Printable View
Ok so the book is really really cool so far (I'm up to vol. 3), but I really am not a big fan of Dr. Frankenstein. He sucks the big one! Oh yeah, my edition is subtitled "The Modern Prometheus". Does anyone know who "Prometheus" is, or anything about the origins of this title?
Prometheus was a greek god (one of the Titans, actually). He was the one who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humanity, among other things.
Regarding the title, dr. Frankenstein would be the modern Prometheus because he "gave" lightning to humanity with his experiments. Lightning was a common element in literature in that times, apparently, specially in romanticism.
It's funny. I didn't know about the complete title until I actually bought the book a few years ago. It's amazing how much one assumes regarding the "classics" (such as referring to the monster as Frankenstein).
Prometheus was the Archetypel rebel against divine powers- in taking the side of humanity against the tyranny of Zeus. That in essence is what Dr. Frankenstein tries to do - to take over the "divine" function of creating life. But what is essentially noble in Prometheus is transmuted in his "modern" version into a kind of Hubris forwhich he and his creation must both suffer. (I really like the way Mary Shelley has used the title page quote from Paradise Lost out of context, thereby giving it dramatic force and intensity. What can be interpreted as mere "whining" in the original becomes a truly tragic accusation in the novel.)
It's kind of interesting that PB Shelley was soon to write Prometheus Unbound, in which unlike in the novel or the original myth, Prometheus finally triumphs.
One question, If the D tried to play as God, then why didn't he make a beautiful and charming creature ?!
Because he is not GOD, he's merely human. He's messing with things that he shouldn't. The creation of life is something sacred, God's domain only. As a human, Frankenstein couldnt' create anything more than a monster (which happens to be his reflection), and when he realized that he created a monster, he didn't care for it. He abandoned his creation.
The movie does more than the book to show Frankenstein's twisted personality, I believe.
But if Im not mistaken, in the early chapters the F did tried to play as God. I mean He wanted to create something which is superior then other humans..
Yes he tried to play god, but he failed miserably. His creation doesn't give life, it destroys it.
I thought that Dr. Frankenstein was the villian. This is the second time that I've read it, and both times I just can't bring myself to side with Dr. Frankenstein. The monster was intellegent enough to reason, and wanted to be peaceful and good, but was driven into violence. If Dr. F would have taken responsability for his creation instead of just running away !!AND THAN BEING RELIEVED WHEN IT FLED HIS LAB INTO HUMAN SOCIETY!! the monster wouldn't ever have become a murderer.
I agree with you Kik, the D held the biggest responsibilities. Though He blamed himself for the murders, but still somehow He still considered his creation is the monster. Geez, I mean He didn't even give the creature a name and instead, He kept calling him The Beast..:mad:
This is just another story about how human ambition can be a serious source of evil. Poor F, actually He got everything. My most fav line in the book is " You're my creator, but I'm you're master-OBEY"....isn't that schoking or what?!
I'm just wondering, would it be a different story if the D is a female. I mean perhaps Marry Shelly would consider the motherhood nature and the whole story would be different?!
Just Wondering..
She was considering a lot of things actually. She wrote the novel (in colaboration with her husband, Percy Shelley) when she was 20, after losing her firstborn and mourning her dead mother. Orfancy was an idea fixed on her mind.Quote:
Originally posted by subterranean
I'm just wondering, would it be a different story if the D is a female. I mean perhaps Marry Shelly would consider the motherhood nature and the whole story would be different?!
Just Wondering..
I don't think we are ever really expected to side with Frankenstein. Maybe Mary Shelley gives him a transient aura of tragic ambition, but that is about it. The "monster" is certainly the more sympathetic portrayal and even when we deplore his actions, we can easily see that he was driven to them. The responsibility is squarely on the creator- I found it an interesting paradox in that here it is the creator who is tarnished with original sin as it were, and the "monster is initially "innocent"
I think the question of motherhood is very much there though not specifically spelt out- in a sense, mothers "create"- and in childbirth they undergo both "the agony and the ecstasy" (Ok, so that's cliched ;) ) as well as the dread involved in giving life to a being whose characteristics you are not able to predict in advance. When science tries to duplicate this function, you get the positively ghoulish processes adopted by Frankenstein. I think this was constantly present as a underlying theme in the work.
Walton is very important - another over-reacher like Frankenstein.
There are many feminist readings of the book and the homoerotic chase between the creature and Frankenstein which culminates in their mutual destruction is indicitive of the male in the novel.
I like how Walton's loneliness mirrored the monster's. I can't quote it, cause I returned my copy to the library (don't worry faye, the college one, not a public ;)) but don't they use either the same words or really similar words to describe how lonely they are?
I'm reading it now and I'm more or less halfway through it... When the monster tells his story about how he spies the people in the cottage... which is all quite sweet indeed and makes you sympathise with him... such a feeling of rejection...
I was wondering though, I perceived a certain change of style in the first speech of the monster, when he meets Victor Frankenstein and they have that 'argument', it seems to me that the monster uses lots of 'thee' and 'thy' and that sort of stuff, which I didn't notice to be used in other parts of the books... Did anyone else notice it or am I wrong? And if I'm right, why this older language?
Then... while I was reading, I happened to think of the narrator thing... so far there's 3 of them, which is quite a modern way to structure a novel...it reminded me of when at school we had lessons about the narrators in Wuthering Heights...but isn't Wuthering Heights more recent than Frank.? Ok maybe it's not so innovative, but it's so evident that even I noticed it... (it also reminded me of the double narrator in Heart of Darkness)
Then, so far I noticed some themes such as
- predestination: in the first part of the story Victor talks several times about how his destiny was going to be...
- nature: that's quite plain to see...
- self-education---> knowledge---> identity. As I said I'm really enjoying to read the monster's story of how he learns to speak and read...and how the more he knows the more he realises about his situation, and how he questions himslef on his identity. I find it quite metaphoric of how it can be in a human life.
I hadn't notice the things you were saying about orphans and about Mary Shelley's lost child, but now that I read about it, it's quite clear to me too.
Oh and also: injustice.