Thoughts on Frankenstein

Whether or not Frankenstein is a science fiction novel depends on our definition of science fiction. If we define science fiction as a work that shows us the downfall of humanity because of the hubris of scientific discovery, then it is very easy to see how Frankenstein is science fiction. The degree to which Frankenstein is not science fiction I think depends on how much we think of the novel as being about the repercussions of scientific advancement at any cost. Gabby mentioned Crash Course in one of her posts. There’s an interesting episode on The Parable of the Sower, and the presenter mentions Octavia Butler’s definitions of science fiction. One of them, the if-we-keep-going-in-this-direction-things-will-be-terrible, definition fits Frankenstein very well.

“Monstrous Progeny” mentions that “in becoming timeless, Frankenstein has lost its moment in time.” For that reason, I think we need to try our best to place the novel in a contemporary context.  I’m particularly interested in the contemporary medical context of the novel. Experiments of the time were not far removed from what Shelly imagines in the novel. According to The Annual Report of the Humane Society (1800), an organization created to revive drowned Londoners, people could be revived from death. Looking at it now, it’s easy to see that it was just a matter of CPR, but at the time the boundary between life and death must have seemed far more permeable.

It’s possible that during Shelley’s time, the boundaries between death and life seemed less distinct. One of Shelley’s doctors wrote a book about the difference between “absolute” and “apparent” death. In “The Science of Life and Death in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” Sharon Ruston writes that fainting was considered an intermediary state. As Ruston later point out, it’s interesting then that Victor faints when the monster is created. Victor himself wanders that boundary in the same way that the monster does.

I think Lisa mentioned this in the video discussion, but it’s odd that Shelly never gives us the specific method of reanimation. To me this draws the attention away from the scientific aspects of the experiment to the more Romantic supernatural elements. Victor’s own background is heavily based in alchemy. It is possible that his experiments would be unsuccessful otherwise because no one else at the university seems to be the sorcerer that he is. It’s interesting then that his professors are horrified that he has believed so much in alchemists. To me, this raises the issue of whether we should question the most advanced scientific knowledge of the time or the alchemists? Who are we meant to align our sympathies with? Is the problem with the far reaching scientific aims, or is it with the methods?

Perhaps Frankenstein is not a science fiction novel at all but instead is a ghost story? Victor Frankenstein is a haunted man. The novel is full of the ghosts of the dead, including his murdered family members and the monster. Maybe placing the novel in only one category is too reductive. We could even call the novel a family drama.

One of the overwhelming moral concerns of the novel is the relationship between creator and creation. Is the creator responsible for the actions or effects of the creation? It is difficult not to draw a religious parallel.

There are several fascinating references to the geological awe of nature. I think we are meant to juxtapose Victor’s terror and awe of his creator with the monster’s understanding of his own troubled existence. Some of the most interesting passages occur right before Victor encounters the monster again. Victor describes Mont Blanc as having an “awful majesty” (82). There is the constant risk of avalanche if he speaks to loudly. He is filled with “sublime ecstasy” (81). He describes the climb in a way that mirrors the dangers and rewards of scientific discovery: “The ascent is precipitous, but the path is cut into continual and short windings, which enable you to surmount the perpendicularity of the mountain. It is a scene terrifically desolate… the slightest sound, such as even speaking in a loud voice, produces a concussion of air sufficient to draw destruction upon the head of the speaker” (81). The greatest natural view comes with the deadliest risks. The greatest scientific advancements come with the most questionable morals.

If humans are the image of god, and the monster is the image of humans, what does that say about the horrific nature of humanity? Is that copy of a copy increasingly less like the original? Has humanity borrowed the fire of the gods as the Prometheus subtitle would have us conclude? Is the creator of the universe as uncompassionate as the creator of the monster? This is the same creator that made deadly avalanches.

What are we meant to make of the section of the novel that is told from Victor’s perspective of the monster’s perspective? Victor is still recounting this to Walton, but the narration has switched to the monster. The two are tangled together so much that I initially missed the switch to the monster’s narration. This isn’t because of writing style. It’s easy to distinguish between the Elizabeth, Walton, and Victor. Between Victor and the monster, however, the reader needs the context of what is happening in the story to act as the guide. They are intertwined enough at times that they are almost the same person.

It’s also interesting that one of the books Frankenstein finds is a bildungsroman. He too is coming into his being and adulthood. In many ways though, he cannot separate himself from Victor. The monster, in his own way, is also a scientist. He learns through careful observation of the village family. He learns language through observation and mimicry. He also experiments. He touches hot embers to see the effect. Through experimentation he learns how to stoke and keep a fire going.

I imagine Lisa assigned this novel because Romanticism is an informative precursor to Victorianism and because the novel begins to establish the science fiction genre. You can argue that Romanticism’s intense feelings and emphasis on nature were a reaction to the inhumanity and machinery of the industrial revolution. The prevalence of the supernatural and the intense questioning of the scientific reasoning are perhaps a reaction to the Enlightenment. Both of these elements help prepare us for the larger Victorian culture although, as Ganges points out, the Victorians are full of contradictions.

As a side note, has anyone seen the movie The Spirit of the Beehive? It’s a Spanish film from the 1970s. It’s about a little girl during the Spanish Civil War. She sees the silent film version of Frankenstein and then believes the monster is living around her home. One of my coworkers saw my copy of Frankenstein at work and asked me why I think there aren’t any great film versions that are literal interpretations. The closest I can think of is this film. It obviously does not follow the plot of the novel, but it follows some of the literary themes. To me both this film and the novel are about the interconnectedness with the monster. There’s even a scene where the school teacher has the class bring a human-sized anatomy chart “to life” by placing paper organs in the right places.