Sign in with Facebook
s.penkevich's Reviews > Frankenstein
Frankenstein
by
by
�’Man,� I cried, ‘how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom!��
For over 200 years Frankenstein by Mary Shelley has captured our minds and toyed with our fears, entering the canon of classic while remaining as relevant and thought provoking a metaphor as science progresses onward. It is certainly worthy of the lasting fame, being an exquisite blend of gothic horror and Romantic morality that delves into philosophical and allegorical inquiries in an endlessly engaging narrative that had me reading late into the night with a fervor to reach the end. It is a story we likely all know, and not much new to say someone hasn’t already said and better, but even still I was fascinated by every detail, with its fabulist monster story, the nested framing of two men on a quest in the arctic, the epistolary narrative, the plots of murderous vengeance and, of course, the fall from innocence with the damnation of ambition. This is also a story about how being a deadbeat dad passes along trauma that reacts negatively and is rather terrifying with its massive monster that moves fast and kills hard. This cautionary creation tale of catastrophe forces us to confront the grotesqueries of humanity grappling with life and death, and question what is truly monstrous.
�Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful.�
This is a book where the story about its creation is just as compelling as the novel itself. Written when Mary Shelley was 19, this would arrive on the scene under high expectations to see what the young writer of notable literary heritage (her father was William Godwin and her late mother the feminist writer and activist Mary Wollstonecraft) would produce. �My husband,� she writes in an introduction, referring to Percy Bysshe Shelley, �was from the first very anxious that I should prove myself worthy of my parentage and enroll myself on the page of fame.� The novel sprang into creation supposedly during a dream (not unlike her doctor Frankenstein’s prophetic dream of creation) after Lord Byron proposed to his friends they each should write a ghost story while they were all at Lake Geneva. This same retreat would also birth the novel The Vampyre by John William Polidori, who based his villain on Byron himself because Lord Byron was kind of insufferable. And a deadbeat dad, not unlike Victor Frankenstein. The novel itself can be read as a commentary on the experience of writing it, something she teases in her introduction about the creative experience of an artist and to which she writes that �I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper.� Unlike her doctor, there is a sense of care over her creation. Now, onward!
�To examine the causes of life we must first have recourse to death.�
This book is sort of the antidote to those cliche inspirational office posters about ambition everyone had in the 90s, because here we find ambition to drip into arrogance and basically create calamity. Framed from the perspective of Cpt. Walton as he attempts to reach the North Pole—and fails—we hear the story of another man who’s blinded by his own ambition until it is too late. Doctor Victor Frankenstein’s story is a chilling fall-from-grace story, beginning with a sweet adolescence that slowly turns to the grotesque along a path of bloodied corpses of innocent people to chronicle his own loss of innocence. The spark to this is the early death of his mother, coupled with his reading of scientific books at university (self-education through books is mirrored as well through his monster), amalgamating into an idea with the best intentions to �renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.� We all know the maxim that good intentions are the paving stones to Hell, however.
�Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed.�
While we tend to just remember the Doctor’s last name, the full title of the book is Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, and here we begin to understand why fire and light is such a frequent symbol. As Prometheus gave fire to humans and was punished for it, we see Frankenstein attempt to �pour a torrent of light into our dark world� by conquering death and creating life (with electric shock instead of fire but close enough), something that will be his own undoing. It is only natural, drawing on ideas of the Romantics that nature is the pinnacle of good and perfection and since he �collected bones from charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame,� to create and give life to his creation, therefore the manufactured (see also: “unnatural�) creation must also be profane and Frankenstein shall be punished. You know, the whole ‘don’t play god� argument. The creature wrecks havoc on Frankenstein’s life as �the cold stars shone in mockery,� and the barren Arctic is a sort of Hell (devoid of fire and warmth) where Victor inevitably meets his demise.
Yet Victor never views his ambitions as unnatural (him and the Captain being figuratively blinded by their ambitions functioning as another fire/light metaphor), and even at the end he says to Walton �I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed.� He sees no ethical dilemma in his manufacturing of life, his fears stem from the supposed hideousness of his creation—�ugly…a thing such as Dante could not have conceived’—and then later the string of murders. �A new species would bless me as its creator and source,� Victor writes, propping himself up as a paternal godlike figure, �no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs,� however he fails as a father to his creation by abandoning it. He does not even give the creation a name, even when hunting it after the multiple murders. This is key, as in fairy tales naming something is a way to take away it’s power (think Rumpelstiltskin being defeated by guessing his name). �I think of the act of naming as diagnosis,� Rebecca Solnit writes in her essay Call Them by Their True Names, �once you name a disorder, you may be able to connect to the community afflicted with it, or build one.� Seeing as the creation turns to evil deeds due to a feeling of isolation and being othered, this idea of naming, of giving a space, makes the lack of naming or any parental care more emphasized as a fatal misstep. So not only does Victor have his fall from grace for trying to play god, but also failing in even the most basics of paternal support.
�Am i to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me?�
Let's turn now to Frankenstein’s monster. Left to his own devices, this giant manufactured from death finds he is met with fear and misunderstanding at every turn. While he seems to only have pure intentions at first, he is pushed into solitude and begins to lash out, especially at his creator (definitely some religious symbolism there). While he may be manmade, he is also very human all the way down to emotions and existential crises of selfhood:
The creature conducts his autodidactic education mostly through reading and watching a family interact. Among his books are Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, and Milton’s Paradise Lost, the latter being very influential on his impressions of the world and themself. From Milton he reads himself first as Adam in the creation story, but later identifies with Satan instead:
Though he also notes that �yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone� Milton pops up everywhere in his sections, such as the monsters statement that �evil thenceforth became my good,� which paraphrases Milton’s line �Evil be thou my good.� In an , Joyce Carol Oates argues that the monster’s surprise at his reflection in the water is not a reference to Narcissus as is typically claimed, but instead a reference to Eve from Paradise Lost: �Of sympathy and love; there I had fixt / Mine eyes till now, and pin’d with vain desire.� This, she argues, makes the monster a sort of reverse holy trinity of creation instead of creator, speaking from Milton’s Adam, Eve and Satan as opposed to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is another interesting reversal that Shelley plays with, something the ‘negative Oedipus.� The monster kills Elizabeth to get to his ‘father�, Frankenstein, while the death of the doctor’s mother is his motivation to play Holy Father. At all times Shelley constructs a duality of parenthood and horror.
While the classic human vs nature and the whole ethical conundrum is fascinating, it is the look at the person under the extreme absence of love and support that grabs me most. On one hand it is an intriguing look at the horrors of isolation and being othered, but it also makes me wonder how narratives like this became concrete in collective consciousness and instill further fear into people against anything different. Is this also central to ideas of xenophobia and pushbacks against equality, the fear that if we allow the marginalized to have space they will harm the people-of-status-quo/colonizers as a state of revenge? Thinking about it that way is frustrating and sad, the idea that those who have been harmed continue to be so out of fear for the repercussions, which only furthers the othering and marginalizing. So I guess that’s something to consider too and work on undoing in social consciousness. And a reminder to give love and empathy. The creation only wanted to be understood, given empathy and space, given love.
�I could not understand why men who knew all about good and evil could hate and kill each other.�
Now the question here proposed by Shelley is, who is the ‘true� monster? The man who reached for the profane and abandoned it into a life of torment turning toward evil, or the misunderstood being thrust into the world already considered an abomination and becoming �malicious because I am miserable.� Its ethical quandaries like this that make this a fantastic classroom choice or one to toss and turn with for days. The National Theater had an excellent where the two leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, alternated roles as Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster to further interrogate this question. Though perhaps the creation says it best: �Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder; and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man!�
In an , author Jeanette Winterson says of Frankenstein that �we are the first generations to read it not as gothic horror but as contemporary reality.� Where Shelley’s doctor steals body parts to create life with electricity, in our modern day we are pushing closer towards digital AI and already have manufactured body parts to replace our own. Even just this week it has been in the news that scientists , something that could be a breakthrough in increasing viable organ transplants. Perhaps there is something to learn from Victor’s failures as we consider how to usher new systems into the world, such as , or if an AI were to learn from us, what are we reflecting back to ourselves. Perhaps this is why Mary Shelley’s classic has endured all this time; with each new advancement in science many fear a Frankenstein unleashing his monster and with each ambition of our own we fear what may happen if we are blinded by our desires. Mary Shelley captures this perfectly and I was surprised how engaging this book was and how relevant it still felt all these years later.
4.5/5
�Delighted and surprised, I embraced her, but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel.�
For over 200 years Frankenstein by Mary Shelley has captured our minds and toyed with our fears, entering the canon of classic while remaining as relevant and thought provoking a metaphor as science progresses onward. It is certainly worthy of the lasting fame, being an exquisite blend of gothic horror and Romantic morality that delves into philosophical and allegorical inquiries in an endlessly engaging narrative that had me reading late into the night with a fervor to reach the end. It is a story we likely all know, and not much new to say someone hasn’t already said and better, but even still I was fascinated by every detail, with its fabulist monster story, the nested framing of two men on a quest in the arctic, the epistolary narrative, the plots of murderous vengeance and, of course, the fall from innocence with the damnation of ambition. This is also a story about how being a deadbeat dad passes along trauma that reacts negatively and is rather terrifying with its massive monster that moves fast and kills hard. This cautionary creation tale of catastrophe forces us to confront the grotesqueries of humanity grappling with life and death, and question what is truly monstrous.
�Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful.�
This is a book where the story about its creation is just as compelling as the novel itself. Written when Mary Shelley was 19, this would arrive on the scene under high expectations to see what the young writer of notable literary heritage (her father was William Godwin and her late mother the feminist writer and activist Mary Wollstonecraft) would produce. �My husband,� she writes in an introduction, referring to Percy Bysshe Shelley, �was from the first very anxious that I should prove myself worthy of my parentage and enroll myself on the page of fame.� The novel sprang into creation supposedly during a dream (not unlike her doctor Frankenstein’s prophetic dream of creation) after Lord Byron proposed to his friends they each should write a ghost story while they were all at Lake Geneva. This same retreat would also birth the novel The Vampyre by John William Polidori, who based his villain on Byron himself because Lord Byron was kind of insufferable. And a deadbeat dad, not unlike Victor Frankenstein. The novel itself can be read as a commentary on the experience of writing it, something she teases in her introduction about the creative experience of an artist and to which she writes that �I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper.� Unlike her doctor, there is a sense of care over her creation. Now, onward!
�To examine the causes of life we must first have recourse to death.�
This book is sort of the antidote to those cliche inspirational office posters about ambition everyone had in the 90s, because here we find ambition to drip into arrogance and basically create calamity. Framed from the perspective of Cpt. Walton as he attempts to reach the North Pole—and fails—we hear the story of another man who’s blinded by his own ambition until it is too late. Doctor Victor Frankenstein’s story is a chilling fall-from-grace story, beginning with a sweet adolescence that slowly turns to the grotesque along a path of bloodied corpses of innocent people to chronicle his own loss of innocence. The spark to this is the early death of his mother, coupled with his reading of scientific books at university (self-education through books is mirrored as well through his monster), amalgamating into an idea with the best intentions to �renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.� We all know the maxim that good intentions are the paving stones to Hell, however.
�Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed.�
While we tend to just remember the Doctor’s last name, the full title of the book is Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus, and here we begin to understand why fire and light is such a frequent symbol. As Prometheus gave fire to humans and was punished for it, we see Frankenstein attempt to �pour a torrent of light into our dark world� by conquering death and creating life (with electric shock instead of fire but close enough), something that will be his own undoing. It is only natural, drawing on ideas of the Romantics that nature is the pinnacle of good and perfection and since he �collected bones from charnel houses; and disturbed, with profane fingers, the tremendous secrets of the human frame,� to create and give life to his creation, therefore the manufactured (see also: “unnatural�) creation must also be profane and Frankenstein shall be punished. You know, the whole ‘don’t play god� argument. The creature wrecks havoc on Frankenstein’s life as �the cold stars shone in mockery,� and the barren Arctic is a sort of Hell (devoid of fire and warmth) where Victor inevitably meets his demise.
Yet Victor never views his ambitions as unnatural (him and the Captain being figuratively blinded by their ambitions functioning as another fire/light metaphor), and even at the end he says to Walton �I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed.� He sees no ethical dilemma in his manufacturing of life, his fears stem from the supposed hideousness of his creation—�ugly…a thing such as Dante could not have conceived’—and then later the string of murders. �A new species would bless me as its creator and source,� Victor writes, propping himself up as a paternal godlike figure, �no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs,� however he fails as a father to his creation by abandoning it. He does not even give the creation a name, even when hunting it after the multiple murders. This is key, as in fairy tales naming something is a way to take away it’s power (think Rumpelstiltskin being defeated by guessing his name). �I think of the act of naming as diagnosis,� Rebecca Solnit writes in her essay Call Them by Their True Names, �once you name a disorder, you may be able to connect to the community afflicted with it, or build one.� Seeing as the creation turns to evil deeds due to a feeling of isolation and being othered, this idea of naming, of giving a space, makes the lack of naming or any parental care more emphasized as a fatal misstep. So not only does Victor have his fall from grace for trying to play god, but also failing in even the most basics of paternal support.
�Am i to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me?�
Let's turn now to Frankenstein’s monster. Left to his own devices, this giant manufactured from death finds he is met with fear and misunderstanding at every turn. While he seems to only have pure intentions at first, he is pushed into solitude and begins to lash out, especially at his creator (definitely some religious symbolism there). While he may be manmade, he is also very human all the way down to emotions and existential crises of selfhood:
�I was dependent on none and related to none. The path of my departure was free, and there was none to lament my annihilation. My person was hideous and my stature gigantic. What did this mean? Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination? These questions continually recurred, but I was unable to solve them.�
The creature conducts his autodidactic education mostly through reading and watching a family interact. Among his books are Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, and Milton’s Paradise Lost, the latter being very influential on his impressions of the world and themself. From Milton he reads himself first as Adam in the creation story, but later identifies with Satan instead:
�I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.�
Though he also notes that �yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone� Milton pops up everywhere in his sections, such as the monsters statement that �evil thenceforth became my good,� which paraphrases Milton’s line �Evil be thou my good.� In an , Joyce Carol Oates argues that the monster’s surprise at his reflection in the water is not a reference to Narcissus as is typically claimed, but instead a reference to Eve from Paradise Lost: �Of sympathy and love; there I had fixt / Mine eyes till now, and pin’d with vain desire.� This, she argues, makes the monster a sort of reverse holy trinity of creation instead of creator, speaking from Milton’s Adam, Eve and Satan as opposed to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There is another interesting reversal that Shelley plays with, something the ‘negative Oedipus.� The monster kills Elizabeth to get to his ‘father�, Frankenstein, while the death of the doctor’s mother is his motivation to play Holy Father. At all times Shelley constructs a duality of parenthood and horror.
While the classic human vs nature and the whole ethical conundrum is fascinating, it is the look at the person under the extreme absence of love and support that grabs me most. On one hand it is an intriguing look at the horrors of isolation and being othered, but it also makes me wonder how narratives like this became concrete in collective consciousness and instill further fear into people against anything different. Is this also central to ideas of xenophobia and pushbacks against equality, the fear that if we allow the marginalized to have space they will harm the people-of-status-quo/colonizers as a state of revenge? Thinking about it that way is frustrating and sad, the idea that those who have been harmed continue to be so out of fear for the repercussions, which only furthers the othering and marginalizing. So I guess that’s something to consider too and work on undoing in social consciousness. And a reminder to give love and empathy. The creation only wanted to be understood, given empathy and space, given love.
�I could not understand why men who knew all about good and evil could hate and kill each other.�
Now the question here proposed by Shelley is, who is the ‘true� monster? The man who reached for the profane and abandoned it into a life of torment turning toward evil, or the misunderstood being thrust into the world already considered an abomination and becoming �malicious because I am miserable.� Its ethical quandaries like this that make this a fantastic classroom choice or one to toss and turn with for days. The National Theater had an excellent where the two leads, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, alternated roles as Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster to further interrogate this question. Though perhaps the creation says it best: �Listen to me, Frankenstein. You accuse me of murder; and yet you would, with a satisfied conscience, destroy your own creature. Oh, praise the eternal justice of man!�
In an , author Jeanette Winterson says of Frankenstein that �we are the first generations to read it not as gothic horror but as contemporary reality.� Where Shelley’s doctor steals body parts to create life with electricity, in our modern day we are pushing closer towards digital AI and already have manufactured body parts to replace our own. Even just this week it has been in the news that scientists , something that could be a breakthrough in increasing viable organ transplants. Perhaps there is something to learn from Victor’s failures as we consider how to usher new systems into the world, such as , or if an AI were to learn from us, what are we reflecting back to ourselves. Perhaps this is why Mary Shelley’s classic has endured all this time; with each new advancement in science many fear a Frankenstein unleashing his monster and with each ambition of our own we fear what may happen if we are blinded by our desires. Mary Shelley captures this perfectly and I was surprised how engaging this book was and how relevant it still felt all these years later.
4.5/5
�Delighted and surprised, I embraced her, but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms crawling in the folds of the flannel.�
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Frankenstein.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-39 of 39 (39 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Dana
(new)
Aug 05, 2022 04:11AM
What a wonderful review (as any other of yours, I might add)! "Frankenstein" has been on my list for a while now, I think with this, the time has finally come to get my hands on the book. :)
reply
|
flag
Dana wrote: "What a wonderful review (as any other of yours, I might add)! "Frankenstein" has been on my list for a while now, I think with this, the time has finally come to get my hands on the book. :)"Thank you so much! I'd been meaning to read this one for years and finally did it (I stared Winterson's Frankissstein: A Love Story and felt I should read the source material to properly read that one) and ended up loving it a lot more than I expected. I crushed it in two days, couldn't stop thinking about it haha, so I really hope you enjoy it as well!
Outstanding review with deep insight into the novel, the author and her characters. Several years ago I wrote "Confessions of the Creature," a re-imagined sequel to "Frankenstein." I spent several months researching the subject and my respect for the author and the novel grew proportionately to the knowledge I gained from my study of this seminal work of fiction.
Gary wrote: "Outstanding review with deep insight into the novel, the author and her characters. Several years ago I wrote "Confessions of the Creature," a re-imagined sequel to "Frankenstein." I spent several ..."Thank you so much! Oh that is amazing, and I can only imagine since there seems to be SO much to learn about this one. And Shelley herself is just super awesome. I’m mid way through Frankissstein: A Love Story which I keep pausing to read up on Shelley and Byron and wow there’s so much just wild stuff surrounding this book. The fun part about classics is there’s always so many essays to find haha Going to look up your book though that sounds awesome.
Oh, Sven. This read "...being an exquisite blend of gothic horror and Romantic morality that delves into philosophical and allegorical inquiries in an endlessly engaging narrative that had me reading late into the night with a fervor to reach the end" is precisely what I wanted, expected, and failed to get.How can I get your brainwaves to show me what I failed to find?
s.penkevich wrote: "Gary wrote: "Outstanding review with deep insight into the novel, the author and her characters. Several years ago I wrote "Confessions of the Creature," a re-imagined sequel to "Frankenstein." I s..."You're very welcome. FYI, there are three interesting 1980s films about the Shelleys, Byron, Dr. Polidori and the creation of "Frankenstein": "Haunted Summer", "Rowing with the Wind", and "Gothic".
As for my book, there are some insightful reviews here on GR.
Confessions of the Creature
Richard wrote: "Oh, Sven. This read "...being an exquisite blend of gothic horror and Romantic morality that delves into philosophical and allegorical inquiries in an endlessly engaging narrative that had me readi..."There is a 90% chance that the secret to unlocking this novel was (view spoiler) hahaha
Gary wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Gary wrote: "Outstanding review with deep insight into the novel, the author and her characters. Several years ago I wrote "Confessions of the Creature," a re-imagined sequel to..."Oh sweet, I want to watch those for sure! And thank you going to add that now!
Richard wrote: "OICThen I don't feel so bad. [spoilers removed] Still just couldn't."
Hahaha okay that’s fair, I could go for one right now actually
Meghna wrote: "Wonderful review 👏"Thank you so much 😊
Fantastic, thorough review of a classic. I particular like identifying Frankenstein as a deadbeat dad. Quite accurate.
Joe wrote: "Fantastic, thorough review of a classic. I particular like identifying Frankenstein as a deadbeat dad. Quite accurate."Thank you so much! I’ve quite enjoyed sort of living in this book and all the aside reading about it for a week now, it’s just a good time. Hahaha thanks, I really feel that should be the takeaway, Vic is just a bad dad haha
Excellent review! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and all these different connections to present concerns!
Filipa wrote: "Excellent review! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and all these different connections to present concerns!"Thank you so much! Such a fun book, I love that it still resonates and glad you enjoyed it as well!
No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered me. After all, Prometheus was a hero and friend to mankind. He enlightened the world. Do you think it is a coincidence that every Michael Crichton sci-fi novel is a variation on Frankenstein? Also, in condemning pride Shelley is making a Christian argument, which one may adhere to but wouldn't do much for the course of progress.
You truly set the standard for incredibly written critiques, I look forward to seeing your take every time I log in - even when we might drastically vary in our experiences. You have such a key & insightful way of capturing the essence of the book while incorporating superbly insightful takes of culture & theory. I remember the first time I read this book, I was so blown away by the depth of it; I was already looking forward to reading it again. Seeing your review come through my timeline felt like re-living that overwhelming tenderness of a good book. All that to say, I really, really, admire your writing! This was a phenomenal review.
Julio wrote: "No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered me. After all, Prometheus was a hero and frind to mankind. He enlight..."Huh yea now that you mention it Crichton really just was a modern day Shelley. Jurassic Park for sure. I read all of those so young, always wondered how they’d hold up. Didn’t realize he had died either, just googled him. But true, it does take quite the anti-science angle. Considering Byron was a Luddite i wonder how much of that rubbed off on his crew.
Chantel wrote: "You truly set the standard for incredibly written critiques, I look forward to seeing your take every time I log in - even when we might drastically vary in our experiences. You have such a key & i..."Wow thank you, I am honored especially as I would say the very same for you--I always await your reviews and you have such an incredible analytical and emotional depth to your reviews that have always really guided me in the right direction! This book is wild, right? I went into it expecting to like it but didn't expect to be as blown away as I was, yea, there are so many great layers of ideas here. And it is truly creepy. Not long after finishing I was walking my dog at night and a fog rolled in and all I could think of was the monster charging at him across the ice haha.
But thank you again, that means a lot!
s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered me. After all, Prometheus was a hero and frind to manki..."Both the left (Sartre) and the right (Heidegger) can and should warn of the dangers of technology and technocracy. But, that's different from preaching that global warming is a hoax, as Chricton did, or embracing loony anti-vax theories. The worship of science and scientism should not lead to its mirror image, supposing that science is a dangerous hoax.
Great review! This is def a classic I want to read!
Julio wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered me. After all, Prometheus was a her..."Yea I suppose all in addressing rationally and not looking to the extremes either way. Ah Damn, didn’t realize Crichton was a climate crisis denier. Somehow…not surprised though
Southern Lady Reads wrote: "Great review! This is def a classic I want to read!"Thank you so much! Ooo I hope you enjoy if you get to it! I was pleasantly surprised how much I was kind of obsessed with it while reading.
s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered me. After all, Promet..."Chricton's politics were pretty right-wing, it's just that he knew how to disguise them in fairly engrossing tales, sort of like Robert Heinlein. I'm sure you know of the debate as to whether sci-fi is inherently conservative. You can people your story with characters of multiple backgrounds and opinions (Buller, Delaney) but is the message any less reactionary? I've heard DUNE described as " a fascist, messianic tale".
Julio wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "s.penkevich wrote: "Julio wrote: "No one questions Mary Shelley's writing skills and psychology, S., but the anti-science theme of this novel has always bothered m..."Ah, figures. I'm sure now that Im aware it'll start being obvious when I think about his books. Oh yea, Herbert was even a speech writer for a republican senator I think. I see that for the first one but I felt like in Dune Messiah it sort of took the stance of "and that was bad, actually, don't applaud this guy"?
DUNE is just a "white savior myth" with drugs. The freshmen are too dumb and docile to challenge the empire by themselves. I've never read the sequels, but I can see Herbert pulling back from his own creation, particularly in the Seventies and its many religious cults.
Julio wrote: "DUNE is just a "white savior myth" with drugs. The freshmen are too dumb and docile to challenge the empire by themselves. I've never read the sequels, but I can see Herbert pulling back from his o..."Hahaha pretty much. Someone once called it Afganistán in space and the villains are pretty blatantly Russia. Yea the whole aspect of him coming in to be their messiah doesn’t read too well. I read the first four back in high school, it gets pretty rough going after the second one. He acknowledges that the whole galactic genocide thing isn’t ideal later and yea, I wonder how much that was a reaction but I recall reading that fans were pissed about the sequel being critical of the main character having more or less missed that him starting a violent religious holy war was probably not awesome I guess? but then it’s still just “dictators bad� in the way conservatives approach it I suppose after that.
Dear S.: I can see how someone reading DUNE in the 1980s could take it as a metaphor for Afghanistan, although the book was published in the 1960s. The Appendix to the novel is fascinating in describing the ecumenical religion of Arakis, "founded by the IV Mohammed". Many critics have pointed out that an advanced space civilization would not be compatible with the aristocracy you see in the novel. Science tends to dissolve feudal ties.
I have never had any desire to read this book, until your review.
Jill wrote: "I have never had any desire to read this book, until your review."Oh excellent, glad you enjoyed and hope you like the book if you read it! It was WAY cooler than I was expecting too haha.
You covered all the points and then some. I read this in a book club back in 2018, and the topic of AI came up even then, so I was pleased to see you tie that in at the end. I read this shortly after my grandfather passed and it was strangely perfect in my time of grief. I immediately picked up on the unhealthy response to the loss of his mother by withdrawing and attempting to resolve the pain death brings by creating life instead of just feeling the pain in community. Of course he is totally irresponsible with his creation—what human creature can survive without connection? In my estimation, Dr. Frankenstein is the true monster here. One could get very psychologically here and surmise that until he learns to face the monster of his grief, he will continue to be disconnected from meaningful relationship and haunted by death. I love what you added about the horrors of being othered and dehumanized. Truly, the worst horrors occur only when dehumanization has set the stage to justify them.
Janae wrote: "You covered all the points and then some. I read this in a book club back in 2018, and the topic of AI came up even then, so I was pleased to see you tie that in at the end. I read this shortly aft..."Thank you so much, and wow, thank you for all your own brilliant insights. Sorry to hear about your grandfather but that insight you gleaned into how grief figures its way into the story and psychology is quite astounding. The idea of creating life in response to death is a good juxtaposition and I like the idea that what he--and the monster--needed was to process emotions in community, how even his creation was unable to be able to behave in a socially productive way comes from his lack of having any community to learn from or see emotion modeled (well I guess beyond fear and anger). Huh, thank you for that, that really adds a great dynamic element to this.
And thanks! Yea, I love that Winterson quote about this novel being contemporary reality if you think of the creation in terms of modern tech. I wonder if thats why Mary Shelley and this book have had sort of a big return in pop culture references the past few years?
Yes, the monster's story is heart-breaking. He desperately needs love, belonging, and connection. To be without those is the worst kind of existence. I also love what he represents beyond just taking him at face value (the implications of dehumanization or not facing one's grief). Of course, the murders are also chilling, and you do have to feel for Victor as well. Plenty of us endure a world of suffering in which we never find the tools to climb out of it. He's responsible and despicable and yet all too relatable. I think there are many reasons why Frankenstein has stood the test of time, but no doubt our struggle with ethical boundaries in tech is one of them. Just because you can create something, should you? I also can't get over the fact that Shelley wrote this at 19 and that it was based on a dream! GAH! To have friends like that when I was a teen....
god i love your reviews!!!
carla wrote: "god i love your reviews!!!"Thank you so much! Glad you loved this book too!
What an amazing review. You know, in a sense it seems that Frankenstein is a dystopia. Society is dystopic in that it doesn't accept new creations but destroys them.
Levi wrote: "What an amazing review. You know, in a sense it seems that Frankenstein is a dystopia. Society is dystopic in that it doesn't accept new creations but destroys them."Oooo wait I love that interpretation! And it withholds love and the warmth of a proper welcoming and upbringing in order to demonize and cast out.
And thank you!
