Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Frankenstein
>
3. Volume 3, chapters 1-7+Walton (1818 edition) 18-24+Walton (1831 edition)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Laurel
(new)
Apr 01, 2014 10:20PM
And now we come to what I think is the weakest part of the book. What think you?
reply
|
flag
Laurele wrote: "And now we come to what I think is the weakest part of the book. What think you?"As a denouement it does seem a bit long and drawn out. However, I thought it was appropriate because it:
1) Resolves Victor's end.
2) Resolves the "monster's" end.
3) Provides the corresponding bookend of the stories frame.
4) Provides proof to Walton (and thus provides another eye-witness for the reader) that Victor's tale is true.
5) Resolves Walton's voyage of discovery.
6) More thoroughly demonstrates the emotional ups and downs of Victor's suffering in the style of Prometheus' suffering.
By the way, I thought the Wikiepedia article on Prometheus dropped an interesting fact:
The immortal Prometheus was bound to a rock, where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back to be eaten again the next day. (In ancient Greece, the liver was thought to be the seat of human emotions.<\b>)
David wrote: "The immortal Prometheus was bound to a rock, where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back to be eaten again the next day. (In ancient Greece, the liver was thought to be the seat of human emotions.)..."So what does that passage "mean"? That Prometheus was robbed/cleansed of his feelings, including pain and fear, each day, only to have them return the next? Or something quite different?
I did like the final chapter, if only because we get to hear the Creature justify his ways to Walton. Of all the characters in the novel the Creature is to me the most interesting, and perhaps the most human, and the image of him hovering over Victor's body is wonderful. It was a nice touch that he doesn't use violence to kill Victor -- he lets Victor exhaust himself with his own guilt and anxiety and hatred. But I think the Creature might go too far when he compares himself to a "fallen angel." Perhaps among other things he also shares in Satan's narcissism. He knows that men see him as a "monster," but he thinks of himself as spiritually beautiful --at least before his suffering turned him into a criminal. But he isn't the same kind of rebel that Satan is in Paradise Lost.
But I still like how Shelley circles back to Milton in the final pages. I was paging through Paradise Lost and found the passage where Adam is bemoaning the creation of Eve:
O why did God,
Creator wise, that peopled highest heav'n
With Spirits masculine, create at last
This novelty on earth, this fair defect of nature,
and not fill the world at once
With men as angels without feminine,
Or find some other way to generate
Mankind?
I guess we know now that this is not the way to generate mankind, but would it have been such a bad thing for Victor to have generated an Eve?
Thomas wrote: "I guess we know now that this is not the way to generate mankind, but would it have been such a bad thing for Victor to have generated an Eve? ..."Instead of the creature? Or as companion to the creature?
Would Shelley have been familiar with the stories of the Norse gods? The creature reminds me of Wagner's opera, e.g., the character Freyja. Or alternatively of the Titans.
I also liked that the story was wrapped up at the end, with a definite conclusion for Victor and the creature. Sometimes I enjoy a more open-ended story but in this case I was happy that Walton got to hear the other side of the things (from the creature's perspective). And I thought it was a satisfying end - the descriptions were wonderfully evocative and I could picture the scenes. It was also interesting that Walton seemed to grow or step away from his goal, seeing the risks faced by going forward. He listened to the crew rather than Victor. Though both were initially driven at any cost, Victor's story served some good in that he was an example of what can happen if one goes too far.
I did get a little distracted by the dogs - some died but I was hoping they saved the others (very 21st century reaction probably). Poor puppies!
Lily wrote: "Thomas wrote: "I guess we know now that this is not the way to generate mankind, but would it have been such a bad thing for Victor to have generated an Eve? ..."Instead of the creature? Or as companion to the creature..."
As companion, as the Creature wishes. Like Walton, and like Victor, friendship means a great deal to him. Too bad he didn't have Facebook, or GR for that matter. :)
Thomas wrote: "As companion, as the Creature wishes. Like Walton, and like Victor, friendship means a great deal to him. Too bad he didn't have Facebook, or GR for that matter. :) ..."It seems to have been fear that stopped Victor. After all, he had lost several loved ones to the creature. While he might be able to trust a commitment from the creature, could he from the creature's wife and offspring?
A nasty, and not necessarily appropriate or valid, analogy is nuclear proliferation.
Laurele wrote: "And now we come to what I think is the weakest part of the book. What think you?"I agree that it's weak in not having much philosophical (or, really, many other) issues to think about, other than VF's decision not to proceed with a Charlene for Charlie. But even then, he doesn't really talk much about his reasons.
But it was necessary in rounding out the story and giving us some fairly exciting moments in the chase up through Russia, though I found much of that quite unconvincing.
And, now that I think about it, it does seem very far-fetched that VF and Charlie were able to track so closely together over that vast distance.
In the end, yes, I did think the first two parts were stronger, and I admit that I did some fast reading in the third part.
David wrote: "I thought it was appropriate because it:...2) Resolves the "monster's" end."
Well, maybe. Charlie says he's going to his death. But did he? Or did he, realizing that his creator was dead, decide that life without his creator forever pursuing him might be more worth living, and turn back?
Maybe he found an ugly but good hearted Russian woman who saw through his exterior, and they married and lived happily ever after? I like to think so. And maybe, just maybe, their progeny explain the many sightings of Bigfeet in the Northern woods? Or even the Abominable Snowman??
Lily wrote: "So what does that passage "mean"? That Prometheus was robbed/cleansed of his feelings, including pain and fear, each day, only to have them return the next? Or something quite different?"On the surface we think of Prometheus physically suffering during the day and healing up during the night. Instead, the comment that the liver was thought by the Greeks to be the seat of human emotion implies there was more emotional suffering than physical suffering. Victor not only demonstrates his emotional suffering is far greater than his physical suffering and the diurnal/nocturnal nature of his manic-depressive state.
”Cold, want, and fatigue were the least pains which I was destined to endure . . .“Victor seems bound by his own resolve to a rock of vengeance suffering the eagle of despair during the day and restoring his emotional strength by his dreams at night in consequence of over-reaching in his attempt to aid and advance mankind.
"My life as it passed thus was indeed hateful to me , and it was during sleep alone that I could taste joy. Oh blessed sleep! often, when most miserable, I sunk to repose, and my dreams lulled me even to rapture."
"During the day I was thus sustained and inspirited by the hope of night. . ."
Maybe someone else who knows the story better than I do can tell us if Prometheus suffered emotionally as well and what it might have been over.
Thomas wrote: "I did like the final chapter, if only because we get to hear the Creature justify his ways to Walton. Of all the characters in the novel the Creature is to me the most interesting, and perhaps the ..."Great comment. I like the way you circled back to Paradise Lost, which clearly Shelley knew almost as well as Laurel does. (Not MS's fault, L has had a lot more years to read it over!)
Everyman wrote: "Well, maybe. Charlie says he's going to his death. But did he?"He does not seem short on virtue when it comes to keeping his word. Then again, MWS did leave the possibility for a sequel open. I wonder what that would have read like?
David wrote: "...Victor seems bound by his own resolve to a rock of vengeance suffering the eagle of despair during the day and restoring his emotional strength by his dreams at night in consequence of over-reaching in his attempt to aid and advance mankind...."This is helpful, David. Thx.
I thought of Big Foot or the Abominable Snowman, too, Everyman.David, your analyses and explanations are great. Thank you!
The thing that irritated me most about this section was Victor's misinterpretation of the Creature's threat about Victor's wedding day. Of course the Creature planned to kill Victor's bride, just as Victor had killed the Creature's bride. And yet Victor runs off to protect himself, leaving the poor girl all alone in her bridal bed. It's not all about you, Victor!
I'm a family law attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada. I made a tongue-in-cheek "Frankenstein Parenting Project." We actually see a lot of these same arguments in court cases - for example, the case of Dillon the Doggie Door Bandit regarding parental liability for the misconduct of a minor. Imagining this were a case (Frankenstein adv. Frankenstein), would you be so kind as to vote for your favorite judicial outcome?http://theliteratilawyer.wordpress.co...
Laurele wrote: "I thought of Big Foot or the Abominable Snowman, too, Everyman.I thought of Jurassic Park. Here's what the NY Times said when JP was first published: "In summary, Michael Crichton's exciting new disaster thriller, 'Jurassic Park,' sounds like just another recycling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein myth." But, farther down in the review: "Yet despite the predictable and mechanical way that its plot gets under way, 'Jurassic Park' turns out to be a superior specimen of the myth, and easily the best of Mr. Crichton's novels to date... First, there is an important narrative trick that Mr. Crichton uses. By telling his island adventure from many points of view, he cleverly undermines the reader's belief that the story has a hero... Then there is Ian Malcolm, the philosophical mathematician. He explains chaos theory so lucidly, with diagrams and ominous remarks like, 'Details emerge more clearly as the fractal curve is redrawn,' that you get the sense that you are learning something important as well as having a good time... Finally, there are the dinosaurs of 'Jurassic Park.' Mr. Crichton doesn't just stick a pterodactyl here and a stegosaurus there. He goes deeply and convincingly into the subject. He cleverly posits that the necessary DNA might be found in the fossils of prehistoric biting insects preserved in amber. He depicts supercomputer screens sequencing the genes. And he inhabits his island with no fewer than 15 different species -- from stegosaurs to triceratops to pterosaurs -- lovingly described and with surprising characteristics like the ability to spit poison or walk with their wings."
Addresses some of our complaints about the novel Frankenstein, no? I'm not tempted to read JP, but I might go rent the movie!
Also, I might add that I found the Creature much less sympathetic than others in the end. In his last appearance to Victor, "A grin was on the face of the monster; he seemed to jeer"--this is not a description intended to evoke sympathy!Later, VF tells Walton, "His soul is as hellish as his form, full of treachery and fiend-like malice." Granted, this is VF's perspective, but I must admit, I can't blame him!
I do believe that the creature doesn't intend to do harm to anyone else and that, in fact, he is going to follow through on his suicide mission. Shelley doesn't really give us any reason to imagine otherwise. But despite the openings in the second part of the book for us to feel sympathetic toward him, I'm at least as sympathetic toward Victor at the end. He made a terrible, youthful mistake.
Having made my pitch for the more tongue-in-cheek, let me say this is a prime mitigation case in sentencing - the portion of the trial where the Defendant asks for leniency because of his travails. As a lawyer, I see families looking at their children considered monsters, who also pursue their own mitigation cases regarding their upbringing. If an adult does something bad, we don't impute legal judgment to the parents, because the adult child has free will. But to what extent do we impute moral judgment of the father of Adam Lanza, who hadn't been around the family for years?
The thing that Mary gets at, that I really think she's getting at with this whole book, is parental liability for their children. This includes acts such as Adam Lanza, a true horror story. The Greeks considered humans half-monsters and half-gods. In creation, isn't that the roulette that God took, in creating a creature with free will?
Victor got to the heart of it when he declined to create another female companion monster, because he realized he would be creating another creature with free will. She could reject the Creature - the monster doesn't even consider it, but Victor finally does. He also realizes that she may not leave Europe, but instead prefer to go around murdering Europeans. The fact that she could murder South Americans doesn't exactly seem problematic, but another post for that, lol.
His monster, Victor's own creation, faces a set of moral choices. He fails miserably to conquer his own rages and despondency. And for that reason, Victor declines to create another. So the question, is of course, with our Modern Prometheus, it that an inherent risk of creation? If you're God, do you run the risk of creating Satan or Hitler when you gift free will? If you're a parent, do you run the risk of giving birth to an Adam Lanza or a Jack the Ripper? Is it your fault who they turn out to be? But isn't that just another shrug from responsibility?
In the end, Victor opts for the safety of an executioner over the risk of another creation. The parent and child have their fates tied together as a karma. Victor is every bit obsessed, in the end, as he was in creation.
Laurele wrote: "The thing that irritated me most about this section was Victor's misinterpretation of the Creature's threat about Victor's wedding day. Of course the Creature planned to kill Victor's bride, just a..."Yes, he was amazingly obtuse about this, wasn't he?
I would love to hear a qualified psychiatrist evaluate him. There must be some syndrome that fits him. Highly focused on a complex and extended task. Loner, preferring solitude to company -- almost anti-social. Has one very close male friend, who he seems much closer to than the woman he marries almost as a matter of convenience or duty. Makes terrible decisions then is overcome by grief at the consequences of those decisions. Totally dedicated to destroying the one notable accomplishment of his life. Almost no understanding of human (if we consider Charlie human) emotions and needs. Anything important I've missed?
Bobbi wrote: "...The parent and child have their fates tied together as a karma. ...."Thank you for your discussion @21, Bobbi. I could relate to that far more than I did to your poll choices. I have watched parents have to make difficult and complicated decisions about severely debilitated children, both mentally and physically, genetic and adopted. I don't know answers and these are not questions for which we seem to have had a great deal of public discussion to date, perhaps because they are often so buried in what are considered primarily familial responsibilities.
Bobbi wrote: "The thing that Mary gets at, that I really think she's getting at with this whole book, is parental liability for their children."But it starts before that, doesn't it? It started here at the moment of creation (conception) where he takes one look at what he has created and recoils in horror purely on the basis of appearance. At that point he has no idea of the character of his creation/progeny. It seems to me a significant moral defect, like a mother giving birth to a deformed baby and instantly rejecting it and abandoning it to its fate.
Everyman wrote: "Bobbi wrote: "The thing that Mary gets at, that I really think she's getting at with this whole book, is parental liability for their children."But it starts before that, doesn't it? It started ..."
Mary Shelley has experienced several variants within her own short life by the time she wrote Frankenstein. She has known the loss of a child. She believes she caused her mother's death. She has felt rejected by her step-mother. She has experienced Percy having another lover and child and apparently attempting to foist her off unto another man. How all these play into her Frankenstein story (nightmare?) is not necessarily obvious.
Laurele wrote: "The thing that irritated me most about this section was Victor's misinterpretation of the Creature's threat about Victor's wedding day. Of course the Creature planned to kill Victor's bride, just a..."I agree. Immediately after the "marriage night" threat Victor's creation kills Clerval and Victor still does not seem to have a clue that the monster is going to kill his loved ones instead of him to make him suffer.
Victor's line of thinking that, "The monster will cause my friends insufferable anguish when he murders me.", betrays quite a narrow minded ego.
I wanted to yell at the book they way some will yell at the at the movie screen when the protagonists decide to split up to look for killer.
Could this have been MWSs plan all along? Do you think she knew the readers would not be fooled by this and therefore become more emotionally involved by becoming angry at Victor being so easily blindsided?
Laurele wrote: "The thing that irritated me most about this section was Victor's misinterpretation of the Creature's threat about Victor's wedding day. Of course the Creature planned to kill Victor's bride, just a..."I guess I read this differently -- I thought that Victor was worried that the inevitable combat would terrify Elizabeth, so he leaves her to meet the creature, who he thinks must be hiding in the house somewhere. He misinterprets the Creature's threat in thinking that he means to kill him, rather than the one he loves (Victor is a great one for tunnel vision) but I didn't get the sense that he had abandoned Elizabeth. At least not intentionally.
Lily wrote: "Bobbi wrote: "...The parent and child have their fates tied together as a karma. ...."Thank you for your discussion @21, Bobbi. I could relate to that far more than I did to your poll choices. ..."
The fact is the choices in the poll reflected the choices presented in the novel. VF's decides that he's just not into his monster anymore and withdraws, leaving him to fend for himself. It's so stupid it's silly. But you know what? People ask everyday if they can voluntarily terminate their parental rights to get out of paying child support. Answer: only if someone else is willing to take on the job of parenting through an adoption.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of these questions - if your kid hurts someone, at seventeen, are you legally responsible? Nevada law says kind of, and possibly. If you gave them the car to drive, then absolutely, otherwise your liability for wrongful death (ie murder) is capped at $10k. Right on here posters asked if Victor was guilty of murder. And I've heard real parents absolutely say - after Dillon the Doggie Door Bandit caused 60k of theft and damage - I'm not responsible because I can't control him. If I can't control him, how can I be liable? And you know what: it wasn't a bad theory.
So like it or not, the questions I asked are products of the novel. If you have a novel about creating a monster, where the monster blames you for life for screwing him up, I get to make fun of it. But these have real stories too. By extension from the Monster's theory of parental fault, do you know the legal theory whereby parents are responsible to pay child support for life for a disabled child? And if you can do that, then why wouldn't the kids suffering from affluenza, or the recent case in New York, establish a permanent sort of alimony for their parents screwing them up? Makes sense to me.
And the end is entirely ridiculous. No one gets to cure murder with murder. It's ludicrous. Except for Bill Cosby. Cosby can, because he said: "I brought you into this world I can take you out of it."
Interesting discussion. Victor really had no part of Charlie's upbringing beyond his creation. I am reminded of the orphans found in Romania back some years (with the fall of the communist government in 1989) and how the parental abandonment and lack of love/meaningful physical care of these babies resulted in severe negative repercussions. The children were found rocking back and forth with apparent severe physical and mental delays/issues. Of course, Charlie started off with apparently more mental and physical skills than an abandoned baby. It is not the upbringing of Charlie by Victor but the total lack thereof/abandonment that is of issue.I agree, Laurele….I could not believe that Victor was so myopic to think it was his life alone at risk. Why would Charlie designate Victor's wedding night in his warned attack. Such a warning would seem to scream beware to your bride and as suggested above, is a "fitting" response to Victor denying Charlie his "bride".
@ Kathy, nice point/analogy! Jurrasic Park is an interesting take off of the "Frankenstein myth" but with more provided scientific basis.
Sue wrote: "I am reminded of the orphans found in Romania back some years (with the fall of the communist government in 1989) and how the parental abandonment and lack of love/meaningful physical care of these babies resulted in severe negative repercussions."I'm interested that you brought that up. My mother-in-law went over to Romania about twenty years ago with global volunteers to spend time with some of the older orphans, simply to give them some one-on-one human interactions. You're absolutely right that they were in some cases almost catatonic and in others engaged in almost totally random violence, but in all cases had almost no ability to interact with other people in any normal way. They are actually a very good analogy for Charlie's situation, except that they were more dependent on others for the basics of rudimentary (and totally inadequate) food, shelter, and clothing.
I ought to have thought of them myself in the context of Frankenstein.
Sue wrote: "Interesting discussion. Victor really had no part of Charlie's upbringing beyond his creation. I am reminded of the orphans found in Romania back some years (with the fall of the communist governm..."I like your discussion of the Romanian War orphans - good analogy. I remember that too.
Chapters 19 trough 22 are indeed weak. The story of the days spent in merry England and in the Irish prison is uninspired, the "misunderstanding" of the threat concerning the wedding night even insipid. At the same time the really interesting episode, the assemblage of the second monster, does not get the attention it deserves. Yet, the destruction of the female monster is the second turning point in the book. Counterbalancing the night in Ingolstadt, when the daemon first opened its eyes. Did Frankenstein make the right decision this time? We may believe he did. Confronted with risks for humanity at large, he now takes his responsibility and faces the wrath of the monster. The story takes a new direction.
Of course he could not do so without further exposing his family too. Should Victor still marry after denying the same privilege to the monster? Anyway, when the inevitable has happened, he finally gives his daemon what it always wanted, a companion for life. Creator and creation are now inseperable in their mutual hatred. And so the book reaches a satisfying conclusion.
In a way Frankenstein finally lives up to his role of Prometheus. He suffers by day, to be restored by night, dreaming about his loved ones. He becomes almost a hero, even if hatred is his motivation. The satanic aspects (envy, self-pity) of the monster meanwhile become more emphasized. Even when it comes to regret its deeds, we may be sure that, given the chance, it would repeat them all over again.
That may seem more realistic than romantic. But the finale is artistically high-lighted with a grand auto-da-fé on the North Pole, an ultimate big bang (alternatively, the daemon might have decided to live long and unhappily ever after, gathering fire-wood for the poor, but that would have been a bit dull, wouldn't it?).
Wendell writes: Anyway, when the inevitable has happened, he finally gives his daemon what it always wanted, a companion for life. Creator and creation are now inseperable in their mutual hatred. <<<Interesting point. Yes, there was interaction of sorts once the chase began….negative attention is sometimes sought when positive is denied.
Wendel wrote: "Chapters 19 trough 22 are indeed weak. The story of the days spent in merry England and in the Irish prison is uninspired, the "misunderstanding" of the threat concerning the wedding night even ins..."Beautiful, Wendel.
Thanks Laurele, we all can use some encouragement. Reminding me of another way to read Frankenstein. This one definitely within the limits of biographic possibilities. In Chapter 20 (III/3), when Frankenstein announces that he will not make another monster, the daemon answers:Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master; obey!
Fiction lording over the artist, it happens I hear. Some books can even interfere with the lives of friends and relatives. And what if a book is so horrible that the writer must feel obliged to make the world save another one of his (or her) brainchild's?
Wendel wrote: "Should Victor still marry after denying the same privilege to the monster? Anyway, when the inevitable has happened, he finally gives his daemon what it always wanted, a companion for life. Creator and creation are now inseperable in their mutual hatred. And so the book reaches a satisfying conclusion."
Interesting comment. If I read it correctly, you are suggesting that VF and Charlie both lose the women they had hoped to spend their lives with, and in that are bonded together themselves as a couple till death do them part.
I'll be interesting in how many others here would agree that the book ends in a "satisfying conclusion."
Everyman wrote: "I'll be interesting in how many others here would agree that the book ends in a "satisfying conclusion"It seems satisfying to me in that it does not seem it could end any other way. Scenarios where either Victor or the monster "won" and survived the ordeal, or if they both survived by some sort of reconciliation or other means all seem to me to be inadequate.
David wrote: "It seems satisfying to me in that it does not seem it could end any other way. "So you would not be satisfied with an ending in which Frankestein cornered Charlie on the peaks of Switzerland and killed him, thus claiming to take the responsibility for creating the creature?
You believe that Frankenstein had to die? But exactly why? To pay for his hubris, for trying to play God? To pay for his culpability in the deaths of his brother and friend? Or some some other reason?
I'm not saying it's a wrong ending. But I'm wondering whether it HAD to be that way, and any other ending would be somehow inadequate or dissatisfying.
Everyman wrote: "To pay for his hubris, for trying to play God? To pay for his culpability in the deaths of his brother and friend?"All of the above. "Satisfying" seems too personal.
Instead of "satisfying" I would say the ending as it is seems to me to "fit" best with the rest of the story, especially within the frame. Without the "boogy men" of Victor and/or Charlie still running around, the wild card in the future is Walton and the choices he (and we) will make in the future with consideration given to Victor's tale. We are temporarily safe until someone else makes the same mistakes but at least now we have been warned.
Without the deaths of both Victor and Charlie the tale would seem to not have an end. A different ending would seem too unjust, existential, and possibly more realistic. But this is a story and a different ending would and rob it of the full impact of its "cautionary tale" characteristic. The wages of sin. . .
David wrote: "Everyman wrote: "To pay for his hubris, for trying to play God? To pay for his culpability in the deaths of his brother and friend?"All of the above. "Satisfying" seems too personal.
Instead of..."
I agree, David. Also, the Creature has to die, because he has read "The Sorrows of Young Werther."
