Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This book has been a landmark in literature; even 200 years later. Everyone seems to brings a new interpretation of this masterpiece.

What is the meaning of Frankenstein according to your perception?

Playing God is a baaaaaaaad idea.

No, it's the idea of the book that is "a landmark in literature." Mary Shelley's actual story was overwrought Romanticism--paradoxically, quite out of step with her story.

Forget everything you've been told or every movie retelling and read the book as if for the first time. If nothing else, it's good for laughs, but there's also a sobering lesson in how far our perceptions of literature (and a lot of other things) are not based on the books themselves.

A lesson: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

fear of revolution and the racism of post colonialism

I love this book! It was WAY better than I'd thought it would be :)

It was alright. It was long and the main character was always sick, mentally ill, depressed or insane...BUT I'm glad I read it anyway even though it wasn't my favorite.

i think the whole point of it was to show how the effects of the master servant relationship changing and how it affected big V, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

I always looked at this book as a reflection of our society and how we treat each other.

I think a perfect warning from Frankenstein can be taken in the current difficulties of Fukushima. Discovery and science overtakes everything else before it has time to process and prepare for consequences.

I think that's why the story continues to stay relevant to many people. We will always be paying some high price for one sort of new discovery or another.

I always read the book as an excellent warning to scientist to really think trough what they are creating. Since I am a chemist this might be just the part of it that stroke me most. You have to be aware of your responsibility towards society.

Christian wrote: "I always read the book as an excellent warning to scientist to really think trough what they are creating. Since I am a chemist this might be just the part of it that stroke me most. You have to be..."

I agree with that, actually. As a scientist is it not in the best interests of everybody to seek your own fame and proclaim your cleverness by inleashing a scientific danger on society. Its the same with the atom bomb, i think. Such discoveries are best kept unmentioned, beacuse of the other selfish and greedy humans in the world

I read the book as part of a women's literature course and much was made of the fact that Mary had experienced birth, and the death, of her own infants when she wrote this story.

The approach taken toward the book was that of sort of a post-partum dysfunctional mindset towards the creation of life, and a sense of horror at this dependency and responsiblity thrust upon the creator of it.

Bensley56 wrote: "Playing God is a baaaaaaaad idea."

I absolutely agree. But you know, the forbidden fruit is the sweetest.

Its message is, in essence, a warning against the dangers of 'penetrating' (as Victor Frankenstein himself puts it) the secrets of nature. The message is in harmony with the romantic period in which it was written; it is a critique of rational thinking, associated with scientists, and epitomised by the character of Frankenstein.

Knowledge Lost wrote: "I always looked at this book as a reflection of our society and how we treat each other."

I haven't actually read this book. But I've read a book which is about Tim Burton and his references to this book. AND I think from what I know of this book that perhaps this is actually what I would see from it. That thought of the outsider and how we treat that outsider and why... Maybe I should read the book though. I do plan to. Looks good.
Perhaps though there are multiple layers to this book and what it makes comment on, this is probably the reason it has stood the test of time, and why even today it makes sense. Because it makes comments on the universal subject of humans and their nature (in the rawest and most primal levels) and on the quest for knowledge, that which is one of the first stories of the bible and the downfall of humanity ultimately perhaps this book is a new version of this story....?

Sheila wrote: 'The approach taken toward the book was that of sort of a post-partum dysfunctional mindset towards the creation of life, and a sense of horror at this dependency and responsiblity thrust upon the creator of it.'

That's interesting. I never thought of that feminine angle before, though I always felt that Victor Frankenstein represented fatherhood, and the 'creature' as the consequences of not taking those responsibilities seriously.

I like the remark above that playing God is a bad idea, but it omits an important implication of the creation myth. Playing God may be ill-advised, but is being God any better? There have been always been monsters among us. How did people rationalize their existence? If we are all made in God's image, what was God telling us about him/herself by making leprosy and Siamese twins?

People in India have a genius for squaring this circle. They see all things as divine and human anomalies as especially so. Recently a girl with four legs and four arms received the homage of pilgrims from miles away...until an operation released the living girl from the contributing twin.

There is a wonderful passage in Gilgamesh where the hero curses the mischievous gods who create deformed animals to amuse themselves when they are drunk. It is a dark view, but one worth keeping in mind when we consider Frankenstein.

"If we are all made in God's image, what was God telling us about him/herself by making leprosy..."

People like this are made in God's image in that they have the capacity to show almost divine degrees of hope and emotion in/despite unfortunate circumstances. The former is represented in the novel through the Monster's request for a bride in the hope that he may live happily. He constantly makes attempts to be happy, and it can therefore be ascertained that he is hopeful and determined in his unhappy circumstances. The latter virtue of emotion is demonstrated in the novel by the Monster's reaction to reading such classics as 'The Vicar of Wakefield' and 'Paradise Lost'. There are many other instances when the Monster displays emotion, but the point is that he possesses such qualities which are incongruous to his situation.

You can take whatever lesson you want from all this. Assuming you are not a Deist who believes God plays no part in the affairs of the world, you can believe in the old maxim 'God helps those who help themselves'. Alternatively, an equally obvious lesson is one which the Monster inspires through his actions, and that is the will to continue despite a faltering love for the creator (or stance on religious intervention), and regardless of dire circumstances; if we consider the time in which this novel was written- a time when Deism was a popular belief- we can say that this is the more likely message being conveyed by Shelley.

I am not sure if we are agreeing, disagreeing or simply moving the prism to capture different colors.

There is nothing you have said that I disagree with. What I said about Frankenstein was my extemporaneous and inspirational response to the topic above and the book, itself. These blogs seem like intellectual jam sessions. One person says one thing that makes another person think of another. And on we go.

As far as my religious views, are they relevant? The point I was making is that humans have been thinking about God(s) and even playing God (justice, law, royalty, slavery, science)for quite sometime, and if humans make mistakes when we wield power, we are no different than other creative entities, including the Almighty. Birth defects and cancers, for instance, are mistakes in gene replication.

For people who believe in a perfect, all-knowing God there are no divine mistakes, only mysteries. But even that faith needs constant reinforcement in the form of books like "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People."

Well actually, in your first comment you asked a question regarding those with physical deformities and how they are made in the image of God (whether or not it was rhetorical I know not) but my comment was essentially an answer to your question. Therefore we are neither agreeing or disagreeing with each other, such words are out of context, as (generally speaking) an answer can neither agree nor disagree with the question it answers, unless the question expresses an opinion.

Asking whether or not your religious are relevant is itself an irrelevant and extraneous comment. I asked you no such question, and merely commented on how it may change your perception of the message being conveyed in the novel.

My question about God and leprosy was rhetorical, of course. My point remains: Dr.Frankenstein realized he had made a mistake because he bore a terrible responsibility for the life he created. But any creator, including a deity, has the same responsibility.

The Sumerians looked around them and saw so much ugliness and horror. They concluded, "The gods must have been drunk and malicious when they did this to us!"

Come to think of it, the Greeks considered their gods pretty mischievous and vain, as well. They triggered the Trojan War because of a beauty contest!

And even in the Bible, we find God and the Devil betting on whether Job, a good man who has done nothing wrong, will lose his faith if enough bad things happen to him. Job must finally ask for God to account for himself.

The question of creation and responsibility has always been with us. For those events that are beyond human control and comprehension, like death and earthquakes, we delegate the responsibility to God. For catastrophes like faulty brake systems and nuclear meltdowns, we blame each other. Voila!

Well I must say it is convenient that your question should turn out to be a rhetorical one after all. And you have claimed your point from being about 'being God' and the rationalization of existence, to 'playing God', and now the realisation of Frankenstein's responsibility for his creation; but it matters not, as all points are relevant and applicable to the novel. In short I think you've made many a good point, and have displayed an insightful knowledge of the themes of the novel

Your comparisons also, for me, shed new light on the themes of the novel, and I agree with you on the theme of the responsibility of being/playing God, which has been a ubiquitous and reoccurring theme since the ancient history of mankind and throughout the ages since then. The links you make to ancient societies are both fascinating and poignant.

Thank you for engaging me in a conversation. Great dialogue! It is fun to play with these ideas. If we can't have fun with literature, then it is a sad world, indeed, right?

I prefer the title 'The Modern Prometheus" playing with Fire of the Gods is a bad thing

And thank you. A stimulating discussion indeed! Books are always fun and interesting...

Eric wrote: "My question about God and leprosy was rhetorical, of course. My point remains: Dr.Frankenstein realized he had made a mistake because he bore a terrible responsibility for the life he created. Bu..."

Oh God, Don't people always try to Blame SOMEONE for anything that goes wrong. Why can't it just be shit happens sometimes and that's it...

In Regards to Job, I always thought that was a strange one on the part of 'God' I didn't know betting was a good thing to do in the bible, but maybe God was testing to see if it actually was a bad thing to do.... Or maybe he's a hippocrite....? (That's a really bad comment, and anyone going to slam me for it know I actually do think God exists and follow him where I can.)

And in this case there is the question of Who is the monster? The man created in the image of someone/ something else or the person creating the thing and then treating it rough? Or creating it so it's a monster and not something beautiful (in whatever context you take this whether physically, or mentally.)?

a quick not about 'The Modern Prometheus' title, there are, infact, two Prometheus legends, the first is that he gave fire to mankind and the second is that actually created man out of clay (i believe they are both Greek but both versions are used in similar amounts)

just adding that in.

Brown wrote: "a quick not about 'The Modern Prometheus' title, there are, infact, two Prometheus legends, the first is that he gave fire to mankind and the second is that actually created man out of clay (i beli..."

Fascinating. I thought the alternate title for the novel was referring to Frankenstein's ambitions to illuminate the world with his discoveries, thus giving the 'gift of fire' to mankind. However, the myth of Prometheus creating a man out of clay gives the alternate title a whole new meaning (to me, anyway), and I'm sure this was Shelley's intended meaning for the title. Thanks for sharing that.

We shouldn't judge things by how they look.

Eric wrote: "The question of creation and responsibility has always been with us. For those events that are beyond human control and comprehension, like death and earthquakes, we delegate the responsibility to God. For catastrophes like faulty brake systems and nuclear meltdowns, we blame each other. Voila! "

So everything is about shifting blame to the creator when things go wrong for the user.

If we could sue god we would be born with a sign that reads 'You are responsible for your actions, life may end abruptly due to unforseen circumstances, the manufacturer's guarantee does not cover for any damage or loss of life resulting from natural phenomena, natural phenomena is part of the life package and included in the terms of agreement, you need to tick the box titled 'read and accept terms' to use your product etc

The problem is that I am overconcerned with the point in the story where the monster saves a girl. I presume that the fact that an ugly monster holds a girl in his arms would receive such a reception, contrary to an angelic looking young man, who would be an instant hero. This made me believe for years that the monster was not welcomed by society because it was different. I appreciate the responsibility of the creator. Dr Frankestein was blinded by his purpose and was not concious of how the world would view his creation. Maybe if society was more accepting the monster the end would be different.

Yes the story of Job, god in the end lectures him on what great responsibility it is to be a god. I loved the one about the Summerians too.

Frankenstein is also know for the title the "Modern Prometheus", and according to Greek mithology, Prometheus was the one who created the humans.

In this book, Frankenstein (the doctor, not the monster as almost everyone thinks) had a god complex when he created his own human, only that he regreted it just when he finished his own creation, leaving him alone and without any guide in the world.

The daemon wandered for a long time learning himself without any offered help (an old man could have been some little of help, but mind he was blind), chased because he was different. Since we are young, they teach us that no one has to judge because of how one looks, the inside is what really counts, this book shows how hipocritical is our society with that saying.

Also, Dr Frankenstein wanted to break up ties with his creation, not being responsible of him, forget that he created him and going with his life, even not looking for him so he could have raised him and not give him a little of happinness he had owed him.

Apart from looking this novel like a God like level, it can also be looked like a parent like level. Just think in those people who have children, either by accident or not, and don't want to have any responsibility about them after they have them.

I just wrote an interesting essay on homo-eroticism in Frankenstein, and the possibility that Victor himself is a homosexual character.

I don't see how Victor is gay if he got married to a woman...


Frankenstein and Jurassic Park have similar themes. You might think that you know what your are doing and you might find the scientific/logic skills to do it. However, things can go wrong, so advances need to be treated carefully.

If you read the novel (the 1818 edition at least) you'll see that he rarely refers to it as a marriage and more a 'partnership' that was, in fact, forced by Victor's mother.

Also you need to take into account that this was in the 1800's, where homosexuality was basically unheard of, never mind spoken about.

There is a lot of homo-eroticism in Frankenstein, Victor is constantly scared of his 'partnership' with Elizabeth, all the women end up dead or murdered (with Mrs Saville silent throughout) whilst the men dominate the patriarchal society and enjoy one another's company.

Henry Clerval is Victor's nurse after his death and the only one who can nurse him back to health, taking the role typically played by a woman, there are a lot of talks of gazes, linked with romantic gazes in romanticism.

Victor makes a male creature and does not want to make a female one, and indeed even sees to be scared of the female form and then destroys the body. He also wants to create a "beautiful" male creature and is horrified when this does not happen.

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention when I read the book, but I never took Henry and Victor's relationship to be more than friends. He took a medical role in that, and doctors were men.

I assumed that he made a male creature first because God made Adam before Eve. In this way, Shelley was paralleling the creation that takes place in Genesis.

Playing more on this parallel, the creature wanted a woman companion like Adam wanted Eve. But Victor was afraid to make this woman for the creature because their relationship could end in "monster" babies. Since Victor was ashamed and terrified of his original mistake, he did not want to compound it with more creatures.

No he's actually said to be his 'nurse', not doctor, and nurses were primarily, if not completely women.

Also he removes women from the act of creation, Frankenstein makes a male creature, with his knowledge obtained from male members of the academia of his University and is then looked after by a male when he falls ill because he is shocked by his creation.

Th creature wanted a woman, but then Frankesniten was scared of the monster's babies.
He didn't want to monster, his creation, to have children and instead destroyed the body of the female monster he had already assembled.

If that isn't vagina envy then i don't know what is.

Also we don't know what Shelley was doing, whether she was writing victor as a homosexual character, paralleling the Adam and eve thing or whatever, because we have not spoken to Shelley about her authorial intent, which isn't seen as important anyway in today's literary theory

Eric wrote: "I like the remark above that playing God is a bad idea, but it omits an important implication of the creation myth. Playing God may be ill-advised, but is being God any better? There have been alw..."

Ever since I read this, my interpretation of Shelly's message, at least in part, is that we are the monster and Victor is God. Perhaps repulsion on the part of the creator is just part of the creative process. To be loved unconditionally is the ultimate love. This is just one of many possibilities.

Snapdragon wrote: "Eric wrote: "I like the remark above that playing God is a bad idea, but it omits an important implication of the creation myth. Playing God may be ill-advised, but is being God any better? There ..."

I couldnt agree more.. Very well articulated.. Nice thoughts!

Macc wrote: "I spent most of the time reading Frankenstein in the subway and sometimes people would catch glimpses of the title in the cover or inside the book pages and I could feel them looking strangely at m..."

It happened to me. I thought that Frankestein was the monster from hollywood. Im really happy i got to read it because its a hole complete story. I do think that the movie with Robert DeNiro (as frankestein monster) was very similar to the book, at least 80%.

My students in AP English brought up an interesting point with Frankenstein's monster...is he a killer because he was created to be one, or is he a killer because of the lack of guidance and nurturing from Victor?

The whole nature vs nurture debate...

men shouldn't have babies?

I think this was the meaning or moral of the story:

"Seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries." - as said by Victor Frankenstein somwhere near the end of the book.

Mary wrote: "My students in AP English brought up an interesting point with Frankenstein's monster...is he a killer because he was created to be one, or is he a killer because of the lack of guidance and nurtur..."

GOod question.. I think that it is because of lack of guidance and acceptance, not only from Victor but from everyone the monster has ever met.. So we may think that Victor was the one neglecting but society is partially to be blamed as well..

I think the meaning of it, is if you're going to take a risk as dangerous as that. Take responsibility for it. Don't ignore what you've done. All the karma from it will haunt you sooner or later.

If you must play God, take responsibility for your actions. Regardless of the morality of creating the monster in the first place, what really sets the tragedy in action is that Dr. Frankenstein doesn't take responsibility. He neither destroys the monster nor takes the monster under his care. The book would have been radically different had he taken the monster in, and cared for him.

The main thing that I took from this book (besides hubris is bad) was the idea "inside of every villain is an unloved child". All the creature craves early on is love and acceptance, but is cruelly treated by everyone, even his own parent. If Frankenstein had embraced and loved his creation, the creature would have probably become a well-adjusted (albeit it ugly) member of society and there wouldn't have been much of a story.

Knowledge Lost wrote: "I always looked at this book as a reflection of our society and how we treat each other."

Agreed. Both Mary's parents were hugely involved in the initial protests that sparked the French Revolution, and there was, as a result, a significant focus on social justice in Mary's upbringing that is the central crux of this book in many ways.

It should also be pointed out that Mary's mother wrote one of the first popular feminist theses, and there's certainly an undercurrent of feminism in the book--you can actually paint either Frankenstein or his monster as the "woman" in the relationship and get a decent thesis out of it, as suggested earlier in the thread.

There is, also, the common artist fear in the work--that terror of loosing one's creation on the world. As Mary says in her introduction in 1831, "His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handywork [sic], horror-stricken." I think all artists are mixed with feelings of excitement and trepidation when they release their work to the world, and there's a lot of that fear in her work, especially in the early parts of the book.

Haley wrote: "I think this was the meaning or moral of the story:

"Seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and disc..."

The problem is that Victor is a bit of a weak character, and his advice shouldn't necessarily be taken as a moral, per se. I say this because it isn't Victor's ambition that gets him into trouble, exactly, but his attempts to abdicate responsibility for his creation. I don't think that Frankenstein ever actually learned what he should from his experiences, and it seems that Shelley emphasizes this with this statement. Had he been a "proper parent," none of this would have likely happened.

Amusingly enough, this book was first published without a credited author (a common thing for women to do in an attempt to get their work taken seriously). I think Mary may have realized the disconnect in this, since the next edition had her fully credited and she talks extensively in her introduction about the trauma of creation and her struggles to be responsible for even the terrifying aspects of the self.

Brown wrote: "If you read the novel (the 1818 edition at least) you'll see that he rarely refers to it as a marriage and more a 'partnership' that was, in fact, forced by Victor's mother.

Also you need to take ..."

Love this. You can also take the same evidence and discuss the feminist slant, of course, especially since both characters (Frankenstein and his monster) are both so splendidly in the position of the "Other."

If you look deep within the story, I think the meaning of this book is: nothing. Not a damn thing, trust me, folks. It is a nice enough work of art (and that creates its own meaning, let it be said in passing), and it transgresses meanings. Overcomes it.

And no, I dont think we need to consider the "feminist slant" or the "masculine horizontal". I dont think we need to "take responsibility" for our actions or inactions. I dont think we must lubricate Mary Shelley's (if she wrote the book, that is, instead of Mr P.B, as I and a few others respectfully suspect)"creative coherence" with weird literary theories. I think we must stop using "Hollywood" so damn much. I dont think any work of art gives itself up for interpretations, save what rays may strike the observer's strained retina from the prism of his own mind. And lastly, I dont think "playing God" is such a bad idea, as opposed to "playing Man" (or "Playing Women", for fastidious feminists).

Quit blaspheming and try re-reading, folks!