"A cautionary tale on science"

[Jalhan]

That was on the back of the edition that I read and when I first picked up the book. The book though turned out a bit differently than I expected in that respect...
I have of course heard of Frankenstein, most notably the scientific aspect. When I thought of Frankenstein before I thought of the deranged scientist in the lab trying to bring new life to dead bodies...

The book was much different. I wasn't taken too horribly by surprise, I had expected there to be large gaps between the 'modern' versions developed for film and the actual book. I was expected the discrepancy to be more like the difference between the modern idea of Dracula vs. the actual novel.
Frankenstein wasn't like that at all. I wasn't expecting the "It's alive!!!" line, but I was a but surprised by how it just kind of skipped over the science part. The story mostly focused on what happened after Victor created the monster. It was about all the horrible things that the monster did and how Victor was the one who actually caused it as he was responsible for the monster.

It had so little mention of science. It skipped over the gory details about how the body was put together and reanimated, and form the author's standpoint, I understand why. I wouldn't know to write that.
Instead it focused mainly on the scientist himself and how Victor overworked himself and got sick with worry. It focused on what he unleashed on the world, and Victor's fear and depression. The part where the monster spend so much time watching over that one family and learning everything he knew. It focused on how the monster vowed revenge on Victor unless he got a lover and then all the time that Victor and the monster spent chasing after each other. Notice the lack of science discussed here, it was a book about morals and the effect one has on their world, not about science.

"A cautionary tale of science" Quite false I think. More fitting would be "A cautionary tale about not becoming an obsessive idiot," "A cautionary tale about the importance of good parenting," or "A cautionary tale about how your actions can have consequences and you need to face them if you want to fix them."

[Pompey Bum]

I think what was shocking about the book at the time it was published (besides the fact that it was a violent story written by a woman) was that it implied that the creation of human life might not be a unique miracle of God but merely a technology that science could conceivably master. (Remember that the subtitle of the book itself was "The Modern Prometheus," after the mythological figure who stole fire technology from the gods). At the time that idea would have been unnerving to many people. Nowadays we deal with cloned sheep and frozen embryos without much squeamishness, so we wan't more Boris Karloff and less theology. But that's not Mary Shelly's fault. And her insight into the coming clash between scientific/technological and religious thinking did turn out to be rather prophetic.

So solution: get a different copy. :)

[YesNo]

"A cautionary tale of science" Quite false I think. More fitting would be "A cautionary tale about not becoming an obsessive idiot," "A cautionary tale about the importance of good parenting," or "A cautionary tale about how your actions can have consequences and you need to face them if you want to fix them."

That makes sense to me. I liked the "obsessive idiot" part in your description.

I think Pompey Bum is also right about how science or rather technology fits into the story, but I've only seen the plot presented in movies.

[Pompey Bum]

Oh it's a fun read, Y/N, if only for the language. The first two of the Karloff pictures followed Shelly's story in a very approximate way. The third one (with Basil Rathbone and Bela Lugosi along in tow) wasn't bad (although it had nothing to do with the Shelly's story). But after that Karloff left and the movies became standard Universal Studios B-picture horror fare (The Mummy's Tummy--that sort of thing). You could probably make a good case that thematically and stylistically the movies have almost nothing to with the book. And the motivational device of the creature in the movie--that the Doc cut corners and gave him a murderer's brain--is a cheap Hollywood attempt to make "the creature" seem scarier (memorably and deservedly spoofed by Mel Brooks). In the book, the created man simply wants revenge on the scientist for his own wretched and loveless existence. But he is no Karloff. His name is Adam. He's an eloquent speaker and even takes the narration for a time; whereas the Hollywood "monster" can offer little more than the guttural if technically accurate observation: "WOMAN GOOOOOD!"

[YesNo]

I remember my daughter bouncing ideas off of me to write a paper on the book. It was at that time that I realized this book must have more depth than the movies I saw.

As someone who hasn't read it, there seem to be two themes:

(1) Can a technologist create a conscious being, or robot, without connection to a ground of being that would come from the normal reproductive process? I don't think this is possible, but the only way to try to do that today would be through artificial intelligence. That is where the "science" comes in.

(2) Who is responsible for a "loveless" existence? Is it the creator or the creature?

[Pompey Bum]

Well, to channel Bill Clinton for a moment, it depends what you mean by "the normal reproductive process." Is cloning normal yet? There is also the "virtual" phenomenon we all live with now. If a machine is not technically conscience but behaves in a way that is so close that it may as well be, then does it really matter? I noted with amusement a story about the mega-computer Watson, which (I nearly wrote who) had recently learned a barrage of new slang expressions. Later, when it got a question wrong (as it does sometimes), and was informed of the mistake, it responded (and I quote): "Bull sh*t!" I laughed, but perhaps I should have feared.

As far as Frankenstein goes, there may be a psychological theme as well. Shelly was a feminist whose inspiration had been a dream of the scene in which Adam is brought to life by an appalled "maker." Is there a feminist reading? Could it involve the usurpation of the reproductive process by men (including doctors)? Or does the story simply reference a fear of reproduction and it's overpowering consequences? I don't know. I would appreciate any ideas women (or men) may have on this.

[YesNo]

Well, to channel Bill Clinton for a moment, it depends what you mean by "the normal reproductive process." Is cloning normal yet? There is also the "virtual" phenomenon we all live with now. If a machine is not technically conscience but behaves in a way that is so close that it may as well be, then does it really matter? I noted with amusement a story about the mega-computer Watson, which (I nearly wrote who) had recently learned a barrage of new slang expressions. Later, when it got a question wrong (as it does sometimes), and was informed of the mistake, it responded (and I quote): "Bull sh*t!" I laughed, but perhaps I should have feared.

I don't see why cloning would not be a reproductive process that generated a conscious being. That is, if I saw a clone, I would not doubt that it were conscious since its life support is based on the same biology as my own and I don't doubt that even E. coli are conscious in their own way.

However, if I saw an AI robot, I would doubt whether it were conscious. What I mean by AI is something that simulates conscious behavior using deterministic algorithms and perhaps random generators.

The Turing test allows a robot to pass if it can fool a certain number of judges into thinking they are talking to a real human being through some human language. The Turing test doesn't answer the question whether the robot is actually conscious which is what is of interest. John Searle provided a philosophical argument claiming that an algorithmic simulation of syntax is not enough to generate understanding of the meaning of the words being used: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ Something more than running an algorithm is needed to create consciousness even if the algorithm is run on a quantum computer.

The question remains: is the running program conscious? I think it is more correct to say that the atoms in the machine used to run the program are more conscious, in their own way, than the running program itself.



As far as Frankenstein goes, there may be a psychological theme as well. Shelly was a feminist whose inspiration had been a dream of the scene in which Adam is brought to life by an appalled "maker." Is there a feminist reading? Could it involve the usurpation of the reproductive process by men (including doctors)? Or does the story simply reference a fear of reproduction and it's overpowering consequences? I don't know. I would appreciate any ideas women (or men) may have on this.

Men are part of the reproductive process both physically and socially, but I don't know what a "feminist" interpretation of this would be.

[Pompey Bum]

I don't see why cloning would not be a reproductive process that generated a conscious being.

No, neither would I. I was just interested at your use of the word "normal." You and I are old enough to remember when cloning belonged to the outlands of bad science fiction. I was just asking, none rhetorically, whether you thought that it had entered the Federation Space of the normal.


Men are part of the reproductive process both physically and socially, but I don't know what a "feminist" interpretation of this would be.

Well, again, I am not sure myself, which is why I asked for opinions. Obviously a woman is physiologically involved in the changes of a zygote to a child. Did Shelly's dream involve some sort of fear of that process or its implications? Or does the fact that a male scientist usurps the process of in Frankenstein represent a fear or polemic on the increasing involvement in (male) gynecologists and obstetricians in the 19th century? As I said, I don't know. The questions were not rhetorical and I was not advancing a position, just some interesting (to me) possibilities.

[YesNo]

I was using word "normal" incorrectly. I was trying to make a distinction between algorithmic simulations of consciousness from the real thing.

Perhaps she was wondering if it were possible to eliminate human sexual reproduction in some way?

[Pompey Bum]

Perhaps she was wondering if it were possible to eliminate human sexual reproduction in some way?

Maybe. Given her times, though, I can't help but wonder if there wasn't something going on about the change from child-carrying and delivery being in the woman's-sphere of authority to that of male-dominated scientific authority, and that there was something terrifying--even inhuman--about that.

[YesNo]

I don't know. I did glace through the wikipedia article on her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley

It seems that she was interested in the idea of bringing a dead body back to life more than giving birth to a new life.

[Pompey Bum]

I don't know either. I find it interesting that the inspiration was a nightmare, though. It gives whatever it was about a more primal quality, somehow.

[kev67]

T
Frankenstein wasn't like that at all. I wasn't expecting the "It's alive!!!" line, but I was a but surprised by how it just kind of skipped over the science part. The story mostly focused on what happened after Victor created the monster. It was about all the horrible things that the monster did and how Victor was the one who actually caused it as he was responsible for the monster.

It had so little mention of science. It skipped over the gory details about how the body was put together and reanimated, and form the author's standpoint, I understand why. I wouldn't know to write that.


I started reading this recently, as Halloween is approaching. I had two thoughts about the making of the monster:


In the corny films and spoofs, the monster is brought to life by electricity. Victor Frankenstein pulls a lever and 50,000 volts goes through the monster's head. There had been experiments first performed by Luigi Galvani in 1780 in which a frog's legs were made to twitch by applying an electric spark. It is supposed that Mary Shelly knew about this. However, I cannot remember reading anything about electricity in the novel. Victor Frankenstein refuses to tell Captain Walton how he did it, because he does not want the procedure repeated. In chapter 4, however, he says, "Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay". It sounds like he found a way of transferring the vital spark from animals to his monster.


Also in the corny films and spoofs, the monster is depicted as a man built out of the body parts of other men. It seems like Victor Frankenstein got his building materials from the graveyard, but it does not sound like he was mixing and matching body parts. Frankenstein says, "As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionally large." There would not be many eight foot men in the graveyard, and if there were any, what would be the point of cutting them up just so to splice them together again? You might as well just re-animate one person. It sounds like he actually made all the organs and body parts from scratch rather than transplant them from other bodies. It sounds like a harder job to me.

[aaverel1]

Let’s remember that during the author’s time period that romanticism was in full effect. Her writings are not meant to delve into technology or science but rather into the emotions and personal relationships. This can be seen in her portrayal of the monster and the rejection he is subjected to as a result of his being. That and the Dr.’s emotional response to the monster and his actions is what this story is about, not the science behind the story.

[LGriff]

I'm so glad you brought up that fact of the monster was of such a gigantic stature. I had only been familiar with the movie versions before reading the book recently. The thing that initially struck me was not just how large the monster was portrayed, but also how athletic. This was not the stiff moving monster of the movies but something that was actually more frightening in how fast he could move and also how flexible he must have been to sit and hide and observe the family in which he first learned from.

[JCamilo]

It was not about science, indeed. The Shelleys were atheists, how "they" would wrote a story abotu "life should de only created by God". It is about giving birht and responsability over the kid. They knew Rousseau well, because he used to stay at Mary's house when in England.

[thezgreene]

I learned that a cautionary tale is a tale told in folklore, to warn its hearer of danger. With Frankenstein, I believe the warning Shelley was trying to warn about is life being created from technology and not from God. There are many examples that show this being true in modern science such as cloning, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs (which I just recently learned about myself) . She is trying to warn about the dangers of "playing God" and the dangers that modern science is doing today. I'm not very religious myself but this is the sort of vibe I'm getting from the story that can relate to a cautionary tale on science from what I have read so far and from the knowledge I have about the story before reading.