Progress on Frankenstein, Part 3
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunnybooI’m getting very invested in the discussion of divinity and faith. At first, Frankenstein (the character—maybe I should distinguish him by calling him “Victor”) is concerned with alchemy and long debunked pseudo-science but quickly moves on to natural philosophy—what we today would recognize as an early form of modern physical sciences. At no point does he acknowledge God or divine powers as having influence over natural processes—only that fate or guidance from on high (maybe more like down low…) gave him the knowledge to create his creature. He even states, “I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.” Again, not a Christian, but that sounds a little blasphemous, doesn’t it? You can’t know the world as well as God does—He’s omnipotent, omnipresent, and freaking God.
Victor shows a distinct lack of respect for God and the supernatural in general—“I do not ever remember to have trembled at a tale of superstition or to have feared the apparition of a spirit. Darkness had no effect upon my fancy, and a churchyard was to me merely the receptacle of bodies deprived of life, which, from being the seat of beauty and strength, had become food for the worm.” This is clearly dramatic irony because he’ll soon learn that the supernatural is very much real, even if it’s spurred on by science—the lines between the two are blurred.
Later, shortly before bringing his creation to life, he admits (indirectly) that he has obtained God’s power of creation, usurping Him as his creature’s “father”—“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. [Note: “Let there be light,” anyone?] A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. [Note: Even some of God’s creations—man or otherwise—are evil. Why is Victor any better?] No father could claim gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve [Note: Emphasis mine.] theirs.”
Something else I find interesting is Victor’s rejection of human interaction—and thereby humanity. (…I’m struggling really hard not to insert a JoJo reference here.) There’s a point made that being consumed by passion for a project above all else—but especially having “domestic affectations”—has brought terrible things into the world—the sudden discovery of the Americas and the destruction of native cultures and civilizations (a viewpoint which surprised me coming from an early 19th century book), the enslavement of the Greeks, that Caesar “would have spared his country” (these last two I’m not familiar with—please enlighten me!).
To comment on the book itself instead of pulling quotes, I’ve just gotten to Justine’s trial and the death of William. The scene where Victor sees his creation outside in the thunderstorm—stalking him through the countryside—is really chilling and tense! I can’t help but feel that he’s (the creation—I don’t want to call him a monster necessarily) not at fault for killing William, not entirely. Maybe it’s because I’ve been somewhat spoiled by knowing that there’s a scene in the Boris Karloff adaption where he accidentally kills a little girl… unless that’s just wrong—cultural osmosis, failing me again! Something Justine says as she’s waiting to die for a crime she didn’t commit ties into the whole faith theme going on—“I am resigned to the fate awaiting me. Learn from me, dear lady, to submit in patience to the will of heaven!” Again, fate is inevitable even if you don’t deserve it. I mean, in this case, she definitely doesn’t deserve to die—she clearly didn’t kill William—but Victor is kind of a different story. Bringing something into the world and just abandoning it (like a neglectful or absentee parent?) has consequences. Tying into that idea, Justine is mentioned to having been hated by her mother in favor of her siblings and being brought to the Frankenstein’s home as a servant—again, like Elizabeth, for her outward beauty. She turned out alright by all accounts despite being treated awfully by what I can only assume was a narcissistic parent. After her siblings die off, she’s brought home and only sometimes treated well (mostly just blamed for “causing” her siblings’ deaths)—a parallel to Victor’s eventual relationship with his creation? What little I know about commentary on Frankenstein (mostly overheard when I was spacing out in my English course sophomore year of college) was the idea of nature versus nurture. Just something to I want to think about.
Wow, this was a long entry. Fun fact! I wrote this all in a Word document instead of directly in the editor for the first time. I kind of like it, kind of don’t, but it does keep me from getting into mischief while at work… sort of. ;) I’m hoping to post my Snowflake Challenge #15 today, but I should be quiet for some of the weekend while I repair Lyra. Long story short, the stuff that kept her eyes in turned to goo somehow and when I removed it, I took out her eyelashes and part of her face paint by accident! I can at the very least give her new eyelashes (which is something I’ve been meaning to practice anyways), but there’s not much I can do about the face paint. C’est la vie (one of my favorite phrases that I’ve just learned to spell). I might put another outfit together too to practice collars—depends on how frustrated I get with putting on lashes. I’d also like to post pictures of these eyes that a friend sent me to test out but that might not get posted until sometime next week.
Have a great weekend, and stay safe out there!
no subject
I'm sort of blessed seeing how the only Frankenstein creation stories I've been exposed to come from Young Frankenstein and Hotel Transylvania.
no subject
I know that you listened to a Dracula audiobook. Maybe one for Frankenstein would help you? I can't read The Scarlett Letter either. It's a weird block I have about books I had to read in high school. Similar problem with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, though that might be part of my complete and utter failure to read Shakespeare.
Now that I think about it, I did read a young readers comic version of this book. (Our daycare had comic versions of a lot of classic literature for some reason.) I don't remember much, and I bet a lot of it was censored or changed for kids.
no subject
no subject