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.
I don't actually have my own copy here in the UK, so I can't look back and try and comment on your comment about the languege, but I think another theme (the one that really jumped out and grabbed me) was the human need for companionship. All three authors are lonely and use very similar languege to express their loneliness. I wish I had a text so I could site that. grr :mad:
By the way... I'm surprised about a few things... I had the impression that in the general culture, people refer to the monster as Frankenstein, while it's actually the scientist's name...is it because of movies, or did I just get a wrong impression???
And then... I was expecting the monster to be just plain evil...Instead he is so clever and sweet and gets evil out of bitterness (which I can relate to so much!)...and why...why is he rejected? just because he looks so disgusting???!!! It's a bit crazy, sure it must have been horrible but... I don't know, this all disturbs me a bit.
And I haven't read the end yet, shoudl stop foruming and start reading!!!
I think the reason people are confused about who Frank. is, is because not many people have actually read the book/seen the movie. If someone asks what Frank. is about, people who havn't read the book would say "its about a monster that is made of human corpses." So people who ask that, than associate "Frankenstein" with the monster rather than the Dr..
I also had the same impression as yours at the first place, when I was a kid I thought Frank was the monster's name. One thing that still making me confuse about the story is why Frank didn't give the same good plan about the physichal appearance. Frank wanted to create a perfect creature at the first place, right?!Quote:
Originally posted by Koa
By the way... I'm surprised about a few things... I had the impression that in the general culture, people refer to the monster as Frankenstein, while it's actually the scientist's name...is it because of movies, or did I just get a wrong impression???
And then... I was expecting the monster to be just plain evil...Instead he is so clever and sweet and gets evil out of bitterness (which I can relate to so much!)...and why...why is he rejected? just because he looks so disgusting???!!! It's a bit crazy, sure it must have been horrible but... I don't know, this all disturbs me a bit.
And I haven't read the end yet, shoudl stop foruming and start reading!!!
Yeah, in general knowledge Fr. and the monster just got mixed up...
I'm still totally disturbed about the whole stuff...:rolleyes: :D
I've been talking about it with everyone I see...well they already know I'm crazy... :D
I don't know if I said that already, but I thought it was a feature of nowadays' society to be obsessed about appearance... Why didn't anyone TRY to listen to the creature before judging him???
This poor creature's destiny is far too sad :( Was it so hard for Dr. F. to create a female monster for him??? They wouldn't have been evil!!! (well as my crush said, it just couldnt be so cos otherwise the point of the book would be lost :D, but still... I can't accept it :( )
I din't even notice too much of the scientist's huge godly ambition, lost as i was in caring for the poor monster's loneliness...:(
I want to die and reincarnate in Mary Shelley :D She wrote such a masterpiece when she was only 19 (and her lover was a poet...)
It is a while (8yrs or so) since I read frankenstein, however, the main things I got from it where:
1) The monster was a good,kind spirited creature who was destroyed by firstly his creator's desertion of him when he did not meet up to the doc's expectations, and subsequently by the treatment he recieved from a cruel world who could not see past his grusome exterior.
2) A warning against pomposity. When you attempt to achieve greatness above all else, you are destined to fail.
with regards to the mix-ups regarding frankenstein & his creation, I believe this was caused by Hollywood's (pathetic) early attempts to tell the story, e.g Igor running around shouting "It's alive master, Alive!" The latest adaptation (cant remember year) with De Niro playing the creature was IMHO a fairly good adaptation of the book.
I've never seen any frankenstein movie but I wish to see all I can find as soon as I can! :D
I have just started reading Frankenstein for a class, it is alot different from the movies. In order to read it you have to disregard all previous knowledge about Frankenstein myth so you can really understand what Shelley was trying to convey. At least that's what I'm having to do, becuase I keep picturing the green guy from the Abbot and Costello movie.
The Frankenstein movie mentioned above is called Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and was made in 1994, directed by Kenneth Branagh -- who also plays the doctor. It's one of the best I've seen, very dramatic without being cheap. I found this excerpt from a review of the film...
http://members.aon.at/frankenstein/f...mary%20shelley
Branagh's faithfulness to the literary original particularly shows in his presentation of the Monster. Like no film before, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presents the Monster as the victim of its circumstances, as a pitiful creature, who is driven to evil by society and its maker. By casting Robert de Niro, an actor of average height, as the Monster and not making him an 8 foot tall giant, the Monster also physically appears more human. In addition, he is sophisticated and eloquent, "with the tone of a philosopher", as Branagh stated. "It should be clear that, for all the horror of his appearance, he is not in fact a monster, but a man." (Branagh 1994: 23) De Niro's Monster is allowed to show emotions when he weeps at his creator's death bed or after having been beaten by the family from the forest. In the beginning he is like a child, whom the audience sees growing up. He quickly learns the ways of man and in the end consequently announces, "I am done with man."
Yes, but he strides from the path of the book in his performance of Frankenstein. He makes him much more despisable than the book, where he still has some redeeming atributes. Take the transformatrion of his bride, for instance.Quote:
Originally posted by GapingStarling
Branagh's faithfulness to the literary original particularly shows in his presentation of the Monster. Like no film before, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein presents the Monster as the victim of its circumstances, as a pitiful creature, who is driven to evil by society and its maker.
More despisable? I'm not sure. Take the scene where they hang Justine, for instance. In the film, Frankenstein does not know the monster is still alive, or that it was he who killed the child. In the book he does, and does nothing to save Justine for fear of people discovering what he has created. I think Branagh did take pains to develop the character of Frankenstein, and to include more of a role for Elizabeth; this makes his portrayal of the doctor different from the novel, in some ways, but I'm not sure he is more despisable...
Maybe 'despisable' is not the right word for it, but I do feel that Frankenstein is much more decent in the book than in the film. In the book he honestly cares about Elizabeth, and at some point he cares about his creation, about its welfare, they have a (very) short friendship (the monster states that he would return thricefold whatever is given to him, or something like that). Later on, he realizes than the creture's wishes may prove much more dangerously than he had anticipated, and then he spins off the conflict. In the movie, he cares nothing about her bride, only what he plans for them (she says this to him), or about what the monster may say or do (he ignores the warning about his wedding day, he doesn't in the book). When he chases the monster is not for preventing further damage (like I perceive in the book), but because of revenge, because he's lost everything.
Anyway, I liked very much both the book and the movie. The original story is great, and Branagh adds some interesting plot twists around it, along with an excellent set and cast.
[QUOTE=crisaor;18349]
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.
QUOTE]
personally i would have to say that the monster is similar to Prometheus, mostly because he realises what it is to be human, thus bestowing his understanding unto the reader. he is the one that is effectively stealing this knowledge on humanity from the gods and giving it to the people.