Classics and the Western Canon discussion

64 views
Frankenstein > 2. Volume 2, chapters 1-9 (1818 edition), 9-17 (1831 edition)

Comments Showing 51-77 of 77 (77 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 2 next »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 51: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Laurele wrote: " If they did not read the Bible themselves, they certainly heard it read in their churches and chapels, whether Anglican or dissenting..."

Incidentally, as George Eliot (1819-'80) struggled with her faith, she was also translating biblical scholars David Strauss ( Life Of Jesus ) and Ludwig Feuerbach ( Essence of Christianity ). As has been true through much of Christian history, writers have scrutinized the meanings of faith, whether Dante or Hardy or...., and influenced interpretations in the broader population.


message 52: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Laurele wrote: "That's a great question unanswered isn't it? If everything is nature, then there's nothing else...."

Except what is "nature"?


message 53: by Laurel (new)

Laurel Hicks (goodreadscomlaurele) | 2438 comments Exactly.


message 54: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Genni wrote: "A common theme that appears stressed is the effect of nature. "

Very nice observation.


message 55: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Genni wrote: "Where does the creature's seemingly inherent sense of worth come from?"

This may come from the Romantic idea of man in nature, as a pure creation (like Adam) but corrupted by sin. Which raises the perhaps interesting theological point, under Christian doctrine at the time would Charlie have been considered as born in sin as humans were? Or was he intended to be a pure child of nature?


message 56: by Laurel (new)

Laurel Hicks (goodreadscomlaurele) | 2438 comments Everyman wrote: "Genni wrote: "Where does the creature's seemingly inherent sense of worth come from?"

This may come from the Romantic idea of man in nature, as a pure creation (like Adam) but corrupted by sin. W..."


The Romantic idea was that the child was pure and uncorrupted--a blank slate. The Christian teaching would depend on the brand.


message 57: by Thomas (new)

Thomas | 5019 comments Lily wrote: "Laurele wrote: "That's a great question unanswered isn't it? If everything is nature, then there's nothing else...."

Except what is "nature"?"


Wonderful question. While reading the novel I was reminded a few times of Asimov's laws of robotics, which center on the ability of man to control his robot creatures. Frankenstein has no control over his Creature and the result is a horror story. There seems to be a disjunct between Frankenstein's love for nature as a subject, as a simple man in a natural environment, and his passionate desire to exert dominance over nature as a creator of life. That desire for dominance is where everything goes terribly wrong.


message 58: by Lily (last edited Apr 07, 2014 07:37AM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Thomas wrote: "...There seems to be a disjunct between Frankenstein's love for nature as a subject, as a simple man in a natural environment, and his passionate desire to exert dominance over nature as a creator of life...."

A total sidebar, but I am finding stories like this about how "nature" has been handling creation to be fascinating, albeit still outside my ability to adequately comprehend:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/gr...

(I didn't read this article -- there was one I liked better a few days ago, although I didn't take the time to explore it thoroughly, and can't find it again now.)

But, closer to the Frankenstein story, I think we increasingly see the importance of the "community" effect -- of the impact of environment and of other living beings. Some, like Susan/MD, early on reminded us of the great importance of review boards for scientific research and human creation. "It takes a village" may be a platitude, but it also reflects some truths about raising our children. We need professional/specialized support, even security forces and confining institutions when things go awry and individuals cannot handle or bear the costs. (Eman writes about the tragic care of orphans in Romania; a friend spoke yesterday of the "orphan trains" that transported children from cities to places on the frontier; reminded me of Denis Johnson's Train Dreams.) Frankenstein tried to remain alone.


message 59: by Wendel (last edited Apr 07, 2014 10:03AM) (new)

Wendel (wendelman) | 609 comments The romantics spelled Nature with a capital. To some degree replacing the idea of God, which had receded somewhat into the background during the 18th century. Enlightenment intellectuals liked to think of God as a Prime Mover, quite distant from his creation. The romantic contemplation of Nature reintroduced an emotional involvement, at least from the human point of view (many Romantics went much farther of course).

As I noted earlier, we seem to know little about the religious sentiments of the Shelley’s (Percy had a reputation as an atheist). But it is tempting to think that Frankenstein, as a failed mediator between God and the world (a failed Prometheus), implies a critique of 18th century Deism. However, I know of nothing in the biography of Mary Shelley to support such an assumption.

PS: there is an interesting parallel between this idea and the feminist interpretation of Frankenstein emphasizing his failure as a father (a world without mothers).


message 60: by Susan from MD (new)

Susan from MD | 38 comments Laurele wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Genni wrote: "Where does the creature's seemingly inherent sense of worth come from?"

This may come from the Romantic idea of man in nature, as a pure creation (like Adam) but cor..."


What a great discussion of the role of nature/Nature in the story. Sadly, I don't remember a lot of my philosophy classes from 30 years ago, but I do vaguely recall some "God vs. Nature" and "God=nature" (or at least the "if you want to see God, look at nature" discussions.

Is there a difference in nature vs. Nature? Seems like nature is the natural environment - being away from the confines of the city, where the air is clearer, life is more peaceful and deep thoughts are more accessible, etc. And that Nature is more of a construct, which may replace God or represent God in the world. Does that make sense? Is that what we are talking about with regard to Shelley's era?

I would say that VF viewed his creature as a pure creation/blank slate during the creation process. He mentioned the physical ugliness IIRC, but seemed to be looking past that. I think he wanted to love his creation, as God loves humans.

However, once animated, VF seemed to view Charlie as the embodiment of ... everything negative/sin/malignancy/unnatural monster? It was such an immediate and large pendulum swing - like a bucket of cold water dumped over his head. And it seemed that everything after that was viewed in a way to reinforce his perception that Charlie was an evil unleashed on the world, e.g., his potential grin and reaching out when he first sought VF was seen as a threatening sneer and attempt to grab him.


message 61: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Thomas wrote: "There seems to be a disjunct between Frankenstein's love for nature as a subject, as a simple man in a natural environment, and his passionate desire to exert dominance over nature as a creator of life. That desire for dominance is where everything goes terribly wrong.
"


Interesting perspective. I didn't see Frankenstein's experimenting as a passionate desire to exert dominance over nature so much as a thirst for knowledge and the pursuit of a scientific idea wherever it might take him. But I'll have to reconsider whether I have seen deeply enough, or whether you're right about his primary motive.


message 62: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Lily wrote: "Frankenstein tried to remain alone. "

Good comment on the importance of social interaction. We haven't talked much about the impact of Frankenstein's extreme secrecy.

But at the same time, it maybe useful to recognize that science at that time was indeed more an individual effort than the collaborative effort it is today. There are very few successful scientists today working in private laboratories on secret projects (though see last paragraph). Collaboration, review panels, research labs, university labs are the norm. For most today, I think the idea that someone could have developed what F did on his own is not credible. But perhaps it was more credible at the time the book was written, when private science was more the norm and the image of the alchemist holed up in his tower room with his books and apparatus seeking the philosopher's stone was still part of the cultural memory.

But as I was writing all that, I realized that we have perhaps invented a new secret science in computer programming. Many of the most successful computer companies actually did start out with just one or two people working in a dorm room or a bedroom coming up with world changing ideas such as MS-DOS (the foundation of Microsoft) or Facebook.


message 63: by Lily (last edited Apr 07, 2014 11:53AM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Everyman wrote: "...Facebook. "

LOL! And what a creature that is! But it seems to be loved???


message 64: by Sue (last edited Apr 07, 2014 06:27PM) (new)

Sue Pit (cybee) | 329 comments Wendell wrote: As I noted earlier, we seem to know little about the religious sentiments of the Shelley’s (Percy had a reputation as an atheist).>>

For what it is worth, I was glancing in "The Soul in the Brain; The Cerebal Basis of Language, Art and Belief" by Michael R. Trimble, M.D. and he discusses Shelley (Percy) a bit and refers to him an atheist, and quotes one of his poems :
>>>
The name of God
Has fenced about all crime with holiness
Himself fenced about all crime with holiness
Himself the creature of his worshippers,
Whose names and attributes and passions change,
Seeva, Buddh, Foh, Jehova, God or Lord
Even with the human dupes who build his shrines,
Still serving o'er the war-polluted world.
<<<<

The author also notes that Percy Shelley is listed as having had manic-depressive illness.

Ooh..another interesting tidbit (maybe I am getting a bit side tracked here…but will stop after this): Trimble writes that a journalist wrote in the Lancet (circa 1947) that some gifted writers heard voices and saw spectres…and that the journalist "used Shelley as an example of a writer with both problems: Shelley not unreasonably had a fear of catching consumption, but on at least two occasions he had visions. In one, which happened in Pisa, a man in a cloak and hood approached him; when the man then raised his hood, Shelley realized it was himself. The vision asked him, in Italian, if he was satisfied , then vanished (Nicholson 1947)."

No mention of Mary in the above referenced book though….but wonder how Percy's affliction and beliefs impacted her and her writings.


message 65: by Sue (last edited Apr 07, 2014 06:20PM) (new)

Sue Pit (cybee) | 329 comments Oh, yes, have to comment as well upon Eman's mention of one of the latest "creations" which was indeed made by an individual whilst "holed up" largely alone at least initially…."Facebook"..a creature so many are drawn to everyday that when they sit before their glow boxes…the first letter they type is "F" and there the "creature" appears in all its glory….to entertain and keep company ..ha! Sadly, Victor found Charlie far less entertaining …let alone, addictive.


message 66: by Lily (last edited Apr 07, 2014 10:01PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Sue wrote: "Sadly, Victor found Charlie far less entertaining …let alone, addictive. ..."

Charlie did come to virtually rule Victor's life. I've seen children do the same -- and the vast range of ways people have found to deal with such, often depending on the financial resources at their disposal or made available by the communities that surround and support them. (Somehow, Bertha, the woman in the attic of Jane Eyre, keeps coming to mind and Rochester's options in caring for her.) On the purely normal side of things, I wonder how many have wills or agreements that would provide for the care of their children if something should happen to them as parents.

American society has tended to focus on parental responsibilities for children. As the population ages and lives longer, more and more adult offspring face the issues of the obverse (the created for the creator?). The story within the story in F touches on these issues a bit.


message 67: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Lily wrote: "Charlie did come to virtually rule Victor's life. I've seen children do the same -- and the vast range of ways people have found to deal with such,..."

That's a good point. There are indeed some children who dominate their parents lives, and even some few who in one way or another cause their parents' deaths. To what extent, one has to ask in such cases, is the responsibility (I won't say fault, that's a pejorative term) laid on the parent, to what extent on the child, and to what extent on circumstances beyond the control of either.

Here, the third option I think is off the table; what happened to Victor and Charlie is a shared responsibility of those two, but how much is laid on each?


message 68: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments There is a view that our parents have given us life and that is the most precious gift we can receive. Anything more is "just" additional benefits.

The other side of that coin is the admonition to honor thy mother and father. At least some of the karate type disciplines teach that it is easy to honor "good parents," the honor to self comes in honoring difficult parents.


message 69: by Genni (new)

Genni | 837 comments Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "Charlie did come to virtually rule Victor's life. I've seen children do the same -- and the vast range of ways people have found to deal with such,..."

That's a good point. There are..."


I find fate and destiny mentioned quite a bit in this book. Victor says, "...nothing can alter my destiny" and "natural philosophy is the genius that has regulated my fate" and finally, "During these last days I have been occupied in examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blameable." (Um, wow.) It seems to me that Victor feels this excuses much of what he has done....although interestingly enough, I don't feel like he offers this same excuse to Charlie...


message 70: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Genni wrote: "...'During these last days I have been occupied in examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blameable.' (Um, wow.) ..."

That passage is troubling, isn't it...The ability of introspection? To see the log in one's own eye?


message 71: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Genni wrote: " and finally, "During these last days I have been occupied in examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blameable." (Um, wow.) "

Um, wow indeed. That's also particularly interesting in view of his earlier self-blaming himself as a murderer. Doesn't considering yourself a murderer suggest that you did something wrong? What changed from the first statement to the second?


message 72: by Genni (new)

Genni | 837 comments Everyman wrote: "Genni wrote: " and finally, "During these last days I have been occupied in examining my past conduct; nor do I find it blameable." (Um, wow.) "

Um, wow indeed. That's also particularly interesti..."


The element of fate has changed his answer? He created Charlie in a frenzy of passion. He was as one posessed. The hands of destiny were on him and he does not see how he could have acted otherwise? I don't know how strong the idea of destiny was in Romanticism in literature, but I do remember the idea of " Manifest Detsiny" playing a role at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries in the settling of the Americas, and the consequent bullying of the aborignal peoples. They also were blinded as to their responsibilities...am I off track?
Also, maybe the distance of time from the murders has given Victor time to justify himself??


message 73: by Everyman (new)

Everyman | 7718 comments Genni wrote: "I don't know how strong the idea of destiny was in Romanticism in literature, but I do remember the idea of " Manifest Detsiny" playing a role at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries in the settling of the Americas, and the consequent bullying of the aborignal peoples. They also were blinded as to their responsibilities...am I off track?"

Interesting question. When Europeans penetrated into the wilds of North and South American and Africa and met with "savages" who looked wild and dangerous, their instinct was to subdue and destroy. Interesting question whether any of this was in Shelley's mind as she wrote.


message 74: by Genni (new)

Genni | 837 comments Hmmmm...I don't THINK Shelley had those instances in mind....I was more trying to figure out how the idea of destiny or fate played a role in the mindset of the time and remembered that example from our own history occurring in the same era. I was wondering, if the idea of destiny did play a strong role in their way of thinking, could it really go so far as to provide the justification Victor needed to make the statement that he didn't find himself blameable...


message 75: by Icydove (new)

Icydove | 15 comments I've really been torn with this book. I am completely amazed by the richness of language and literary references interwoven throughout the entire page. The philosophical questions raised are worthy and genuine. However, I continually struggle with the believability of the story. I was willing to go along with bringing the creature to life, but having all his body parts working perfectly then having him capable of so many things intellectually was just too much. The latest problem with this section was how the creature planted the necklace on Justine. It was a vital point of the plot, which seemed glossed over like an afterthought. She wouldn't have noticed a huge creature getting close enough to touch her? Now, I notice this was changed in the 1831 version, as Justine is found sleeping when he plants the necklace.

I suppose this story reads more like a manifesto than an actual work of fiction, and it is certainly more character-driven than plot-driven. Maybe it was the result of a group of intellectuals trying to impress each other with their knowledge rather than their storytelling? Do we have any of the other stories from that retreat?


message 76: by Lily (last edited Apr 16, 2014 07:21PM) (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments Icydove wrote: "...Maybe it was the result of a group of intellectuals trying to impress each other with their knowledge rather than their storytelling?..."

Maybe. But I got more a sense of foreshadowing of what modern authors do with magical realism, fantasy, and science fiction -- Frankenstein was just primitive, albeit daring. (Someone here [Kathy?] commented on the lack of polish and finesse that exists as new literary genres are created.) Ghost tale-ish as much as intellectual. Just one person's reaction. My mind jogs to Henry James and Turn of the Screw, -- who can come up with the bestus story and what might work with the set of companions who will be listening around the fireplace. That seems to be part of what you are saying, but it did feel more story-telling competition than knowledge one-upmanship, at least to this reader. I think perhaps we can read it at this distance as a manifesto; at the time, it was a bunch of talented, perhaps bored, friends sharing a lousy summer, probably partly evoked by that distant volcano. One of the tales got reworked into the story that persisted.

One opinion only. [g]


message 77: by Lily (new)

Lily (joy1) | 5241 comments A question provoked by the previous comments: was Mary Shelley trying to make a point to any others in the group with this story? Percy's involvement and vested interests? Or was she working out some issues of her own? Or...

(As I recall, there is at least one other story that persisted out of that summer, but I don't remember what it was and whether it might be perceived to have any particular relationship to this one.)


« previous 1 2 next »
back to top