easier that way to stich & glue it all together. Must perforce result in some disproportionality. Animal parts may have been used too.
However, the really important thing in this part of the book is VF’s betrayal of his creation. It may have been ugly and unnatural, it still was his offspring and his responsibility. All that follows must result from this dramatic moment.
I am somewhat confused by VF’s studies. As a child he became interested in alchemy. He was mesmerized by the dramatic results it promised.The incident with the blasted tree seems to convince him that science has more possibilities. Next he wavers until he finds his own hybrid brand of „natural philosophy”.
All this is important ('Natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate’) but I feel I’m missing something. Why all the information on Krempe and Waldman?
Laurele wrote: "I think galvanism is the key here--the demonstrations that body parts could be enervated by an electric spark."Ah ha. Yes. Electricity was only beginning to be understood at the time. Franklin had made the link between lightening and electricity, but understanding the nature and uses of electricity was still in its infancy.
But as the snippet I quoted in another thread notes, Snow's famous concept of two cultures, and the separation in the modern university between humanities and the sciences, wasn't at all the case in the Romantic age: then, science fascinated the art and literary worlds.
BTW, while Shelley does use the term science in the novel, she doesn't use the term scientist; according to the OED that term wasn't coined until 1834, and even then wasn't widely accepted.
Under the definition:
1834 W. Whewell in Q. Rev. 51 59 Science..loses all traces of unity. A curious illustration of this result may be observed in the want of any name by which we can designate the students of the knowledge of the material world collectively. We are informed that this difficulty was felt very oppressively by the members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, at their meetings..in the last three summers... Philosophers was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term,..; savans was rather assuming,..; some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as sciolist, economist, and atheist—but this was not generally palatable.
And a comment on the term:
The word was a somewhat controversial coinage (compare quot. 1834 at sense 1) and was consciously avoided by many in Britain (apparently less so in North America) until at least the late 19th cent. This was to a certain extent connected with resistance to the narrowing of the word science to denote chiefly the natural sciences, although the word scientist was criticized and avoided by many who did accept equivalent use of science , including leading figures in the natural sciences in 19th-cent. Britain (some of whom preferred etymologically unrelated terms, such as natural philosopher
Today the idea of a scientist as a philosopher sound as weird as a teenager saying they want a horseless carriage for their graduation present. But the correct etomology of philosopher is simply lover of wisdom, and the OED notes that it "originally denot[ed] an expert in or student of any branch of knowledge, including the physical and natural sciences, alchemy, prophecy, the occult, etc." In Shelley's day knowledge of science was an expected aspect of a humanist's education.
Wendel wrote: "And here is a possible use of an electric battery (upper left corner):"Did your source for that give a date of the illustration? It would be interesting to know whether that (or an equivalent idea) was in circulation before Frankenstein was written.
Wendel wrote: "We may add that thunder & lighting belong to Jupiter. The night the creature came to life it was quietly raining because someone borrowed these attributes.On galvanism: http://www.corrosion-docto..."
Excellent on galvanism, Wendel. We have returned to it, under another name, today, with the wonderful things that are behind done to restore or substitute for a severed hand, and to help people with spinal chord injuries.
And I definitely agree with you about Victor's reaction to his creation once he gives it life. I think that is the most horrifying part of the book. What was he thinking during all those months of work? Had he no sense of responsibility? I wonder how Mary Shelley wanted us to react to that scene?
Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "I think galvanism is the key here--the demonstrations that body parts could be enervated by an electric spark."Ah ha. Yes. Electricity was only beginning to be understood at the..."
Very interesting on what to call a natural philosopher, Everyman.
Laurele wrote: "And I definitely agree with you about Victor's reaction to his creation once he gives it life. I think that is the most horrifying part of the book. What was he thinking during all those months of work? Had he no sense of responsibility? I wonder how Mary Shelley wanted us to react to that scene? "She apparently had a very hard first delivery not long before writing F, and lost her baby soon thereafter. How can this not have affected, at least to some degree, her conception of a male creating new life? Some newborns are singularly unattractive when they emerge from the womb (not any of mine, of course!) -- one wonders whether perhaps hers may have been one of them. All speculation of course.
In Chapter 2, as he is leaving for Ingolstadt he says "I, who had ever been surrounded by amiable companions, continually engaged in endeavouring to bestow mutual pleasure, I was now alone. In the university, whither I was going, I must form my own friends ... "This seems to echo Walton's complaint about being alone even while among others (the crew).
Was F's desire to create a creature at least partly a desire to find a friend in a place he apparently had few if any? When the creature suddenly becomes alive and he realizes how monstrous it is, is part of his reaction because he realizes it can never be the friend he wanted, and on that ground over-reacts to its appearance?
It does seem strange to me that here he worked all this time to create the creature, he obviously had seen it lying on the table before him many times and for many hours, but it wasn't until the spark of life entered the body that he realized it was horrible?
I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.Is this what Mary Shelley felt after carrying a child for nine months? F's reaction seems to me totally unreasonable. Okay, it's appearance is ugly, but is she telling us that outward appearance is the only way to judge a person? And many of its features are apparently quite attractive: "his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness;" but they were totally overcome by "his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion, and straight black lips."
One commentary I read noted that newborn babies are sometimes inflicted with jaundice, which turns their skin (and their eyes?) yellow. And apparently black lips on newborns is not a rare condition, sometimes caused by lack of oxygen. So these two conditions which he finds appalling -- "a catastrophe" -- may, one or even both, have been present in MS's baby. Not that I know, but I think it's worthwhile noting that the two conditions he mentions are both natural. It's not as though the creature had green skin or glowing eyes. These are natural conditions which so appall him.
Everyman wrote: "...Some newborns are singularly unattractive when they emerge from the womb..."I don't follow your chain of logic (or speculation?), Eman. We also do know, of course, that Mary's mother died when giving birth to her. One could argue that in some very real sense Mary herself experienced abandonment by her creator, but at the moment I'm not certain that is relevant to the story line.
Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...Some newborns are singularly unattractive when they emerge from the womb..."I don't follow your chain of logic (or speculation?), Eman. We also do know, of course, that Mary'..."
The dramatic, almost instantaneous shift from the eager anticipation of the creation of a new life to the distraught horror of the reality must have come from somewhere. Is it unreasonable to think that in at least some small degree it might reflect her own experience of childbirth?
Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "...Some newborns are singularly unattractive when they emerge from the womb..."I don't follow your chain of logic (or speculation?), Eman. We also do know, of course, that Mary'..."
Somehow I just don't see Victor's reaction as having anything to do with a human child. To me, the horror was that, though carefully wrought of human parts, this thing he created, once the vital spark was applied, was seen to be completely inhuman.
Everyman wrote: "The dramatic, almost instantaneous shift from the eager anticipation of the creation of a new life to the distraught horror of the reality must have come from somewhere. Is it unreasonable to think that in at least some small degree it might reflect her own experience of childbirth?..."Thx, I follow now. I do know that it not uncommon for women to worry considerably or even dream that their unborn child will be malformed or deficient in some significant ways. I just would not have gone to the speculation that Mary's own delivered child was uncommonly ugly, especially given some of the very motherly lines in the text towards an infant. On the other hand, I can well imagine that images of a child that has died could remain in quite disturbing ways in the memory of a mother.
I think one of the reasons I have never liked this story is that it has never hung together logically for me.
Laurele wrote: "Somehow I just don't see Victor's reaction as having anything to do with a human child. To me, the horror was that, though carefully wrought of human parts, this thing he created, once the vital spark was applied, was seen to be completely inhuman."I agree. As I recall, before the spark of life, Victor acknowledged the creature's ugliness but was looking at it as a grand creation - a new species - a great achievement. But, when the creature came to life, he saw it as inhuman. Of course, had he stayed with the creature and gotten to know him, he might have seen some glimmer of humanity. However, he ran away and then was stricken, so he only saw and felt the horror.
I don't think Victor was ever thinking of this as a child in the way that human parents think of their children. I think he viewed his creation as something amazing that would bring him acclaim. He saw the giant, hulking, ugly figure and realized that it would instead bring him scorn, ridicule and would ruin him professionally.
As soon as he saw the eyes, he woke up from this fantastic dream and couldn't cope, IMO.
It is possible that MS drew on her experiences and those of other women in terms of the fears of pregnancy and childbirth, but I'm not sure that I would draw so strong a parallel.
Laurele wrote: "Somehow I just don't see Victor's reaction as having anything to do with a human child."I see it in both cases as the creation of human life. God, a mother, and FV, and God all are creators, and the only creators, of human life.* Since Mary was one of those, and knew the story of God's creation of life, I think it's within the realm of possibility, if not likelihood, that her thinking about VF's creation of human life at least incorporated some aspects of her belief and personal experience.
* Maybe pretty soon we'll need to add artificial wombs to that list? But that is irrelevant to Frankenstein.
Lily wrote: I think one of the reasons I have never liked this story is that it has never hung together logically for me. I'll want to hear more about that when we come to week 4's discussion of the whole book. I certainly agree that the premise of creating a life out of dead body parts and some secret ingredient known only to one man requires a leap of faith, and as I said I don't yet understand VF's initial reaction to the successful culmination of two years of effort, but I'm not sure I see yet why it does not hang together logically once one accepts the core premise. But then, I haven't yet read past this first volume, so maybe it will become clearer to me as I read into it.
Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "And here is ...".Did your source for that give a date of the illustration? It would be interesting to know whether that (or an..."
I added source and caption @11. The democrat Francis Preston Blair Sr. figures as the corpse; maybe the cartoon illustrates the idea that (some) politicians have more than one life? The Jacksonite Blair would still be influential in US Civil War, but the drawing is said to date from 1836 - the year Van Buren took over from Jackson.
Do not forget to visit the Frankenstein pages of the US National Library of Medicine: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenste... (may contain spoilers).
Wendel wrote: "...Do not forget to visit the Frankenstein pages of the US National Library of Medicine: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/frankenste... (may contain spoilers). ..."Thanks for the link, Wendel! Want to spend more time on the site. Here is a bit re the title "The Modern Prometheus": (for caution, I've placed thus) (view spoiler)
Excerpt: "Frankenstein endures not only because of its infamous horrors but for the richness of the ideas it asks us to confront — human accountability, social alienation, and the nature of life itself."
A simple answer to my own question about the relation between science and alchemy in VF’s education is that Romantic scientists (consciously) declined to make that choice. Their ambitions were too high, their sentiments too vehement. What that meant is illustrated by the career of Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776-1810), the 'founder of electrochemistry’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_... and (in German) http://www.zeit.de/1998/37/199837.t_r...This son of a Silesian vicar studied, from 1795, chemistry at the university of Jena, the capital of early Romanticism. He soon acquired a reputation both as a promising scientist and as a personality. He was, according to Catherine Schlegel (presidente of Jena’s Romantic Salon), not inclined (n)or capable of uttering more than three words in a conversation. But when Humboldt invited him to comment on his latest book he received a detailed critique of 160 pages.
Ritter published on galvanism in 1798, made important contributions to the development of the electric battery (in Germany he is considered its inventor), and discovered the existence of ultraviolet light. But he was also a believer in a (researchable) non-physical nature and an amateur of the art of dowsing. He studied the effects of electricity on the human body, putting himself in the place of Galvani’s frogs. Meticulously noting his sensations, he hoped to activate/discover some hidden human potential, a dialectic unity behind the galvanic polarity (whatever that means).
It is reported that the reclusive scientist could work for days and nights without break, consuming ever larger quantities of alcohol and opium to keep going. Not much science is necessary to predict the results. In 1809, after selling most of his possessions, he had to ask a friend to take over the care for his wife and children. A visitor from 1810 found him living alone in a dark room, very excited, and drinking like he had to extinguish some inner fire. In january 1810 Ritter died, 33 years of age.
I think it is highly probable that Mary Shelley heard about Ritter, but I could not find any discussion of a Ritter/Frankenstein connection on the net.
Great contributions, Wendel. Thanks for filling us in on Ritter. Victor's insistence on working alone and in secret, paired with his early interest in the paranormal, certainly contributed to his downfall. The insistence on peer review in science today is a good thing.
Laurele wrote: "..The insistence on peer review in science today is a good thing...."International concerns between nations become part of the complexity today, as well. (Economic, ability to attract talent, security, policy, well being (human, animal, planetary) -- a broad array.) What a transitory period were the 1800's!
Everyman wrote: "His fascination with the ancient writers Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus with their ideas of "raising ghosts or devils" brought to mind Don Quixote and his fascination with the early roman..."Yes! I was reminded of Don Quixote too, with the thought that he shares with Frankenstein the disorder BIM: book-induced madness.
Wendel wrote: I added source and caption @11Thanks.
Shelley quotes from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner about the horror of not daring to look behind for fear what might be following one. It reminded me of "The Hound of Heaven," which is so apt,
I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him,
but when I looked it up I found that that poem is considerably later, so Shelley couldn't have been referring directly to it.
But Laurel is more versed in the Bible than I, and can tell us whether there is a Biblical source for the concept of the Hound pursuing the sinner which might have been known to Shelley.
I felt the bitterness of disappointment: dreams that had been my food and pleasant rest for so long a space, were now become a hell to me; and the change was so rapid, the overthrow so complete! [Chapter 4]This passage really brought home to me the depth of despair which led Frankenstein into his prolonged deep illness. His body must have been exhausted from the stress of long nights, the mounting excitement of coming close to his goal, the final spark, his creation coming to life, and then, Oh the horror, the hopes and expectations of a wonder dashed on the reality of the monstrous thing he had created. No wonder his tautly strung nerves gave totally out.
From Chapter 5:“My uncle and I conversed a long time last night about what profession Ernest should follow. ... My uncle had an idea of his being educated as an advocate, that through his interest he might become a judge. But, besides that he is not at all fitted for such an occupation, it is certainly more creditable to cultivate the earth for the sustenance of man, than to be the confidant, and sometimes the accomplice, of his vices; which is the profession of a lawyer.
As a former lawyer, I sort of resent that. I don't necessarily deny it, but I do resent it. I think some of us do noble work from time to time.
Oh well.
Victor has both Elizabeth and Justine as young women who look like possible marriage prospects for him. Is there any chance that he can marry one or the other? But we saw him in the beginning nearly dead and pursuing the creature across the frozen north. This does not bode well for the chance of a happy life with a loving wife and family before the hearth.
It is difficult not to draw a comparison between Cherval and the creature. The creature causes his brain fever; Cherval nurses him through it. The creature is ugly; Cherval, as I recall, is described as handsome. They seem to stand on the two sides of Frankenstein, or perhaps they sit metaphorically like the classic devil and angel on his shoulders.
Here's a question for you. If we consider Frankenstein in the role of parent to his creation, is his mother the creature's grandmother?
Here's a more serious question for you. I Chapter 7 (1818), Frankenstein writes, of the death of William, "But I, the true murderer..."Is he? Is Frankenstein the true murderer of William?
By creating this life in a way in which, if he had thought about it he must have realized was morally indefensible, did he take on responsibility for the evil it does?
Legally, I doubt, even if the facts were known, that a case could successfully be prosecuted against him, though stranger things have happened in the law.
But morally? Morally is he a murderer?
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 Geneva, how it knew where he lived and that William was his brother, none of those questions, as far as I saw, even entered his mind. Apparently no curiosity at all. Weird.
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..."An example of "the lack of logic" that has always in the past turned me off on this story. Although I don't read a lot of fantasy genre per se, I've encountered enough of it in literature that I decided to do more of a suspension of reason and roll with the story this time. Much better read that way. (The medical site from Wendel @27 has been useful, too, in seeing the story thread rather than the story detail.)
Everyman wrote: "Shelley quotes from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner about the horror of not daring to look behind for fear what might be following one. It reminded me of "The Hound of Heaven," which is so apt, ..."
Interestingly enough, Thompson found "Heaven's winged hounds" in Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" and changed them from Jupiter's hounds (hawks) to God's. Thompson speaks of how God, through many days and ways, sought him and brought him into His fold. Biblically, it would be the Good Shepherd seeking his lost sheep. The albatross was one of those ways for the ancient mariner.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/review...
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 don't think practical thoughts were much a part of Victor Frankenstein. He seems to be a babe in the woods when it comes to common sense.
Everyman wrote: "His fascination with the ancient writers Agrippa, Paracelsus, and Albertus Magnus with their ideas of "raising ghosts or devils" brought to mind Don Quixote and his fascination with the early roman..."I was looking up Agrippa, and Paracelsus this morning on Wikipedia; they were both born in the late 1400s and both were interested in the occult. Albertus Magnus doesn't seem to have had an interest in the occult. I can't figure out why Magnus is mentioned with the other two men who seem to tie in with Frankenstein's interest in creating a being.
As I said in the Robert Walton thread, I really wonder if Frankenstein's "child" is real (suspending reality of course) or is he a creation of Frankenstein's mind?
There seem to be a great many pieces of information missing that have already been discussed above, such as how did this creature travel, eat, etc. What was he doing while Frankenstein was ill? Why didn't Frankenstein's friend make reference to him?
Elizabeth wrote: "As I said in the Robert Walton thread, I really wonder if Frankenstein's "child" is real (suspending reality of course) or is he a creation of Frankenstein's mind?"Interesting idea! I like it. But I wonder if Walton's report of his seeing the creature is meant to lend credibility to its existence. Otherwise Walton and Victor would have to share the same delusion, wouldn't they? (Or how else to explain it?)
Thomas wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "As I said in the Robert Walton thread, I really wonder if Frankenstein's "child" is real (suspending reality of course) or is he a creation of Frankenstein's mind?"Interesting i..."
Letter IV, last part of 2nd and 3rd paragraph: ". . .Our situation was dangerous, especially as we were compassed round by a very thick fog. We accordingly lay to, hoping that some change would take place in the atmosphere and weather.
"About two o'clock the mist cleared away, and we beheld stretched out in every direction, vast and irregular plains of ice, which seemed to have no end. Some of my comrades groaned, and my mind began to grow watchful with anxious thoughts, when a strange sight suddenly attracted my attention and diverted our solicitude from our own situation. We perceived a low carriage fixed on a sledge and drawn by dogs, pass on towards the north, at the distance of half a mile: a being which had the shape of a man, but apparently of gigantic stature, sat in the sledge, and guided the dogs. We watched the rapid progress of the traveller with our telescopes, until he was lost among the distant inequalities of the ice."
The "man" was sitting down, the sledge was pulled by dogs, and visibility had not been great, although it had improved. Maybe Walton saw Frankenstein and he didn't return to the ship until he found he couldn't proceed in the broken ice? Maybe the "man" seemed large because he was bundled up in lots of clothing?
Paragraphs following the one quoted above say that the next morning they found a man, a sledge, and only one live dog. Couldn't the sighting and the "man" be Frankenstein?
Elizabeth wrote: "The "man" was sitting down, the sledge was pulled by dogs, and visibility had not been great, although it had improved. Maybe Walton saw Frankenstein and he didn't return to the ship until he found he couldn't proceed in the broken ice? Maybe the "man" seemed large because he was bundled up in lots of clothing? "Nice explanation! I'll be thinking about this...
I just re-read chapters 2,3 and 4 of the 1831 edition published by Barnes & Noble. Chapters 2 and 3 talk about Frankenstein's childhood education, his father's dismissal of reading Agrippa, etc. without offering any explanation thus bringing on rebellion in a youth. Fstein comes to the conclusion on his own that the material has been dispelled, but then he meets two professors, one judgmental toward his previous studies and one seems more tolerant of his collection of misinformation. Fstein is more guided by the kinder man. My point is Fstein needs tolerance and respect rather than dismissal. Ch 4 describes what I interpret as his descent into madness. He is spending way too much time in a morgue all by himself, he is also, (if my interpretation is right) killing animals. He also wants to pursue the grandiosity of that can be associated with experimentation, rather than the disciplined approach of science which he feels is becoming boring.
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. Wouldn't this explain the missing pieces of information such as how the creature travels and eats?
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. "Possible. But if he is mad, wouldn't Clerval or any of his family notice it?
Of course, maybe they did and he just isn't saying so. But it would have to be a pretty ferocious madness to send him traveling alone in a sledge across the Arctic wilderness to his almost certain death it he hadn't run across a vessel that had no logical reason for being there.
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)
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/1818v1...
NOTE: The links throughout the University of Pennsylvania pages might possibly take you to a mention of something that takes place in the book after our first week of readings. If you want to avoid any suggestion of a spoiler, you should read the entire book first and then go back to the links. I'll leave that up to you.
This thread is wide open for your comments. Are you glad you decided to read this book after all? How is it different so far from your preconceptions?