Firstly, the movies and such stemming from this semi-original concept are very misleading. There is no Igor or dank, dark, family castle in Germany where a lab is hidden by a trap door. Secondly, why would you purposely construct a monster that is clearly a monster and then shudder and flee? But this is only one of the many questions that arise from reading Mary Shelley's crowning acheivement. (By the way, she was only 19 when she wrote it and it arose from a friendly competition to make the best ghost story.) The innate nature of man, the relationship of the created to its creator and the nature of ... nature are all addressed in this book. The praise and notoriety this book receives is justly given, especially as its status as the pinnacle of gothic novels and the cornerstone of science fiction.
Okay, what's with this novel? Is it just a fun little horror novel about a genius who shakes his fist at God by creating life whose 'new life' comes back to haunt him? As we already clarified: No. What has been said about Frankenstein, the fact that it was partially based on Shelley's life, seems plausible. So the number of siblings and their deaths and even Clerval seem to come from Mary Shelley herself. But of course, the primary form of diverting literature at that time was grisly gothic novels. So perhaps the morbidness came from there. Some people are surprised that a 19 year old could come up with something so...horrible or morbid. But she was caught up on the literature, she was friends or acquaintances with most of the novelists themselves through her father, and how many people do you see today who are goth or emo or trying to sport their dark side?
Question: As we have surmised, the whole life bestowing process eventually gives rise to a monster. Then who's to blame? Is it Dr. Frankenstein or the monster's fault? This kind of brings us to the question of the innate nature of man: innately good, original sin, or tabula rasa? My theory (at least, according to the book): Either tabula rasa or innately good. So I believe the corruption of the Creature is Frankenstein's fault primarily. Of course, the beloved french family didn't help either. But let's review the points against Frankenstein.
1. The first act of humanity the creature saw was betrayal, whether he recognized it or not, when Frankenstein ran out on him.
2. Frankenstein was afraid and ran out on him and didn't come back. At least for a while. So, if Frankenstein thought the Creature was dangerous, why did he allow him to escape, or leave, when he might to damage to fill-in-the-blank. I mean, if you don't take charge for yourself, at least do it for person or persons unknown.
3. What did the creature want? Love. Well, that was easy. Don't we all want to be loved by our creator? What did Frank. not give the Creature? Love. Well, that was easy. Frankenstein was the reason the Monster sought revenge on his brother, their devoted servant/caretaker, his wife/sister, his father, his dearest friend, and, eventually, him.
4. Frank. never reasoned with the monster properly or listened to his reasoning. I mean, take the whole instance of the monster's bride. (Or corpse bride, if you like.)
5. I just don't like Frankenstein, let's be honest. It seems like he deserves the ruination. He runs for the whole book, except when it's too late. Oh, and he leaves his one remaining relative behind in Geneva. We think.
6. Imago Dei. It means image of God. Since Frankenstein is the god, or the creator, in this instance, I believe that he created The Creature in his image. Not his external image, but his internal image. This is perhaps the weakest argument of them all but perhaps the most plausible, in my eyes.
Word Alert! Vocabulary: Frame story. A frame story is a story within a story. Frankenstein begins on a book in the arctic where the captain is pursuing arctic knowledge. He sees a stranded man (Dr. Frankenstein) and invites to come aboard. After a few days time he compels him to tell his horrid story - (Place Frankenstein story here)- "...and that is why I, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, am in the frozen, barren wastelands." (not direct quote) Story wraps up on board the boat, and captain, who learns his lesson about the dangerousness of knowledge, turns toward home. Do you see the frame?
Naturally Nature. Mary Shelley was surrounded by Romanticists (her father, her lover/husband, and Lord Byron, a friend) and so was influenced by them greatly. I mean, she snatched her husbands heart (possibly his liver, actually) out of his funeral pyre, for Pete's sake' and kept it between the pages of a book before burying it in Italy. One great theme of Romantacism? Nature. Frankenstein seeks consolation from nature and the Monster is soothed by the moon. Shelley uses wonderful description when she speaks of the mountains and valleys and lakes. From Frankenstein's narrative: "[Scenes from nature] elevated me from all littleness of feeling, and although they did not remove my grief, they subdued and tranquillized it."
Then again..."Where had [those feelings] fled when the next morning I awoke?...[The mountain] is a scene terrifically desolate. In a thousand spots the traces of the winter avalanche may be perceived, where trees lie broken and strewed on the ground, some entirely destroyed, others bent, leaning up on the jutting rocks of the mountain."And then the lake scene where Frank. crosses the clear water with his newlywed and then crosses it a day later when she is dead. He becomes disturbed by the serenity and unmutability of nature when he realized that nothing here in the water has changed, his dead wife does not disrupt the natural world.
(Ok, so I haven't really finished. It's what I wrote last summer. And I had to erase one and a half sentences about dual natures and stuff. But it's really not bad, as it is.)
No comments:
Post a Comment