Jump to content

Talk:Frankenstein/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Image

I changed the bookcover image (though it was recently placed) to the Barnes and Noble Classics bookcover for Frankenstein. I didn't really like the last one, and thought that it was neither asthetically pleasing nor in support of the content of the novel. I feel that the previous image reflected the popular image of Frankenstein, and not the complexity of the novel (which through popular culture is lost). I particularly like this cover image, and I think that it shows the complexity of the novel, not to mention the overall disposition. If you feel that it is absolutley nescesary to change it back, don't without stating your reasons. ^_^ --Whatcanuexpect 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to post ALL book covers you can find and caption them with the different aspects they depict. Jclerman 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, by the rules of Fair Use, you have to mention the publisher in the text. I'm sure Barnes and Noble is very happy with the viral marketing. Can't we find an old classic book cover from the 1920s or 30s? -- Stbalbach 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair use does not require you to mention the publisher--it's not a quid pro quo. You do have to indicate who the publisher is on WP's image info page. Nareek 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Stbalbach. By displaying this particular book cover, Wikipedia is, de facto, being used to promote sales of this particular edition. If not a classic book cover, how about an illustration depicting Mary Shelley? My Wiki tech aptitude is not sufficiently advanced to make the change myself, but I sure wish someone would.

Please sign your comments. There is nothing wrong with using the cover of a book to illustrate the article on the book. It is perfect acceptable under Fair Use -- go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and you'll find hundreds of examples. As Nareek says, it is not necessary to identify a publisher, though for the sake of completeness we usually do. And under fair use rules we can't use an image of Mary Shelley because the article is not about Mary Shelley. 23skidoo 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Mary Shelley hs been dead since 1851. Fair use restrictions would not apply. But a picture of Mary Shelley would not serve the purpose of this article, so would not be appropriate. Jerry 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

the summer

During the snowy summer of 1816, the "Year Without A Summer," the world was locked in in a long cold volcanic winter responsible for the deaths of million, caused by the eruption of Tambora in 1815. In this terrible year, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley visited Lord Byron in Switzerland. After reading an anthology of German ghost stories, Byron challenged the Shelleys and his personal physician John William Polidori to each compose a story of their own. Of the four, only Polidori completed a story. Mary conceived an idea, and this was the germ of Frankenstein.

I do not understand quite clearly why the terrible winter due to the volcanic eruption is mentionned here. What is the relationship, and how did it impact the birth of the book exactly ? SweetLittleFluffyThing
They were all stuck inside looking for something to do. Monopoly hadn't been invented yet so they decided to write stories instead. I'll see if I can find some references for this. -- Tim Starling 07:51, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

consistency?

Someone very much needs to revise and correct the plot summary: as it reads now, Justine is framed for murder twice, and Victor Frankenstein shows up at the beginning of the book to relate the entire tale, a tale that ends with his death, which begs the question of how he's telling it to Captain Walton. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Better now? -- Tim Starling 03:50, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Much better. BTW, how do you get that timestamp after your username? -- Antaeus Feldspar
Four tildes ~~~~. Three for just the username. -- Tim Starling 07:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

"...perhaps intended as a companion." "He intends the creature to be beautiful, but when it awakens he is disgusted. It has yellow, watery eyes, translucent skin, and is of an abominable size."

I don't recall ever having heard that suggested in the story. He simply does it because he believes it's possable and wishes to prove it can be done. He knew that the design would be rough and flawed but he justified it by stating that the first attempt isn't always perfect. He treated it like a rough draft, just to get it down. He deliberately made it of unusual size as it would be easier to work the minute aspects of the design.

"However, this is at odds with him creating a similar Monster later in the novel on an island that would not have a large enough selection of corpses. An alternate theory is that the bones in the charnel houses' were used to understand human anatomy, and the body was made from base chemicals.Subsequent visual interpretations of the story have included the creation of Frankenstein's monster through alchemy, by the piecing together of corpses, or a combination of the two. In films, the body is often given the "spark of life" in the form of a channeled lightning bolt, conducted from a lightning rod during a stormy night."

That's just inconsistant with the story. The creation of the second monster was started in England after he studied new techniques that would help he with a female version. The parts where gathered from the Major cities he stayed in before he seperated from his freind to finish his workk on a secluded island.

Frankinsteins use of alchemy in the novel is implied by his early study of Such famous alchemists as Magnus, Agrippa, and Paracelsus (spelling on that last one might be wrong). His subsequent studies at the university focussed on contemporary science but it was the knowledge of both that led him to the ability to do this task. His work appears to be a variation of Paracelsus' Homunculus. 63.138.247.2 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC) ken

Fictional Monsters category

I put back the Fictional Monsters category tag, which had been removed earlier. The rationale for removing it was sound: true, Frankenstein usually refers to the scientist, not the monster. However there have been many occasions in which the monster has been referred to directly as Frankenstein, most recently in Van Helsing. Plus, I've also seen the scientist referred to as a monster as well. Although it isn't strictly correct, I feel the name Frankenstein has become so synonymous with the creature that it becomes conspicuous by its absence in this category. If there is any way to make a "pipe change" so that the category listing says "Frankenstein's Monster" that would be great, though I am told this cannot be done. Having said all this, I just looked at the category and at present all that's listed there are characters like Elmo from Sesame Street and the cereal box monster Franken Berry. It's pretty useless as is, but I imagine someone will start adding Dracula and the like to it before long. Maybe. 23skidoo 04:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just created a separate article for Frankenstein's monster, so I'll add the tag there and remove it here. --Fourthgeek 03:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

suggested article name change

Recently, the wikipedia article The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was renamed Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, because that is the actual title of the published work.

With that in mind, the article Frankenstein should be renamed Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus.

Are there any objections to this move? Kingturtle 18:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to whether such a move would work for this, since this article is more about Frankenstein the franchise than, per se, an article on the book by itself. There has already been a case of a duplicate article being recreated under Frankenstein Monster, and it's possible it might happen again even with a redirect. I'd wait to see if there's more of a consensus one way or the other on this before doing a movie. 23skidoo 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I am against a name change -- The Modern Prometheus is clearly a subsidiary title and change would create an odd precedent (eg "Brideshead Revisited" would have to change to "Brideshead Revisited. The Sacred and Profane Memoirs of Captain Charles Ryder"). Also I think it is important that all Frankenstein links go direct to the book as the primary reference not via film or disambig pages. --mervyn 12:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Belefant

I haven't read Belefant's little book, but I am very skeptical of his thesis simply because Victor's alibi for Clerval's murder is a key element of the plot. It enables him to leave Ireland completely vindicated. <>< tbc 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Belefant does make that claim, so it's worth mentioning. You're right about the alibi for Clerval's murder - I'll put something in the article if it's not there already. Robin Johnson 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Had Tim Chambers read my book he would have seen that I analysed all three murders from the viewpoints of means, motive, and opportunity. I show that Victor's alibi for Clerval's murder is impossible. Arthur Belefant, 28 June 2006

I will endeavour to read this book as I was unfamiliar with this theory before reading this article. I did pick up on the occasional hint that the monster may be part of Victor's imagination while reading the book, but if this is the case how do you explain Walton's encounter with the creature at the book's end? Mosquitor 12.43, 10 Aug 2006 (GMT)

jarvis wrote it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.240.208 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Monster's Name

The Monster actually calls itself a wretch, so it does have a name (or at least a title) and was not ugly save in the sense of being sublime.

Phooey.
"Oh! no mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch." "...its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy daemon" -- Victor
"monster! ugly wretch! you wish to eat me, and tear me to pieces--You are an ogre" -- William, Victor's brother
"I was, besides, endowed with a figure hideously deformed and loathsome..." -- the monster
(emphasis mine) <>< tbc 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hehe, tbc winsOreo man 15:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wretch" isn't a title or a name. It's a descriptor. Doesn't count. We're talking names like "Viktor" here. Now if there were a line somewhere in which the Monster says "Call me The Thing" that would be different (plus Mary Shelley's descendents could sue Marvel Comics...) 23skidoo 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankenstein's Monster

Considering the difficulties posed with posting about the monster, the story, and the scientist, I've made a separate article for the monster. It is relatively thorough, but needs information from this article to be moved there. --Fourthgeek 03:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Я люблю эту книгу! Никогда не читал никакую другую книгу получше!

There seem to be more then one instance of the moster being refered to as the Destroyer by at the least Victor. I'll have to go back over the book to find them but at least one is when the monster is jumping across fissures in the glacier to confront his make before their first talk and after the death of The falsely convicted servant girl. It was something to the effect of seeing the approach of the destroyer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.247.2 (talk • contribs).

So sad!

My God, this book is so depressing! Don't you guys agree? — 24.18.2.61 20:10, 19 October 2005

Discussion pages are for discussion of the article, not of what the article is about. Cheers. Robin Johnson 09:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Didn't know. — 24.18.2.61

Does anyone here know when the story started and finished? Not when it was written - when it started. — Thanks, ktp20 xox 86.129.47.193 10:33, 18 June 2006

The novel Frankenstein is set entirely in the 1700s. The main story is framed by letters from Captain Walton, who meets both Frankenstein and his monster separately in the arctic, shortly before each dies. Captain Walton's first letter is dated "Dec. 11th, 17 --" The author does not specify any more specific time.

In his second letter Walton quotes "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", which was first published in 1798. This suggests that his first letter could be dated 1797 at the earliest or 1798 at the latest. All Scars 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Literary Analysis Paper Melanie Gantt

“..I was alone. I remembered Adam’s supplication to his Creator. But where was mine? He had abandoned me, and in the bitterness of my heart I cursed him.”(Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, Page 177)

Victor Frankenstein created a creature from parts of previous humans, yet was terrified by his accomplishment. Dr. Frankenstein never gave his creature any form of education or thought after he created him; the creature was left alone to survive on his own. The creature had no form of language to communicate with others, nor would anyone help him based on his ghastly appearance. The creature was forced to live in the forest and fend for food, water, and shelter. “Immediately on his creation he wandered out into the forest of Ingoldstadt, where he remained for some days, till his different senses learnt to perform their appropriate functions, and he discovered the use of fire and various other rudiments of knowledge; and thus accomplished, he ventured forth into the great world.” (Edinburgh Magazine, Review of Frankenstein) The creature would approach the creatures that looked like him, only to have them scream, run, or beat on him. This must be very confusing, terrifying, and even aggravating when you don’t know why. The creature did learn though by observation of his surroundings, people, and needs. In his observations he also learned how family structures and society operates. After the creature learned to survive in the woods he came across a family and learned language, love, and respect. He learned all this from a distance and provided services for them even though they never knew he was there. He learned speech, reading, and comprehension of society structures. He felt great accomplishment in what he’d learned and was very grateful to this family. The creature did chores at night to help the family as a sense of repayment. “…being really a good- natured monster, and finding the young man was much overwrought in cutting fuel for the family, what does he, but betake him to the wood in the night time, and collect quantities of fuel, which he piles up beside the door? The good people think themselves the favourites of some kind spirit or brownie”( Edinburgh Magazine, Review of Frankenstein). He loved to see them happy and these extra chores done by mystery did exactly that; plus they then had more time for study which is how he learned as well. Later he learned of their exile and felt even closer to them than ever before. “As yet I looked upon crime as a distant evil; benevolence and generosity were ever present before me” (Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, Page 173 ) He decided to come out of hiding to meet them, but was once again betrayed by his appearance before ever speaking. The curse that Dr. Frankenstein placed upon him would continue to follow him everywhere. How could his creator be so irresponsible for him? Why was he to live alone while Dr. Frankenstein was able to roam and communicate freely? He didn’t ask to be made, but was now facing so much turmoil for living. These feelings cause him to demand a mate from Dr. Frankenstein. Upon the arrival of this mate he would exile himself and his mate to never cause havoc again, which was quite appealing to Dr. Frankenstein. “He concludes with denouncing vengeance against Frankenstein and all his race, if he does not agree to one request, to create a female companion for him like himself, with whom he proposes to retire to the wilds of North America, and never again to come into contact with man.” (Edinburgh Magazine, Review of Frankenstein). Dr. Frankenstein decides that he needs to confer with prior colleagues and solitude to make another creature; a companion for his first. He leaves his home, with his friend Clerval, for England to start on his new experiment. He does gather more information and supplies for this endeavor, but delays the task by many traveling side trips. Dr. Frankenstein eventually leaves Clerval in Scotland, with friends, and continues his journey to the highlands of Orkneys. After settling into a private cottage, he begins his task. Several days later, of continuous work, Dr. Frankenstein decided he no long thinks this is as appealing as before. The creature, which has been following him in the shadows throughout the whole journey, learns of his refusal to continue while he is observing Dr. Frankenstein one evening. This forces him into rage and decides that if he can’t have a life neither can Dr. Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein packs to return home, when upon this journey he lands in Ireland where he is accused of murder. The victim is his friend Clerval; he has been framed by his creation. Due to his inability to speak the language, he is imprisoned, yet later released. This gives him a slight in site to what the creature has gone through. Dr. Frankenstein returns home to marry Elizabeth and during their honeymoon the creature kills Elizabeth. Dr. Frankenstein, in so much despair and anger, decides to follow and kill the creature. The creature taunts and aggravates him whenever possible on this journey. At the end of this story Dr. Frankenstein finds himself without all that he loves and utterly alone. He chases his creation to the ends of the earth for the pain that has been inflected on him, but never makes the connection that all would have never happen if he had thought about his actions before creating them. He is found half dead in Antarctica, while on his death bed he tells his story to the captain and begging his to continue his lifelong vengeance. “He dies, and to the astonishment of our Englishman and the crew, the monster makes his appearance,--laments the fate of his creator,--says that his feelings of vengeance are for ever at an end,--departs, and is heard of no more.” (Edinburgh Magazine, Review of Frankenstein) However, the creature does get a form of mate; even if the mate is trying to kill him. “Farewell! I leave you, and in you the last of humankind whom these eyes will ever behold. Farewell, Frankenstein!” (Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, Page 264 )



Works Cited

1. The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany: A New Series of "The Scots Magazine" 2 (March 1818): 249-253. Review of Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus (1818) http://www.ipl.org/div/litcrit/bin/litcrit.out.pl?ti=fra-63

2. Shelley, Mary, “Frankenstein”. London, England: Penguin Classics.1985

Melanie Gantt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.222.140 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

“The monster says to Frankenstein ‘Listen to my tale: when you have heard that, abandon or commiserate me, as you shall judge that I deserve. But hear me. The guilty are allowed, by human laws, bloody as they are, to speak in their own defense before they are condemned.’ In Frankenstein, listening is an important theme that comes up numerous times.”

From the very beginning of Frankenstein we learn that this is a story being told to more than us, the readers. Captain Walton is on his Arctic expedition when he comes across a man seeming to “chase” another larger creature across the ice. We learn that this is Victor Frankenstein and he has a very strange and captivating story to tell. Captain Walton, who has been corresponding to his sister about his explorations, listens to Victor’s tale and writes it down so that he may tell his sister, Mrs. Saville. The readers and Mrs. Saville listen to the story through Walton’s letters and narrative and Walton listens to the story from Victor himself.Mel68 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another name and possible inspiration

According to Paul Johnson (journalist)'s "Intellectuals", Percy Shelley was a student of various writings on the illuminati, which may explain why Fankenstein studied at Ingolstadt. Also, the monster may have referred to himself as "Adam", possibly after Adam Weishaupt and definitely after the biblical Adam. I'd like to know what you think about this before I add it it. Orville Eastland 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What's "Intellectuals", a blog, academic journal, etc..? The Adam part would be more apros in Frankenstein's monster under an "Analysis" section or somthing.Stbalbach 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It's a book, published first in the UK in 1988. I'll post the quote as soon as I can. Orville Eastland 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok. "The Illuminati had been institutionalized in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt at the German University of Ingolstadt, as guardians of the rationalist enlightenment. Their aim was to illuminate the world until (as he (i.e. Weishaupt)argued) 'Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.' In a sense this became Shelley's permanent aim, but he absorbed the Illuminist material in conjunction with the agressive propaganda put out by their enemies, especially the sensational Ultra tract by the Abbe Barruel, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobitism (London, 1797-98), which attacked not only the Illuminati but the Masons, Rosicrucians and Jews. Shelley was for many years fascinated by this repellent book, which he often recommended to friends (it was used by his second wife Mary when she was writing Frankenstein in 1818). It was mixed up in Shelley's mind with a lot of Gothic novels which he also read, then and later."

That's from page 32 of the Harper Perennial edition, first published in 1990. Orville Eastland 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankenstein name

Some anon said: The name "Frankenstein" breaks down into FRANK, which is a pet name for FRANCIS which is from the Latin name FRANCISCUS meaning "a free man" and STEIN which translates into "stone". Thus we can view "Frankenstein" as "a free man of the stone", or "freemason".

Give a source, please! Otherwise it will be deleted. BTW, creative people can also claim that it means frankfurter + stone = hot dog cooked in a stone oven. Jclerman 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE GIVE A SOURCE FOR THE FREEMASON INTERPRETATION Jclerman 03:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The element "frank" is German, and has no derivation from Latin. Following an etymological path through "pet names" is not usually the way things are done. The Latin word you are wanting is "francus," not "franciscus," and it was a Late Latin "borrowing" from Middle High German that was in turn borrowed by Old French and then by Middle English. Unless I am very much mistaken (always a possibility if not a likelihood), "frankenstein" would translate as "stone (or stronghold) of the free men," not "free man of the stone". Besides, it's a fairly common surname in German-speaking regions. It wasn't invented by Mary Shelley, and attempting to reverse engineer a hidden meaning into it is ridiculous. Canonblack 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's removed, original research and problems discussed here. --Stbalbach 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Frankenstein

Dr. Frankenstein currently redirects to here, to Frankenstein. Should it instead redirect to the page for the character Victor Frankenstein?

--Pieoncar 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, seems like it should. Not sure how to set up redirects, can someone? Robin Johnson 10:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Done! Jclerman 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

During Halloween, people usually refer to the creature as "Frankenstein". People usually picture him as a big green man about 7' tall with black hair and bolts. The real Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, titled Victor Frankenstien, son of Alphonse and Catherine Frankenstein. [E.P. 19:25 29 November 2006]

Main page selected anniversaries January 1st

The main page sentence omits the word "novel:" "...a science fiction (novel) by Mary Shelley...." Can someone please correct it? Thanks. -- Rewster 05:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Websites

Although I agree with the deletion of the spam site, I disagree with the reasoning that other sites deleted earlier today were "unencyclopedic". One is an in-depth examination of the films ("Frankensteins Castle") while the other ("A New Reality") examined the book. And there was also an interesting site ("Toonopedia") that gave a quick history of the early comic book adaptations. I believe they're valid to include here so long as this article includes discussions of the Frankenstein franchise and not just the original book. If anyone wants to make their case that these sites shouldn't count, please do so here. I did, however, delete the IMDb link as it was more appropriate for Shelley's page, and the individual film articles should have their own. 23skidoo 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Organization

The division of this article by splitting off Frankenstein's monster seems awkward--inevitably, there's considerable discussion of the Monster in the main article. Wouldn't a more practical division be to have an article on the novel Frankenstein and then an article on the various adaptations? Nareek 11:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is the monstor goes beyond the novel. So it wouldnt be a simple matter of merging this article into the novel article, since this article contains a bunch of info about the monster thats not from the novel. To merge this article into the novel article + a separate adaptions article, would loose the context that this article has created about the monster, and be confusing. We need an article that just talks about the monster, irregardless of novel or adaption. --Stbalbach 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
My proposal would be to move the parts of the monster article that deal with the novel's monster to this article, and move the parts that deal with the monster in film, comics and general culture (along with the similar parts of this article) to a new article. It seems like a much more logical and consistent division; as it is, this article has both (inevitably) quite a bit of material about the novel's portrayal of the monster, as well as material about subsidiary works that have as their only connection to Shelley's novel the character of the monster--which means that they really should be in the other article.
If this doesn't seem more logical to anyone else, of course, I'll drop the idea.Nareek 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah understood, its logical, but Im not sure you understand the point of this article. Its about the monster. Its not about the novel or movies. They have their own articles. --Stbalbach 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, there's too much stuff to be dealt with in one overview article. The way that was handled was to take the stuff about the monster itself out into its own article--I do understand that. What I'm questioning is whether that was the best choice, given how central the monster is to the novel, and even more so to the cultural legacy of the novel. I think it's impossible to separate the material very cleanly using the current set-up, which is why I would suggest a different separation--the novel on one hand, including the monster in the novel, and the adaptations and other legacies of the novel on the other hand. Nareek 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that could possibly work also. I agree the legacy stuff should have its own article. The monster presents a problem. I would rather see the monster article merged back into the novel article, even if it contains non-novel information, rather then split the monster material between multiple articles (novel and legacy) and loose the contextual information in the process. Its hard to discuss the monster just in the context of the novel, or just in the context of later adaptions, that would be a restriction for no reason other than an abstract organizational one. --Stbalbach 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Location

There is a Schloss Frankenstein, in Hessen and it is near Darmstadt (Schloss = castle) except that it's only flattened ruins, the castle has been completely demolished way before Shelley's times. This makes it a perfect location for such a novel since you can always re-create the castle's past in your story.

The castle still existed (as a ruin) when Mary wrote her story,. In all probability she visited the ruin which was a favourite recital spot for Goethe.

Nope, Mary never visited Castle Frankenstein. She was passing by by boat during nighttime. She did not even see the castle. There's no evidence of any kind, that the Hesse Castle Frankenstein had even the slightest influence to Shelley! That's just based on a very questionable claim of one local author, who denies to reveal his sources! 84.167.133.48 (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Franklinstein

It is important to note that "The Modern Prometheus" was the most famous nickname of Benjamin Franklin during this time. The novel can be read as a warning about the dangers of technological advancements in this sense.Matthew 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, that would be worth noting. Nareek 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Franchise

This article is too much about the nivel and does not talk about the adaptions enough there is loads of other media why talk almost evclusively about the novel-user:Dr. Septimus

Did you see the sections "Film adaptations", "Television adaptations" and "Other adaptations" in this article, listing and discussing many other incarnations of Frankenstein in various media, most of them with links to their own articles? Robin Johnson 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein

The title of the 1935 movie is simply Bride of Frankenstein, not The Bride of Frankenstein. -- Walloon 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I accidentally undid your edit while reverting some vandalism - looks like we were both working on it at once. Robin Johnson 15:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Overkill

My only objection to this article (and the other one on the poor monster itself) is the constant repetition of this idea:

the creature was not an "evil creation", it was born an innocent blank slate, it was Victor's rejection of the creature that taught it to be evil.

How many times must we be reminded of this? I lost count at around five. Are contributors trying to push a POV, or is this just sloppy organization of the writing? I'm going to assume good faith here, but I don't think the idea needs to be mentioned more than once per article.

It reminds me of the classic Liberal idea (no, not U.S. politics!) which posits that human beings are born good, i.e., with no evil inclinations - in contrast to the religious doctrine (especially in major denominations of Christianity) of Original sin.

Or even the modern Broadway play South Pacific:

"You've got to be taught to hate and fear / You've got to be taught from year to year / It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear." [1]

There may also be parallels to the Unification Church doctrine of the Fall of man. Ah, well, food for thought. --Uncle Ed 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)



Although the monster says he has a big rage inside him, i know this can be interpreted as he has rage because of what people have done to him but surely you would'nt want to kill every last one of them?

Not forgetting he describes his reasons: "I am malicious because I am miserable". He also backs it up with another reason, or statement form his point of view after experiancing the world after Victor recjected him: "Was man... so powerful, so virtuous and magnificant, yet so vicious and base". You're right, he did start to be an innocent clean slate but along with all the negative things he didn't start off with, he also didn't know laws. His killing is mostly because Victor did abandon him but also because of the way society treated him when he was out in the world and with no restrictions he knew of, his rage, justified in his own opinion, was let loose. - Seanu$ (Unregistered) ((Currentlu writing 'Who does the reader have the most sympathy for - Victor or his creature?' Essay))


to be perftly honest the story only has the monster justifying his evil acts with a mind we see as very well reasoned. But the question of Nuture versus nature is never fully resolved. It's also interesting to note that while a hulking and powerful brute with great intellect he is all but two to five years old at the time of his crimes. It would have been interesting to see if maturity came with age had he not had trauma and such power. Might it also be noted that while angery about his treatment he was perfectly willing to knowingly inflict such on another new being to which he would be master and owner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.247.2 (talk • contribs).

Assuming we can believe the monster's story, it seems he was perfectly willing to lead a peaceful life if he had been accepted. It is a stretch to say that the monster was an innocent blank slate, as it is not clear from the novel whether anyone is an innocent blank slate. It does seem clear from the novel that part of Dr. Frankenstein's culpability was not only creating the creature, but not taking responsibility for it.--RLent 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Influences

I just noticed that this article and the one on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner do not reference each other, yet Ancient Mariner was an influence on Shelley in writing Frankenstein, and this shows in the latter's structure: both, for instance are cautionary tales set (partially at least) in a "sea of ice" (North Pole/Mer De Glace/Antarctica) involving a Chinese Box structure of storytelling where the main narrator tells his story before introducing the main story. Both are partially Gothic, partially Romantic in genre, warn of the dangers of violating nature, and deal with the theme of justice (and both are reputed to have been written by people very high on drugs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.165.248 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a source for this? If it's your own original thought then it can't really go in (even though it's interesting!) Robin Johnson 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Other than various teachers, no. I have just been studying the text, however, and RotAM, along with Paradise Lost and the Promethean Myth were regularly cited as contextual references. Someone must've written something about it out on the interweb somewhere! Theonecynic 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Having said which, Shelley does of course quote the RotAM early on in the book. Theonecynic 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a new article and migrated the popular culture material from this article and from Frankenstein's Monster to it

  1. This article is too long.
  2. Frankenstein's Monster was duplicating the same material as this article resulting in an unintended fork. It was not clear where to put derivative material, it was ending up some in both article, some in one article or another.
  3. There is enough derivative material to justify its own article (even sub-articles), and a separate article for the novel its self.

--Stbalbach 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Analysis == Clerval's Murder Tim Chamber's comment is wrong. Had he read my book he would have seen that I demonstrate that Victor's alibi is an impossibility. Not only that, but the alibi is backed up by no winesses or evidence.

Unflattering portrayal of Islam

I'd like to add a note on the main Frankenstein page to reference the anti-Islamic sentiment inherent in the portrayal of Safie's father (named only "the Turk") in chapter 14 [2]. He is saved from an unjust imprisonment by the De Lacey family, initially agreeing to give Safie's hand to Felix in marriage if he is rescued. But because "[h]e loathed the idea that his daughter should be united to a Christian," the "treacherous Turk" goes back on his word and, once free, tries to force his daughter to join him in Constantinople (ostensibly to be "immured within the walls of a harem"). Meanwhile, the De Laceys are all reduced to abject poverty because of the Turk's treachery.

Alas, I know of no research or criticism on this matter which I may cite -- and of course original "research" (does this count as research?) is verboten. How, then, to call this to attention? -- Scartol 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this particularly notable or was this simply the way such characters were treated at the time? For example, if you read British novels from the 1930s-50s you'll often find depictions of blacks that today would be called racist (Live and Let Die the James Bond novel being an example). But at the time the attitudes were commonplace enough so as to make the depiction actually NN. If Shelly was simply reflecting the attitudes of her time, then it really isn't notable, even if by today's standards it might be considered unflattering or offensive. If the opposite can be found -- as in Shelly receiving criticism -- then that's another matter. 23skidoo 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Shelley is absolutely reflecting the attitudes of her time -- I told my students the exact same thing. However, I don't think that makes it un-noteworthy. Toni Morrison's book Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination examines precisely this sort of cultural imagining of "the other", as applied to race in the United States (through analysis of the works of Poe, Melville, Cather, and Hemingway). Isn't ethnocentrism worthy of note, regardless of its pervasiveness? After all, even Wikipedia works to eliminate this sort of systemic bias. Perhaps this is a case where an actual work of criticism must be found to give validity to the problem? -- Scartol 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


I actually came away with the impression it was more of a persons faults then a false racial flaw portayed. The one refered to as the turk was a merchant looking to get the best deal he could and willing to stiff a client. However he was being persecuted for his religious beleifs and his rescuers saw the error in that and stood against that. Is that then a commentary on the persecutive nature of christians? I think that it was just a mechanism by which The valiant and just family could be shown to be moral beacons for the monster and then have the oportunity to have Language introduced to him through the Daughters education.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.247.2 (talk • contribs).

What? Just because an islamic character is portayed negatively, does not mean that islam is portayed negativly.

Vandalism alert

This article appears to have been vandalized, I have made preliminary changes. Additional changes may be required.

---

I also made other changes because of this. Can someone ban the IP for modif please? — Enigma55 (talk • email) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

{{main}} tagged instead?100110100 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Frankenstein in popular culture is a useful article, but shouldn't there also be a simple disambiguation page called Frankenstein (disambiguation) that lists the novel, several movies called Frankenstein and the Edgar Winter song, among other items?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankenstein name Origins

The comment about Leonard Woolf's conspiracy theory should come before details of A.J.Day's essay. Woolf was published in 2004 and Day's new evidence in 2005.

Original research in Analysis

Much of this section seems to be original analysis (or, it is lacking sources). It presents many interpretations, but only cites 2 sources. Pcu123456789 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Is there any reason why the disambiguation note shouldn't redirect to Victor Frankenstein as well as to the monster? Referring to the Creature alone suggests that it has a better claim to the name than its creator does, which I think we all know isn't the case.

My earlier amendment ran:

This article is about the 1818 novel. For the title character see Victor Frankenstein. For the monster he creates see Frankenstein's monster. For movies, comics and other derivative works see Frankenstein in popular culture.

If someone can give me a good reason why this is a bad idea, then I won't edit it back in. Phil PH 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All sorted out now -- thanks. Phil PH 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Analysis

This section contains the following sentence: "Victor was guileless and irresponsible with his invention." This makes no sense. He was straightforward/sincere, and irresponsible? I think the author was looking for a better word than guileless. Finding one. O0drogue0o 09:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

????????

this page does not tell you what u need to know by wiry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.176.116 (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Shelley as the real author

Over the years a number of individuals have argued that MWS lacked the talent to have written such a work, and that the real author was her husband. How should we treat the matter here? Haiduc 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You should say which individuals, for a start. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
These individuals, among others:
  1. Sir Walter Scott in his review of the work in Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazine of March, 1818
  2. Phyllis Zimmerman in Shelley's Fiction
  3. John Lauritsen in The man who wrote Frankenstein
  4. The Tory Quarterly Review, of the anonymous edition
Haiduc 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this controversy needs to be addressed. Particularly with Lauritsen's new book coming out, the question of whether Mary or Percy Shelley wrote the book has become a heated debate. Both feminist Camille Paglia (arguing for Percy) and feminist Germaine Greer (arguing for Mary) have written high profile articles about the matter in the last few months. These were printed in Salon and in The Guardian. Let's get this in the article.--147.9.171.130 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be a little more careful. Lauritsen is known more for trying to argue that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, which goes against scientific fact. While there is only a handful of individuals who argue against the idea that MWS wrote Frankenstein, there are much more than a handful of individuals who argue for the idea that MWS is the author. I think it could be included, but before it is done, we need to go back throughout literary history and see how Mary Shelley has been established as the author. I know that some lit critics have argued for Mary Shelley being the author of some of the poems that were attributed to Percy Shelley. Lulurascal 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Lauritsen is known for more than his misguided AIDS stuff. He was right on the money in opposing John Boswell's hilarious idea that early Christianity was not homophobic, and (so far as I know) was the first writer to drag out Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria) -- and to cite Philo's homophobia in full. After all, Christianity is the daughter-religion of Judaism. He has also done excellent work with his Pagan Press -- which has reprinted many early classics.
I (and many others) think that he went off the rails with his AIDS controversy, inexplicably arguing that the HIV virus was not the cause of AIDS. To my knowledge, he has not yet come to his senses.
But this has nothing to do with his latest controversy, in which he returns to literature not biology. I have his book on order, along with the definitive text, and may well chime in again, in the future. The argument I find most provoking, is that Mary wrote Frankenstein at age 19, and never wrote anything worth reading after that.
It makes me think of Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett. When Hammett kicked the bucket, Lillian's career as a playwright did too. JaafarAbuTarab 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Woolf and A. Day

I have re-edited the comments about the 'conspiracy theory' of Woolf as they are incorrect and infer that Woolf made his comments after reading Day's essay (obviously impossible due to the publishing dates!). 172.143.92.12 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is your saying "other experts" - what other experts? Your saying these un-named mysterious experts disagree with Wolf - really, where? Your also implying that just because Day's essay was published later that some new evidence has come to light that makes Wolf's cited and sourced statement wrong - who says? -- Stbalbach 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Other experts would include Stephen Derwent Partington who, in his review of Radu Florescu's 'In Search of Frankenstein: Exploring the Myths behind Mary Shelley's Monster' states 'should proof of Shelley's knowledge of the Castle Frankenstein and the alchemist Dippel be found in future, a significant contribution to Frankenstein scholarship will have been made; a contribution that might forever lay to rest the Romantic nonsense, instigated of course by Shelley herself, that the novel stemmed entirely from a dream.'

So certainly S.D. Partington disagrees with Woolf ( and he is not the only one). I think it is important to get the history right rather than pander to Shelley's self created myth.

Day certainly disagrees with Woolf and does offer new cited evidence. So the fact that it was presented post Woolf would seem important. I have read Day's essay and found it answers some questions about the origins of the novel and raise intriguing new ones. Have you read it?

Perhaps the section should be edited to at leat include Partington's view?

172.143.92.12 09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, please do include other peoples views with appropriate citations. But don't say "Other 'Frankenstein expert(s)' would undoubtedly be inclined to agree" -- the phrase "other experts" is a weasel word, and the conclusion "undoubtedly be inclined" is unsupported original research. Just say who said it, what they said, where and when they said it. -- Stbalbach 13:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: 'Your also implying that just because Day's essay was published later that some new evidence has come to light that makes Wolf's cited and sourced statement wrong - who says?'... Day says. It's not implication but fact. Day's essay offers new literary evidence that supports Florescu's earlier theory. The current edit is 'implying' that woolf has read Day and that his comments refer to Day's essay which is obviously untrue. 172.143.92.12 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Monsters name

The squib about the movie Frankenstein causing the public to confuse the monster with its creator is not true. I'll leave it to those working on this entry to figure out the proper wording. I'll cite as sources: Author's Digest: The World's Great Stories in Brief By Rossiter Johnson which stated (in 1908), "It is strange to note how well-nigh universally the term "Frankenstein" is misused, even by intelligent persons, as describing some hideous monster..." See also Edith Wharton's The Reef (1916), page 96, which describes an unruly child as an "infant Frankenstein." The early such example I have located is in David Lindsay's "The Bridal Ornament," published in The Rover, June 12, 1844: "...from their Promethean fingers, which beat the maker of poor Frankenstein all to nothing..."--Pscottbrown 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. This does need to be incorporated. -- Stbalbach 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edition information

Due to the large number of revisions between the second and third editions, information regarding the changes definitely need to be included in the article. If anyone owns an annotated version which lists any differences, and would care to write a summary, it would be greatly appreciated. Quoth 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some information from a peer-reviewed, scholarly work that I hope sums up the way the novel has changed as it filtered through popular culture. It was an excellent read, and very precise. Let me know what you think. As a fan of the novel, I was curious as to why the story I knew was so different from Shelley's, and did some reading. I'm sure other readers have asked the same questions, so it is only right that wikipedia answer them here, in my view. I'm not familiar with the article's history, but I imagine the reason this section was reduced to a link was because it was mostly an unreferenced list, or that it didn't use WP:Summary style, or both. I can sympathize, as I've had problems keeping a reign on similar sections in other articles. Again, take a look at the add. Wrad 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the decision is made to refer to movies like Rocky Horror (which wouldn't be my decision, but that's another issue), shouldn't the list be made more consistent with the general point, which I gather is that the general wiki-reading public probably knows of Frankenstein mostly by way of Hollywood movies? In that case, it seems like there is justification for adding references to Young Frankenstein (which I suspect is really more familiar to the average reader than even the 1930s horror films), and even the general cartoonish portrayal of something very much like the monster, as in The Munsters series, various animated cartoons, and so on? C d h (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First, just to explain: I didn't make that decision, my sources did. The fact is, old, silent 1930's films shaped our modern idea of Frankenstein, whether we ourselves have seen them or not. Rocky Horror is, I guess, an example of the weirdness Frankenstein has adopted more recently, according to some scholars. If you can find some good sources for those other things, then go for it! Wrad (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

inspiration section change

in the inspiration section, i can understand why someone would refer to the year without a summer and talk about snow. however, in shelley's own words in her introduction to the 1831 edition, she observes the following: "But it proved a wet, ungenial summer, and incessant rain often confined us for days to the house" (p. vi). wouldn't it be better to use shelley's own words in trying to understand this context? Platypusjones 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, in this context. It's easy to put too many or too long quotations in an article, but I think it would improve the article if you wanted to insert/substitute that quotation and cite the book. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

the creature as "adam"

in the section on "the creature," there is an uncited statement that Shelley referred to the creature as "Adam," as in Adam and Eve. Given that this citation is lacking, wouldn't it also be better to return to Shelley's work as a primary source? On page 69, in the scene where Victor and the monster first directly encounter one another, the creature makes a reference to Adam: "I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel..." So, while there might be merit to the claim that Shelley thought the monster to be "Adam," why not just use this passage for support? Platypusjones 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits

This is written under the Publication section.

"It can be agreed that having the new editions in novels is useful in that they incorporate those hidden messages. Text details are not always understood and therefore these extra parts are helpful to students. Shelley is a wonderful writer who with such greatness may need that extra addition."

It seems to me like this is original research and POV. I would edit this out, but I don't have an account. Another thing is that one of the quotes in the Quotations section is out of format. I don't know how to change this.24.151.101.55 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that last paragraph. Someone has already dealt with the Quotes section.-Wikianon (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Shelley was way ahead of her time in writing and the new editions make some of the text more easily understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.75.175 (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

analysis

the analysis section needs references, especially the section on pregnancy. i know the source of which the author might be referring, but it is not my place to add. please add the reference or delete.Platypusjones (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication Section

Can anybody tell me what this paragraph, tacked on at the end of the "Publication" section, is supposed to mean?

It can be agreed that having the new editions in novels is useful in that they incorporate those hidden messages. Text details are not always understood and therefore these extra parts are helpful to students. Shelley is a wonderful writer who with such greatness may need that extra addition.

This is clearly stylistically inconsistent with the rest of the article, and obscure to the point of opacity in its meaning. I suggest that, unless and until the author of this paragraph can come forward and elaborate on it to make it clearer, it be commented out of the visible text of the article. rowley (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein's monster section

This does not look like encyclopaedic writing to me; it looks more like a rant or a personal essay. It's written in a very informal way, very biased, and doesn't fit into the structure of the article:

In the story the monster got the raw end of the whole ordeal. Of all the characters he's the only one that would use rationale behind his thoughts and actions. Society says that the monster is dumb but if that's the case then the rest of us must be even dumber. Think about this. The monster learned to walk, talk, read, write, and think logically in a short period of time and without any outside help. Humans take years to learn and master these skills and many never do. The monster shows his true power of logic when he planned to make Victor feel the same solitude and misery that he was feeling. The monster even had a fantastic memory, there was a part when he narrated a story and was able to tell it in vivid detail. During that time, even today, he probably would have been considered a prodigy if he wasn't first looked upon as a monster. He helped the family that sheltered him, he saved a girl from drowning in a river, and even felt guilty for killing the boy since he didn't mean to kill the boy in the first place. These all show that he had a conscious and that he was aware of action and reaction which is more than can be said for many humans.

190.21.93.74 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis needing rewrite

I have moved the large essay from the Analysis section to below so that it can hopefully be reworked to meet Wikipedia standards. It does cite Susan Coulter's essay but appears to my untrained eye to concern the references to death in the story and not Coulter's parenting remarks. The essay may be a good analysis, I have no way of knowing, so I will leave it to Frankenstein scholars to decide.-Wikianon (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy


One of the tragedies of Frankenstein was the refusal of Victor and the Daemon to recognize the moral responsibilities that each of them had toward human life. “Begone! I do break my promises; never will I create another like yourself, equal in deformity and wickedness.” (Page 145) Why this passage? It describes how I feel about two of the main characters, Victor and the Daemon. Victor, the “mad scientist”! Who always chose to run away from his problems and moral responsibilities? First he creates a monster that is the most wretched looking being. He devoted his life and resources in the attempt to create this being, then immediately abandoned it because of a lack of a certain kind of appearance. What was Victor expecting, a super model? No! When you place dead body parts together, that’s what you get! So instead of fixing or facing his problem, he runs away. Leaving this child like creature to fend, and teach himself the ways of the world. Had Victor been present during the first hours of the Daemons life would we have seen the turmoil, sadness, wrong accusations that lead to tragedy and even murder? And the Daemon we ask? I agree he had a rough start, I can’t imagine becoming conscious in a horrible body, immediately rejected by the one that created you. He became much like Victor and acted in much the same way. He likes to blame others for the feelings and personal issues that he has formed. Yes, he was created in a bad environment, but does that constitute arson, stalking, and murder? I would say not! He was responsible for the actions that he decided to take, just as Victor was. So he seeks out to see revenge on Victor, his creator. The scene that lingered in my mind for Victor and the Daemon was at the moment that they came face to face to unveil the partner, or in Victors mind, a possible duplicate of his mad creation. There stands the Daemon at the window with an unsightly smile. At that moment they both act in similar manners, both are acting in a very selfish way. Victor just wanted the Daemon to go away and be gone with him, and the Daemon only thinking of having a companion. The tension at the moment as Victor begins to go crazy at the choices that he has decided to make. The Daemon starts to get angry realizing that another promise is about to be broken by Victor. The Daemon becomes obsessed with thoughts about continuing to live a lonely life, roaming about the earth that he has found so miserable. Both are intensely focused inside themselves, their feelings and perceptions very sharp. I picture the mad scientist ripping apart a dead body, with parts flying in the air, and blood splattering about. In my mind I picture a murder scene playing about. Do I compare the scientist to the murdering monster? Do I ask if he is acting in the same manner that the monster did with all of his victims? Of coarse he did! I went back and forth in trying to decide if I felt sorry for either character. You can’t help but to feel for Victor in losing his loved ones. And you can’t help to feel for the Daemon in trying to learn life, and to fit in to a loving family. By the end of the book I came to realize that they were very much alike. They both liked to run away from issues, instead of trying to deal with them head on. I was very frustrated by the lack of action that was taken when Victor was warned by the Daemon, about what would happen if he married. He married and terrible things happened. I had a hard time continuing to read further after the marriage scene knowing what was about to happen. I didn’t feel sorry for Victor for his loss; I almost felt that he had deserved it by getting married. What would it have been like if Victor spoke when Justine was on trial? Or if the Daemon was a little more patient in introducing himself to his new found extended family. This was a story full of tragedy; this tragedy to people around Victor was caused by his arrogant creation of the Daemon, and then his inability to take responsibility and to care for and teach the Daemon that he had created. There were some readings that had described the Daemon to Adam and Satan and digressing into God. “Like Adam, he recalls a time of primordial innocence, his days and nights in "the forest near Ingolstadt," where he ate berries, learned about heat and cold.” “Eventually, burning the cottage and murdering William in demonic rage, he seems to become entirely Satanic.” These were great comparisons. This passage detailed an evolutionary process that the Daemon endured through his life. He was almost child like and grew into a spoiled brat when he did not get his ways. Did he learn this behavior with the lack of supervision or parenting? In which brings the question on who is to blame? Was it the parent of Victor, or the child, the Daemon? There was another writing that I came across that described this. It raised the idea of blaming the creator. “The monster, however, is not a fully formed individual, but an "abortion," a defilement of the human form, and so deeply repulsive to all (including himself) who see him.” The monster is an ugly botch because he incarnates a male fantasy of creative autonomy" (347). The fault is not the monsters but his creator's; the monster is a sympathetic.” So do we blame the creator? I think that we would have to. It starts from the beginning, with a male fantasy that is described in the passage above. It was a fantasy that in Victor’s mind probably had a far different ending. Victor did spend his youth trying to be someone different. Eventually it over took his health and social life, and became an obsession. There is a responsibility of creating something and taking the liability that comes with it. Both characters have a responsibility, a responsibility to each other, and also to the innocent players around the characters. Which leads me to believe that Victor and the Daemon are exactly alike with their lack of self control? This is the whole tragedy of the story. Unfortunately everyone pays for the mistakes that both Victor and the Daemon create. What a grave tragedy.

Work Cited Shelley, Mary Frankentein Youngquist, Paul. "Frankenstein: The Mother, the Daughter, and the Monster." Philological Quarterly 70, 3 (Summer 1991): 339-359. Gilbert, Sandra M., and Gubar, Susan. "Horror's Twin: Mary Shelley's Monstrous Eve." The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. 213-247. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandienglish (talk • contribs) 02:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Character Analysis and the theme of death

[original research?] Character Analysis and the theme of death Death is a recurrent theme, repeating itself throughout Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” While death may have been inevitable for some, was it not Victor Frankenstein’s obsession to create life without regard to the consequences and his irresponsibility in caring for his creation the reason that death claimed the lives of others? Victor had the ability to put an end to his creation taking innocent lives yet he chose not to and in the following I have provided chapters where death has occurred and Victor did nothing to prevent any further afflictions of death. Caroline Beaufort Frankenstein: In chapter three, Victor’s mother, Caroline, has passed away. Although this is not the first instance of death in which we are introduced nor is her death a result of the ‘monster’, her death is significant as it greatly affected Victor. In his quest to pursue the ability to create a new being, I believe her innocent death created an even greater passion in Victor to succeed. In chapter 2 Victor states early on:

Caroline died as a result of contracting scarlet fever when caring for Elizabeth. Victor narrates his feelings regarding her death which are significant as he is suffering a terrible loss, one in which I think Victor believes from his statement above that if he was successful, innocent deaths such as his mother’s could be prevented although the consequences of his actions with his creation ended up resulting in violent deaths for all those nearest to him: I need not describe the feelings of those whose dearest ties are rent by that most irreparable evil,” …Yet from whom has not that rude hand rent away some dear connection?” and “My mother was dead, but we had still duties which we ought to perform, we must continue our course with the rest and learn to think ourselves fortunate whilst one remains whom the spoiler has not seized. It is here in which I think Victor really begins to show selfishness as well as any moral responsibility as he leaves his family at such a grieving time to pursue his quest just as he abandons his creation when finished. Victor’s Creation: In chapter five, Victor has finished creating his being looks upon it and states the following significant points as this is where Victor does become at fault for the tragic deaths of others as he is disappointed with what he has created and abandons it because of how it looks:

At the point where Victor leaves his apartment and walks the streets until he comes across Henry and they return to Victor’s apartment, as Victor leaves Henry to wait downstairs so he can see if the being is still there and discovers that it is gone, he says:

In chapter 24, Victor’s creation admits to the murders he has committed acknowledging that doing so was to get back at his creator:

It is after this that Victor’s creation states that he will soon die and he says it in a matter of fact manner in which death will end his own personal suffering as well as the suffering he has inflicted on others: "But soon," he cried with sad and solemn enthusiasm, "I shall die, and what I now feel be no longer felt. Soon these burning miseries will be extinct. I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of the torturing flames. The light of that conflagration will fade away; my ashes will be swept into the sea by the winds. My spirit will sleep in peace, or if it thinks, it will not surely think thus. Farewell." It is with these last spoken words that Frankenstein’s ‘monster’ departs upon a raft and floats away. William Frankenstein: In chapter seven we are introduced to the first victim whose life is taken by Victor’s creation. Victor’s father, Alphonse Frankenstein has written a letter to him to tell him the news:

Victor knows it is his creation and his abandonment of the being that is the cause for his younger brother’s death. As he and Henry are headed back to Geneva, he thinks to himself:

Justine Moritz: In chapter seven Victor also learns that Justine has been accused of William’s murder. Justine is another victim of Victor’s creation who has set her up and will now pay for a crime she did not commit. Victor himself knows that Justine is innocent and believes that there will not be enough evidence that will be presented to convict her. However, knowing he could have come forth as he knows who the real murderer is and has the ability to prevent an innocent person life being taken, he chooses not to as he thinks:

Victor was so concerned that people would not believe him; they would think he was out of his mind if he told them of his creation. I believe he was more concerned with his reputation and his guilt at being so irresponsible that rather than choose to do the right thing, he decided to just keep this knowledge to himself even though it cost Justine’s life being taken. Henry Clerval: A very dear friend of Victor’s; in him Victor could see much of himself as he too had a thirst for knowledge. In chapter 21, Clerval’s body is discovered by a group of men who take the corpse to a cottage and upon examination it is described:

When Victor was able to enter the room and view the body of Henry, he is devastated. He has no one to blame but himself for the death of his dear friend and he openly exclaims:

I believe that Victor is heavily feeling the consequences of his actions in his creation, his abandonment of his creation and the cruel words and thoughts he has always spoken to that creation. In chapter 22, Victor expresses the following to his father in which he does take blame and responsibility for the lives that have been destroyed because although it is by the hand of the creature who is murdering those dearest to him, it is by Victor’s hands in which the ‘monster’ was created :

Although Victor is filled with guilt and responsibility for what his creation had done, he still does not tell his secret even when his father tells him not to make such assertions. I believe that Victor still holds much selfishness with in himself as he states the following to his father all the while knowing he could have prevented these instances of death:

Elizabeth Lavenza: This was a death that in which clearly, Victor was extremely selfish. He knew what would happen to Elizabeth yet he still put her in the hands of death anyways even though the ‘monster’ said:

Victor put himself above someone whom he had loved since childhood; he put his own selfish needs and wants above her safety, her well-being, her life:

Victor was so certain it would be he that the ‘monster’ would kill knowing all along that it had been Victor’s loved ones who his creation was extracting revenge on. Rather than stay with Elizabeth at all times to protect her, Victor chooses to walk the passages of the house almost thinking that his creation would not go through with his threat until he hears the scream of Elizabeth and describes the following which I believe Victor is completely accountable for:

After Victor recovers from the scene of Elizabeth’s death in which he ends up fainting, he embraces her body and the familiar manner in which death has taken others; we are narrated with the following:

No matter how much love Victor did have for Elizabeth, her death was one that could have been prevented just as the others. Victor knew that the ‘monster’ was going to come, just as he knew that death would occur. Alphonse Frankenstein: I believe that Victor is very much responsible for the death of his father as he is for William, Justine, Henry and Elizabeth’s murders. He created a being that he was repulsed by and so he rejected and abandoned it. The being, seeking revenge for how his creator treated him, not only took innocent lives, but caused great misery and turmoil for those who witnessed and suffered these losses. It is ironic that Victor thinks the following when he sees that his father is dying as a result of all the losses that were endured:

Victor Frankenstein: A victim of his by his own hands, he created a being which he then abandoned without hesitation, without thoughts to what would happen. Victor himself is taken by death and Walton narrates:

Victor is the fiend; he created the being, he created the hatred that filled the being, and he allowed the being to murder when he could have stopped it all along; when he could especially have stopped it by not trying to play God in the first place. Victor’s life ending seems to play a key role in the ending of his creation’s life as well. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” has been analyzed from a variety of perspectives. One perspective I’ve came across and that I tend to agree with is the point made by Susan Coulter (‘Frankenstein’ – a cautionary tale of bad parenting, no date). According to Coulter, Shelley was trying to express child development and how their raising, education and family has an impact. She states that “without unconditional love, but also with discipline and guidance as children, we can never develop to our full potential.” She points out how in the novel, Victor was spoiled and in a sense he didn’t have strong parenting skills influenced on him. While he was loved, he was not disciplined and this resulted in him growing into a self-centered as well as an immature adult. Victor was self centered and he took no responsibility for his actions. He was so bent on creating a life that he believed could be spared by all but a violent death that he never stopped to think about the negative consequences that could result let alone the consequences after he rejected his creation because of his appearance. Victor did not know how to love anyone unconditionally unless it benefited himself as that is all he really cared about. Victor is the true monster; he allowed people to be killed by what he created all because he could not accept his creation for what he was. Victor Frankenstein felt no remorse, no guilt for what he created and abandoned, no responsibility for loss of life until it was too late.

Works Cited:

Coulter, Susan, ‘Frankenstein’- a cautionary tale of bad parenting, retrieved 20th Oct. 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).

Shelley, Mary (1818), Frankenstein (Original Text ed.), retrieved 21st Oct. 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help).

"Frankenstein" (html). November 1997. Retrieved 2007-10-22.

Original research moved

I have moved the following uncited original research section from the article to the Talk article section below.-Wikianon (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dual-Roles and Doppelganger Effect

[original research?] Some say that there is also a duality at work here, or a doppelganger effect between Frankenstein and his monster. The book leaves many subtle clues to this effect, including in a certain light, the sub-title of “The Modern Prometheus”.

Satan became the biblical counter to good after being cast out of Heaven for rebelling against God, and here refers to Prometheus as being exiled and punished for his roles in tricking the gods. Some consider that God and Satan are dual selves, neither existing without the other in the way that night and day is opposite. Both Frankenstein and his creature are parallels of this role of God and Satan, as well as Prometheus and ultimately, Prometheus. Frankenstein stealing the knowledge of the gods (the over-reaching of the pursuit of knowledge of man) and facing its consequence (the karma or retribution of Zeus) to the monster as the personification of the Satan within, it’s in this where the simultaneous and dual roles first take shape.

The nature of duality is both an opposite yet entwining nature between two seemingly different aspects, viewpoints, points of reference, or in this case, two different characters. There is abundant evidence that suggests that the monster is Frankenstein’s parallel self; that which is made up of his darker or perhaps self-perceived ‘less important’ (losing out in favor of his scientific predications) desires and motivations as is often the case with our doppelgangers. Not in the same vein as the story of Dr. Jekyll and his Mr. Hyde, in this story the creature is the physical embodiment and manifestation of Frankenstein’s “darker” ego.

That he made something so physically strong and capable, but so terrible is perhaps an insight into his mind, if only subconsciously. Frankenstein tells the listener of his story (Robert Walton, and ultimately you and I) that he tried to make his creature “beautiful”, after the events unfold the reader is left to guess how that could be so. Here the reader is almost directed to be repulsed through the storytelling of Frankenstein, but I think the true reasons for this repulsion go much deeper. After all, the story is being told by Frankenstein himself and we often omit objectivity when relating personal events to others structuring our relation of events in the best light possible; something that Frankenstein has never faced even unto his death. When the creature first comes alive only then does Frankenstein realize what he has created and, as is often the case I imagine when meeting the dark mirror of ourselves manifested, he became disgusted and repulsed and abandoned “that wretch”.

Throughout the story this effect is alluded to and referenced by Frankenstein and his ever-entwining story with the creature. Frankenstein constantly refers to his creature with words that imply evil and thus ultimately rejection by him, rejection of his darker half: Devil, fiend, daemon, horror, wretch, monster, monstrous image, vile insect, abhorred entity, detested form, hideous phantasm, odious companion, and demoniacal corpse. Neutral terms like creature and being are only used during times when his darker alter ego or Frankenstein himself seem intent on making peace, or at least considering each other less vehemently. (Ozolins Par. 6) Other times in the story have Frankenstein relating such thoughts to the listener in regards to the creature such as: “My own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave and forced to destroy all that was dear to me. (Shelley)”

This effect is further evidenced by a ‘coincidence’ often noticed in such tales: the creature and Frankenstein often share the same set and setting throughout the story. Frankenstein before confronting his creature often relates feeling as though someone was following him, as though there was a presence near. The monster frequently shows up when Frankenstein is particularly gloomy, troubled, or emotionally distraught. The monster tells Frankenstein that he will be watching his every move. Even ominous and powerful quotes by the monster allude to their dark connection: “You are my creator, but I am thy master; obey! (Shelley)”

Another idea which lends itself to this dark theme is that of isolation. Frankenstein at the beginning of the story became obsessed with his pursuit to the point where he has deliberately isolated himself from his friends and family, as well as humanity in general. He instead at first sets out to observe the process of death, apparently by hanging around in cemeteries and mortuaries to watch decomposition and death take hold. Whenever he is troubled he finds solace in his isolation, frequently leaving behind those he cares for and who care about him. The monster reflects an opposite quality in his reaction to his own lamented isolation often wishing for the companionship of others, especially during his own troubled times.

The monster is isolated against his will and because of his very nature. This is primarily used both as the monster’s plea for acceptance as well as the self-rationalization for his malevolence to elicit sympathy from the listener, as well as Frankenstein himself the story-teller. This loneliness is also reflected in the persona of Robert Walton through which the story is ultimately framed. Among the first words we find in this story are those of Walton discussing his loneliness and longing for a friend of the same mind as him. He ultimately finds such a friend through Frankenstein.

The last and perhaps most important point concerning the Doppelganger Effect is one that lends itself to gothic works, that of depression and unresolved dissonance. The need to confront and face his darker half, therefore allowing the possibility of acceptance, is consistently rejected by Frankenstein. His rejection of the creature is crucial to the psychological context of the story behind the story. His first instincts are to run away and abandon his creation, then to passive-aggressively vent his anger and frustration at his worsening ‘victimhood’, and ultimately resolving to set out to destroy it. He is always away running from himself and trying to lose himself in the external world, always avoiding responsibility. (Ozolins Par. 9) Ultimately, this becomes the undoing of both Frankenstein and the Creature as the circle of their existence closes with their deaths rather than with the personal acceptance and embracement that could have quelled the ‘monster’ within before he came out.

Perhaps Shelley, through Frankenstein, gave a voice to the duality that inhabited her. Her lineage and experiences made her wise beyond her years but still; she was a child. With one plea, "Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow. “ Frankenstein relayed forceful authority that comes with age but also exhibited trepidation that is a result of inexperience. Maybe the true reveal of duality throughout this tale, is that Frankenstein is more of an extension of Shelley, than the creature of Frankenstein.

Notes

More removals

In addition to general minor cleanup, I removed the last paragraph of the infamous Frankenstein#Analysis section:

“NOTHING IS MORE PAINFUL to the human mind, than, after the feelings have been worked up by a quick succession of events, the dead calmness of inaction and certainty which follows, and deprives the soul of both hope and fear.” (Opening sentence, Chapter IX) What is Mary saying when she talks about “the dead calmness of inaction and certainty which follows.” What is meant by “certainty?” One could say she’s writing about Dr. Frankenstein’s inability to bring forth his reasoning to his family, and the courts, as to why he believed that Justine was, in his mind, innocent. After all, who would believe a story about the creation of life from a corpse? Mind you, not just any corpse, but a corpse of human parts sewn together. As for the certainty part of the sentence, it’s at this point that Dr. Frankenstein is certain the monster has begun to systematically destroy his family. Could this be the thinking of a man in the early stages of going mad? After all, how does he know that his creation is capable of such destruction?

It begins with an unexplained quotation and consists almost entirely of informally phrased questions. As an encyclopedia is meant to inform, not to inspire speculation, I deleted the paragraph rather than trying to edit it. I also removed mention of Hoover vacuum cleaners as an example of an invention named after its creator...because the inventor of the Hoover vacuum cleaner wasn't named Hoover. I am posting this because, with the sources this article seems to have, we need to beware of copyright violations and inaccurate statements that have yet to be caught. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

Suggested Move

Since there are so many things called Frankenstein, shouldn't this page be Frankenstein (novel) and then Frankentein be a disambiguation article. The same thing was done for all the James Bond novels. Typing in just the name leads to a disabiguation page, and the articles are called Name of book (novel) or Name of movie (film). Emperor001 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This article...?

I felt that this article didn't really capture the plot of Frankenstein very well. For example, the part where the creature observes the De Lacey family takes up nearly 5 chapters (which is 20%) of the book! In the article, it doesn't even give the family's name, which is kind of weird. Does anyone agree? If you feel that it doesn't need it, that's fine. I just thought I would put the idea out there. Thanks, 99.142.41.183 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.16.158 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein section from Mary Shelley

Here is the Frankenstein section that we are being forced to take out for space considerations. References can be found in the bibliography there. I thought some of the material might be useful to the editors here:

Mary Shelley's first and most famous novel, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, was published anonymously on 1 January 1818, in a run of 500 copies; it was accompanied by a dedication to her father, William Godwin, and a preface by her husband, Percy Shelley.[1] Frankenstein is the story of Victor Frankenstein, who reanimated "lifeless matter" into a nameless creature. After Frankenstein flees from it in disgust and the creature kills people associated with him, Frankenstein pursues the creature to the Arctic. The 1818 version of the novel was edited by Percy Shelley; according to Mary Shelley scholar Anne K. Mellor, his revisions "often improved the novel by correcting misspellings, using more precise technical terms, and clarifying the narrative and thematic continuity of the text, but on several occasions he misunderstood his wife's intentions and distorted her ideas".[2] For example, he viewed "the creature as more monstrous and less human" and "tended to see Victor Frankenstein more positively than did Mary Shelley" and introduced changes to this effect.[3] The novel was republished under her own name in 1823 and edited by her father. In 1831, when the novel was published in a third edition for Colburn and Bentley's Standard Novels Series, Mary Shelley herself made substantial revisions to the text.[4]

Frankenstein, like many works of its period, mixes a visceral and alienating subject matter with speculative and thought-provoking themes.[5] Mary Shelley adopts elements of the Gothic genre of mystery and horror. Rather than focusing on the twists and turns of the plot, however, she foregrounds the mental and moral struggles of the protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, and imbues the text with her own brand of politicised Romanticism, one that criticized the individualism and egotism of traditional Romanticism.[6] The novel has always provoked multiple, often conflicting, interpretations. In the view of critic and editor Betty T. Bennett, however, these interpretations commonly acknowledge Mary Shelley's "consistent, larger metaphoric question of the exercise of power and responsibility, personal and societal".[7] Some critics have seen the novel as a warning against scientific interference with nature, or against man's pretension to godlike power. Mary Shelley believed, like her parents and her husband, in the Enlightenment idea that people could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, but that irresponsible use of power led to chaos.[8] Unlike Prometheus, Victor Frankenstein creates his creature not on behalf of humanity but for his own selfish reasons, without thought of the social consequences.[9]

Many modern critics have read Frankenstein from a psychological standpoint. Ellen Moers was "one of the first critics to recognize that Frankenstiven evolved out of Shelley's own tragic experience as a young, unwed mothers of a baby who would live only a few weeks".[10] She argues that the novel is a "birth myth" that comes to terms with Shelley's own guilt over having been responsible for her mother's death and for having failed as a parent.[11] Feminist literary critics Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar in their seminal book The Madwoman in the Attic (1979) argue that Shelley defined her writing persona largely through literature, and particularly through the works of her parents.[12] They contend that in Frankenstein in particular, Shelley was responding to the masculine literary tradition represented by John Milton's Paradise Lost. In their interpretation, Shelley reaffirms this masculine tradition, including the misogyny inherent in it, while at the same time her work "conceal[s] fantasies of equality that occasionally erupt in monstrous images in rage".[13] Reading the first edition of Frankenstein as part of a larger pattern in Shelley's writing, which begins with literary self-assertion and ends with conventional femininity, Mary Poovey argues that these same "competing impulses" are already present in Shelley's earliest novel.[14] Poovey sees in Frankenstein's multiple narratives an opportunity for Shelley to split her artistic persona, she can "express and efface herself at the same time".[15] Shelley's own fears of self-assertion are reflected in the character of Frankenstein, who is punished for his egotism by losing all of his domestic ties.[16] Feminist critics like Moers, Gilbert and Gubar, Poovey, and others often focus on how authorship itself it represented and conceptualized in the novel.[17]

The first edition of Frankenstein received reviews that ranged from hostility to appreciation. The majority of the reviews based their assessment on whether or not the public would benefit from reading the novel; reviewers who felt that the tale might offer significant moral lessons to the reader tended to approve of the novel while those who felt that it might corrupt them tended to disapprove of it.[18] The novel won approval among Mary Shelley's literary circle.[19] Frankenstein has now entered the public imagination, popularised at first by Richard Brinsley Peake's adaptation for the stage in 1823.[20] The subsequent fame of Frankenstein has spawned its own mythology: the creature is regularly invoked, often inaccurately, in diverse non-literary contexts.[21][note 1]

Although the novel has been popular since its publication, it was not until the birth of feminist literary criticism and the beginnings of cultural studies in the 1970s that it was taken seriously as a literary work; in fact, it has been a cornerstone of feminist literary criticism.[22] The first book to be published on it, The Endurance of "Frankenstein", which attempted to explain why the novel was popular, was published in 1979.[23] It is this tension between "great literary work" and "popular literary work" that has often shaped the scholarship on Frankenstein. Attempting to establish significant lineages in the academy, scholars of women's writing and science fiction have both claimed that Frankenstein is a great work of literature.[24] On the other hand, while attempting to break down the Western canon, other scholars have argued that the meaning of "great works of literature" is impossible to define and have used Frankenstein as a text to do so. Marxist and cultural studies critics have argued that the novel should be studied precisely because of its fame and that all of film, comic book, and other adaptive works are an important part of the culture's heritage. They criticize the distinction between "high" and "low" culture that has arisen and tend to discount what they view as arbitrary differences.[25]

Napoleon Bonaparte

Just yesterday, I stumbled across a story about Napoleon Bonaparte and the town of Vitebsk in Russia. If you know this story, you will know why it is connected with the novel Frankenstein. If it is true, there may be another source for the novel that is not discussed here. But I strongly suspect that the story is false. However I have not been able to find a good discussion about the story, looking at the "pro" and "con" sides of the issue of whether it is true. I do not have a good citation. --KEVP 35.12.24.160 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

--Okay, I am almost completely certain now this whole thing was a wild goose chase. I first found the story in a copy of "Encyclopedia Idiotica" by Stephen Weir that I read in a bookstore without purchasing. The book as a whole looked like it was properly researched, so I thought the Napoleon story might be okay. But then I could not find any reference to the story in any books about either Napoleon or Mary Shelley. Then I looked on the internet, but the only thing I could find that referred to it was a website that seemed to have been put up by a kook. So then I went BACK to the bookstore to check what Stephen Weir's citation for the story was, and he seems to have gotten it from that kook's website. So it seems now that the whole thing was invented by that kook, who put it on his website, which was then for some reason copied into the otherwise reasonable "Encyclopedia Idiotica". I think it might be a good idea to leave my adventures up here in the discussion page in case someone else stumbles across this same bunch of stuff. --KEVP 35.12.24.152 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Special Thanks to SparkNotes for the Plot Summary...

I'm not entirely sure about it, but I'm pretty sure that copying the SparkNotes plot summary for Frankenstein is not how you're supposed to "write" a Wikipedia plot summary. The text in the plot summary section is the exact same as the SparkNotes summary, with a few additional details added. I would move for the plot section to be rewritten, since I would suppose that using the SparkNotes description (especially without referencing it) wouldn't be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacheshead (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC) this is the greatest book alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.111.97 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and reverted the plot section to the version before Kaldheim's 26 April 2008 plot edit. I don't have a problem with people changing/improving the plot section (obviously), but it is not acceptable to violate copyrights to do so (also obvious, I would hope). The plot summary from SparkNotes can be found here and can be compared to the previous plot section.--Peacheshead (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's novel is not a "doctor" but a (former) science student.

Wikipedia when referring to Shelley's novel should amend its text (Analysis)to reflect the accuracy of the character Victor Frankenstein's role as a student of Natural Philosophy at the university and not a board-certified doctor - the most common error on the subject since the book's publication. –

Literary Analysis Paper Kianna Lyles English Composition 1 Pro. Mark Trafton Due: July 13, 2008


Lose of a Parent/ FRANKENSTEIN By: Kianna Lyles


Sometimes in a child’s life, it can be hard to lose a parent or even both of your parents at a young age. In some cases, it can bring more responsibility in trying to take care of themselves or even take care of their other siblings (If any). Parents are said to be a father and/or mother, who sires or gives birth to as well as nurture and raises an offspring. It is stated that between parents, different roles of parents varies throughout the tree of life and is especially complex in human culture. In the book of Frankenstein, Victor was born with two wonderful parents who loved him, his siblings and even Elizabeth very much. Unfortunately, for the Frankenstein children; they sadly lose a mother who loved them to death. Even, her niece (Elizabeth), whom victor’s mother sacrifice her life in order for Elizabeth to live. Mothers are said to have maternal bonds with their children or even other children. I believe these are the same feeling that Victor’s mother had for her children as well as her niece. I Believe the mother would do anything in order that her children were not hurt or down. In losing the women of the house, hold as well as sacrificing her life, it left Victor as well as Elizabeth with the responsibility to care for the other children as well as their father (and uncle). More so Elizabeth then Victor, since he was going off to school to better his education. The mother’s statement to Elizabeth and Victor: “This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love, you must supply my place to my younger children.” The theme of which Victor lost his mother was the most important to me because it shows how change can happen in an instant. (Chapter 3- Para.1) Sometimes change in life can affect a person in a good way or a bad way. In Victors cause, the loss of his mother could have affected him a bad way. This lose could have possible lead victor to the creature of a human being. Maybe with victor losing his mother, probably thought that he could bring her back to life.

The Book of Frankenstein starts out as a book full of mysteries, but has a lot of love in Victor’s Family. In the theme that I chosen, it starts to discuss how Victor Frankenstein was getting older and needed to move on to bigger and better thing, then staying home with his family. Victor’s parents suggest that it is time to attend a university in order to receive a better education. As Victor is prepared and was excited to depart from his family and learn how to be a man; a tragic thing happens with his cousin (Elizabeth) coming down with Scarlet Fever. Scarlet fever is stated to be a disease, which is caused by an infection of the throat with group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal bacteria. With this disease, it is considered the main risk factor is infection with the bacteria that causes strep throat. Even though this disease is treatable, in Elizabeth’s case it almost killed her. The book states that Elizabeth’s “illness was severe, and she was in the greatest danger.” Victor’s mother had something in her that would not let her niece die a horrible death. To me it felt as if it was the mothers calling in order to cure Elizabeth, but it was going to be her time to die at this point in her children’s life. With victor’s mother dying, it was probably time for the elder children of the household to learn how to take up some responsibilities in their life as well as learn how to survive on their own in the world. Even though there was still a father in the house, their father still had responsibilities. In addition, the father was getting older as well as sickly and was going to need the help of his children. Although the loss of a love may leave responsibilities, it can also leave people in pain.

Victor Frankenstein was able to have the opportunity to go to an eminent University to receive a great education as well as doctorate degree. Victor had a very creative mind as well as a love for Chemistry and Natural Philosophy. A statement that expressed his love as the professor does his lecture is stated: “Such were the professor’s words—rather let me say such the words of the fate—enounced to destroy me. As he went on I felt as if my soul were grappling with a palpable enemy; one by one the various keys were touched which formed the mechanism of my being; chord after chord was sounded, and soon my mind was filled with one thought, one conception, one purpose.” With Victor’s Love for science, it led him to think that maybe he could create a human being by hand. Even though Victor was a brilliant man, he was still hurting from his mother death. In paragraph 2 of chapter three it express of Victor’s mother passing away stating “She died calmly, and her countenance expressed affection even in death.” After the death of the mother, the paragraph shows Victor’s pain and anger to his mother’s death. It shows how with the loss of a love one it lives people deeply hurt and sad that someone is gone forever. Victor states in the book: “It is so long before the mind can persuade itself that she whom we saw every day and whose very existence appeared a part of our own can have departed forever—that the brightness of a beloved eye can have been extinguished and the sound of a voice so familiar and dear to the ear can be hushed, never more to be heard.” Even though victor shows his pain for his mother’s death, he also expresses his anger for having the responsibilities of taking care of his family while he is at school. He states:“ My mother was dead, but we had still duties which we ought to perform; we must continue our course with the rest and learn to think ourselves fortunate whilst one remains whom the spoiler has not seized.” I believe it is good that Victor mother left him with responsibilities. He is considered the oldest in the family as well as the next head of the household. He should not be able to abandon his family even though he is at school and Elizabeth home doing most of the work. Since Elizabeth seems to have a positive attitude about taking care of the family, victor needs too as well. It is express in chapter 3, which states: “She indeed veiled her grief and strove to act the comforter to us all. She looked steadily on life and assumed its duties with courage and zeal. She devoted herself to those whom she had been taught to call her uncle and cousins. Never was she so enchanting as at this time, when she recalled the sunshine of her smiles and spent them upon us. She forgot even her own regret in her endeavours to make us forget.”

Overall, I believe this theme expresses a lesson learned to victor and his family as well as to others in real life. The lesson to be learned in this theme is to be thankful for want you have in life because sometimes they may not be there forever. In victor’s case, he lost his mother at a young age. He was not able to see her, here her voice, hug her or even talk to her again. As stated before, Victor states: “It is so long before the mind can persuade itself that she whom we saw every day and whose very existence appeared a part of our own can have departed forever—that the brightness of a beloved eye can have been extinguished and the sound of a voice so familiar and dear to the ear can be hushed, never more to be heard.” Another lesson to learn in this theme is to make sure that you take care of your responsibilities in life as well as learn to take care of yourself and other. Sometime, there may not be others around that are able to take care of you. Children should learn how to stick together no matter how hard life gets at times. I hope that Victor and his family know that their mother cares and love them with all of her heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.73.205 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankenstein is a classic piece of literature filled with themes and ideas. This story goes through all the steps of every character facing one or more of these themes at some point in the story. Like every good writing, it includes mystery, adventure, action, love, and regrets. Through every character you find different emotions and journeys from one experience to the next. Following every reaction is like experiencing it yourself, for in many cases we, as readers, can find a way to relate. In Frankenstein, the author, Mary Shelley, portrayed themes of passion, longing, and curiosity in most of her characters.


Mary Shelley wrote the story of Frankenstein as a story of passion and longings. You can find this portrayal of passion in almost many of her characters. Starting with the most obvious, we could look at Dr. Frankenstein himself, the star of the whole show. Victor Frankenstein discovers at a very young age a love and a passion for science and alchemy. Victor was, like many people who try to work outside the box in their career, passionate about what he did. He loved science, and he longed to try something no one else had ever done before. “My temper was sometimes violent, and my passions vehement; but by some law in my temperature they were turned, not toward childish pursuits, but to uneager desire to learn, and not to learn all things indiscriminately.” (Shelley 28) Take a look at Victor’s mother, she a woman who was passionate about people. She cared so much for Elizabeth who was living in poverty and loneliness that she took her in as her own, but she wasn’t the only one. “Every one loved Elizabeth. The Passionate and almost reverential attachment with which all regarded her became, while I shared it, my pride and my delight.” (Shelley 26) The monster, too, was passionate in his own way. “I will soon explain to what these feelings tended; but allow me now to return to the cottagers, whose story excited in me such various feelings of indignation, delight, and wonder, but which all terminated an additional love and reverence for my protectors. (For so I loved, in an innocent, half painful self-deceit to call them).”(Shelley 126) He was passionate about his “protectors,” he was passionate about finding out who or what he really was, he was passionate about getting a mate, he was passionate about getting revenge. He longed to feel normal, to know the truth.


These characters are also curious, curious about life, love, their origins, the meaning of life, etc. Frankenstein’s curiosity led him to create his monster; his curiosity about science, alchemy, and electricity and its power. “Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest sensations I can remember.” (Shelley 27) The Monster was curious about his origins, and curious about his “protectors” and their way of life. “But where were my friend and relations? No father had watched my infant days, no mother had blessed me with smiles ad caresses; or if they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy, in which I distinguished nothing.” “What was I? The question again recurred, to be answered only with groans.” (Shelley 126) Here he is showing how his curiosity began to grow.


Altogether, the two main characters, Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, experienced passion, longing, and curiosity in many ways throughout the story. Mary Shelley shows in her characters the ideals and dangerousness and consequences of too much passion, longing, or curiosity, while a little is good for you. It’s almost as if she is warning the readers not to make the same mistake. Within the book itself, the passion and curiosity of Dr. Frankenstein himself, while in their character analysis calling the monster Dr. Frankenstein’s “alter ego” it makes sense that he would share many of the same characteristics and tendencies. Frankenstein was a very well written book, and the everyday characteristics of inquisitiveness and zealous longings we see in ourselves also seen in the characters it helps us, as readers, to better relate.

  1. ^ Seymour, 190, 195; Wolfson, Introduction to Frankenstein, xix.
  2. ^ Mellor, "Making a 'monster'" (CC), 14.
  3. ^ Mellor, "Making a 'monster'", 15.
  4. ^ Poovey, 133ff; Mellor, "Making a 'monster'" (CC), 16.
  5. ^ Spark, 154.
  6. ^ Mellor, "Making a 'monster'" (CC), 14.
  7. ^ Bennett, An Introduction, 30–31.
  8. ^ Bennett, An Introduction, 36–42.
  9. ^ Bennett, An Introduction, 35; Mellor, "Making a 'monster' " (CC), 11, 23.
  10. ^ Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 46.
  11. ^ Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 46-47.
  12. ^ Gilbert and Gubar, 223.
  13. ^ Gilbert and Gubar, 220; see also, Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 47-48.
  14. ^ Poovey, 115-16, 126-27.
  15. ^ Poovey, 131; see also Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 48-49.
  16. ^ Poovey, 124-25.
  17. ^ Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 49.
  18. ^ Smith, "A Critical History of Frankenstein",
  19. ^ Poovey, 133ff.
  20. ^ Seymour, 335; Peake's stage version, called Presumption; or The Fate of Frankenstein, is printed in the Longman Cultural Edition of Frankenstein, ed. Susan J. Wolfson, 323–68.
  21. ^ Seymour, 335.
  22. ^ Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 45.
  23. ^ Smith, "A Critical History of Frankenstein", 189-90; Hoeveler, "Frankenstein, feminism, and literary theory" (CC), 47.
  24. ^ Smith, "A Critical History of Frankenstein", 194, 197.
  25. ^ Smith, "A Critical History of Frankenstein", 199.


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankenstein/Archive_1&oldid=396405947"