Week 12--Reading Frankenstein

I had already read Frankenstein in High School for pleasure, and came into rereading the story with a prediposition to feel certain ways towards the plot and the characters. Although I did end up feeling the same way towards the characters like feeling empathy for the monster and anger with Frankenstein, I felt the reasoning was a bit different in this case. No longer was I just imagining how the character felt, but really truly reflected on the culture and societies school of thought around them.

Now, I have a perspective of ascertaining the real perspective between the monsters own struggles in finding a place in society with the search to find the inert struggles of society. Maybe not accepting everyone is a pinnacle point in the creation of a society, and although it is painful to some, it is inevitable. But that brings the whole issue up of whether or not society can ever be utopian, because would it still count as a society?

One of the many thoughts that popped into my head while reading this book was in regards to Frankenstein (the monster) and his first encounter of his physical appearance and his comparison with the people he had seen. The monster observed the people and made a judgement that they were pretty. (Where did that judgement come from? Was his unconscious just drawn to something like how the people looked, or is it just b/c they were the only thing he had really ever seen? This begs the question of whether the people who had rejected him in the past also appeared beautiful to him. Perhaps these people looked pretty @ first glance because they hadn't mistreated him (yet).)

So, Frankenstein learns the standard, the status quo, the type of appearance that is "normal", "beautiful"; he then sees himself, sees that he doesn't match up/look the same, and decides that he must be ugly and that is the reason everyone has been mean to him thus far. I would have loved to hear Frankenstein's thoughts about how he looked before he saw the humans and adopted their cultural understanding of pleasing aesthetics. Would he have merely regarded himself neutrally and dispassionately as an observor? Would he have thought he was the most beautiful thing, and wonderfully proportioned, etc? Would he have thought (compared to other things he saw in nature) that he wasnt very attractive? Hmmm. Some interesting thoughts to ponder.

I honestly don't know how to begin summarizing our class discussion of the book Frankenstein. In these past two class sessions we discussed so many concepts/ theories/ ideas about what exactly is going on in Frankenstein, that I overwhelmed and even more confused than when I attempted to dissect the text in my own mind. For instance, the definition of 'responsibility' is entirely lost to me, and probably to the rest of the class as well. Our conversation was heavy with questions which seemed to lead us around in circles.

In the first class, we began by giving Frankenstein's 'monster' a name, because we did not believe it was really correct to call him a monster... so, we called him Pierre. And since the name Frankenstein is often confused with the image of the 'monster' he created, we decided to go by the first name basis and call him Victor. Victor, as creater of Pierre, can also be seen as his mother (which I will get back to later). We focused mostly, in this first class, on monstrousness-- what made Pierre a monster? Ugliness? Everyone that saw him cringed away -- he was hideous and this repelled people. Is this repulsion toward the ugly something that is innate in humans, or is it imbued in us through culture? Someone suggested that perhaps it is something we feel naturally, maybe due to reproductive priorities.

We went on to examine the monstrous qualities of Victor -- he was, perhaps, more monstrous than Pierre in that he was so single minded and self absorbed -- he grew feverish and pale, became a recluse and ignored much of his familial duties. Was this part of Shelly's message -- That ambition with ruin you? “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections and destroy your taste for simple pleasures…then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind.” (40). We also noted the idea that in some ways this story can be seen as a challenge to the notion of original sin (Pierre was good – then became cruel only after he was mistreated) – noble savage, man is naturally good. These ideas are contrary to Bettleheim’s belief that evil feelings are natural & human.

In the second class, we focused mainly on the dilemma of limits… this is where my head begins to spin. When can there be too much knowledge? (again, possibly a commentary against the ideas of Galileo and Flatland where the pursuit of knowledge should be limitless). Fair enough. But the part that really got me in our discussion was the challenge to responsibility. How responsible was Victor for the actions of Pierre? Was Shelly trying to say that he shouldn’t have created the monster in the first place, or that he should have taken responsibility over his creation to keep it from getting out of hand? Where does the responsibility end? So he created Pierre, how much can you say he is responsible for his actions after that – especially in the context of motherhood? We really lost the definition of responsibility I this conversation….

The topic of responsibility came up over and over again, but we eventually moved on to the notion of abandonment. This was meant to be a horror story after all, and everybody dies – leaving the reader feeling abandoned. Not to mention Victor leaves his family, Pierre is abandoned immediately, Walton is wishing for a friend while writing to the sister who he has, himself, abandoned. The center of the story is in the education of Safie, who was abandoned by her native land and then abandons her father. – perhaps this is a horror story about in inevitability of being alone…

Man, we really talked about a lot in these two days. We also talked about the gothic style writing and the tendency to have doubles – Was Pierre really just a double of Victor? How separate were they really? Rachael pointed out that nearly every time Victor sees Pierre, it is in a window of some sort. Both are monstrous in their own ways, and not too different from one another…

I feel that I have gone into way to much detail about what we discussed, but honestly I have barely skimmed the surface of the theories we explored. Even so, I feel unsatisfied, frustrated even, with the incompleteness of our conversation. There is so much more to be said about this book – so many ways in which it deals with the unconscious, so many more ambiguities to explore. This section of discussions was…intense, to say the least. I’m still lost, still troubled by the happenings of Shelly’s story. But I guess I should be. It is, after all, a horror story.

When I hear the name "Frankenstein" I immediately think of a large man with green-tinged skin, bloodshot eyes and bolts in his neck. This Frankenstein shows up by the hundreds on Halloween each year. Or I think of the PBS show Wishbone and the episode where Shelley's Frankenstein was brought to life (Wishbone the dog played Dr. Frankenstein). Both are rather playful renditions of the deeply moving human story that is Shelley's novel. I think the popularized image of the "monster" discount the author's brilliance and the powerful message behind the story.

I greatly enjoyed this book. Every person has a hunger of sorts in them to create something entirely new or push the boundaries within their chosen field. Dr. Frankenstein was a scientist who applied his entire education (some of it misinformed) to what he thought was a necessary breakthrough and worthwhile achievement for chemistry and all of the sciences. It raises the question of whether or not it is ever permissible to play God, no matter how noble the cause may seem.

The monster is the most puzzling and emotionally riveting character, you pity him then empathize with him and over the course of time in spite of his wrongs come to root for him. His humanity is the most richly developed and yet it is understood that he is technically the least human character in the book. His comprehension of human value should inform our own. 

What a horrible story. It was so sad how one by one, practically all of his family and friends were murdered. Who could have known that all this would come out of an experiment that you never should have done, your dirty (literally) secret that comes back to haunt you. I can appreciate the horror of this situation.   

I wonder why everyone always has to die (the main characters, I mean). It’s kind of ridiculous to think about it. The characters were constantly complaining about how miserable they were, and it took up a great part of the book. I think the book could definitely have been condensed.  I thought it was much more interesting at the beginning when it talked about Frankenstein’s madness that led him to obsessively work on creating life. He knew it was filthy work and somehow immoral, but he did it anyway because he was so wrapped up in the idea. That seems strange to me. Why did he do it if he knew he was touching dead body parts and disturbing people’s graves? He grew thin and pale while he was working on the project. Also, he felt that he could not be with his family while he was doing such work, because he could not enjoy being with them if he knew that he had that to worry about. The author seems to be trying to show that because of his work he was out of balance with day to day living, and that these kinds of ambitious pursuits that make the mind overexcited are bad for the health, like a disease, and should be avoided.

Shelley’s Frankenstein calls many aspects of our class into my mind. First, I think of fairytales and how the characters are typically archetypes of the human condition. And indeed the characters of Frankenstein and his monster were all too human in this way. It would even seem that Shelley was trying extremely hard to make her characters augment these characteristics to the point of making them one dimensional. As a result of this, Shelley’s main characters are much more likely to be disliked by the reader, bringing him or her to the realization of just how detestable the human race can be.

There also seems to be an idea within this work that not matter what your circumstances in life, whether you are a creator or the created, the enemy or the victim, you are ultimately responsible for yourself and the knowledge you have acquired along your life’s journey. Unfortunately, both Frankenstein and his creation are not very good at that. Perhaps it was the zeal of the unconscious mind that dooms them. A question for the class: were Frankenstein and his monster too conscious or too unconscious?

            Like Antonia, I was struck by how the themes of the novel were similar to those we discussed earlier in the class. Shelley kept coming back to the idea that pushing science too far can have terrible consequences. She encourages stopping questioning and instead urges the reader to live an ignorant but happy life. A telling quote is, “How dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” This message is the complete opposite of the message that Galileo and Flatland upheld. From those two works we concluded that scientific exploration was necessary for any kind of improvement, even if it was a little scary or hard to convince people of its merits. In Frankenstein this kind of thinking is scorned. It’s a very difficult argument to pick sides on. I believe that exploration and experimentation is necessary for development but at the same time I can’t but help wondering what could happen with too many scientific advances. Look at the atomic bomb for example, science was used as a horribly destructive tool. But without science we would have no medicine, no technology, and life would be very difficult. I think maybe the solution is to have in place checks and balances that monitor scientific research. It seemed to be that Frankenstein’s downfall was that he did it all by himself, if he had talked to other people he would have realized that what he was doing was insane and very dangerous. Maybe through community and culture there can be never-ending questioning but with realistic limitations.

But the most amazing thing is that she was only nineteen when she wrote it… I have done nothing with my life. 

         I watched a movie, Frankenstein, in high school.  Reading a book, I was able to fill the gaps from the movie.  First, I did not know Frankenstein Monster was first good-hearted.  I thought the created was cruel in the first place.   Also, I don't think there was a scene in which the monster observes cottagers.  Second, I thought Dr Frankenstein and his cousin were blood-related siblings in a movie.  But in a book, Dr's cousin was an adoptee.

         When the monster tells his story to the creator, Dr. Frankenstein, I was captivated.  I liked how the monster's memories are written in separate " " in a row without any interruption of Dr. Frankenstein's responses or questions.  These continues throughout several chapters.

         The book well conveys the monster's psychological transformation.  There's one paragraph that was striking to me.  It was said by Dr. Frankenstein:

"His words had a strange effect on me.... I compassionated him..., but when i looked upon him..., my feelings were altered to those fo horror and hatred."

          Reading this paragraph, I thought about people with advantages with good looks such as celebrities.  Their fans adore them.  On the other hand, people with physicial disabilities are easily prejudiced by other people.  Though the disabled have no intention to hurt other people, people in general prefer to avoiding sharing something with them.  Sometimes, young children call those, "wicked," etc.  The perception on us by others create our reaction and identities.  Other people's prejudice also creates a culture. 

          I sympathized with Frankenstein, and other people who are second, or third Frankenstein in this society.  When I was a little child, I indicated with my index finger at a dwarf who was in her thirties, i guess.  And I asked my mom why the woman was so short even though she was aged.  My mom blushed with embarrassment when the woman watched us, and hit me in the back.  "Be quiet..!"  She said.  The disabled (in a culture with my reaction and the woman) approached me and my mom and answered my question.  "Child, if you don't eat spinach or any other healthy food, you become like me.  So, eat all sorts of foods not only cookies, ok?"  Of course, the answer was not a maxim of relevance.  She broke her disabling culture by providing a warm-hearted feature of her to me.  My mom often tells this story to me who don't remember the detail.  We both feel grateful and inspiring still now.