• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Who here has read Frankenstein?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 31 October 2010 - 03:57 AM


I have just finished reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. The book seems to have a lot of themes related to this cause.
If you have read the book what did you think of it?

#2 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 08 January 2011 - 06:58 PM

The main thing that made me mad about the book is that Frankenstein's monster was smarter, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more ethical than any human being in the story. It was only his appearance that made people hate him. It just goes to show how stupid most people are.

If Frankenstein's monster was real I would be friends with him. In fact I would find it amazing to talk to an animated corpse, it would be the coolest thing ever.

Edited by The Immortalist, 08 January 2011 - 07:00 PM.


#3 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 09 January 2011 - 02:37 AM

The main thing that made me mad about the book is that Frankenstein's monster was smarter, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more ethical than any human being in the story. It was only his appearance that made people hate him. It just goes to show how stupid most people are.

If Frankenstein's monster was real I would be friends with him. In fact I would find it amazing to talk to an animated corpse, it would be the coolest thing ever.


During his nascent period, the Monster might have had a child-like innocence, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that this state persisted throughout the novel. Innocence gave way to malevolence, and that of course, was Shelly's warning about the perils of man playing "God." But speaking of the Monster, I've always wondered if Shelly was jestingly alluding to her close friend, Lord Byron, whose moral turpitude departed wildly from the normative standard of virtue. But I suppose that's the trouble with reading literature in high school, because you only scratch the surface. When I get the time, I'd like to examine the merits of this question, and if I discover anything worthwhile, I'll share my findings.

Edited by Rol82, 09 January 2011 - 03:31 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 09 January 2011 - 04:36 AM

Innocence gave way to malevolence, and that of course, was Shelly's warning about the perils of man playing "God."


I once read somewhat interesting feminist interpretation - that the story is actually a warning about the perils of male playing God, pushing the female out of the powers of creativity over Matter. But I read the novel a good few years ago, so I won't vouch for how much weight this understanding carries. But come to think of it, Enlightement was much of a men's game ( like a few other games ), so it might not be totally without base that this is in fact what she had in mind, as a part of the Romanticist backlash mindset.

All in all, I remember that I didn't find the book very captivating, one of the rare cases where I actually liked the movie better ( Keneth Branagh's that is, not necessarily the antedeluvian Boris Karloff stuff, the face and neck-rods is an image immortalised for eternity though, say Hi ! )

Posted Image



Trivia : in Silesia there is a town once named Frankenstein ( back then it belonged to Germany ) which in 16-something witnessed the so called Undertakers' Affair - during plague, they were caught digging out unholy numbers of corpses to make love powders, magic potions and such, the news spread through German lands and it is speculated by some that Shelley perhaps knew about it from somewhere.

Edited by chris w, 09 January 2011 - 04:39 AM.


#5 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:34 AM

The main thing that made me mad about the book is that Frankenstein's monster was smarter, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and more ethical than any human being in the story. It was only his appearance that made people hate him. It just goes to show how stupid most people are.

If Frankenstein's monster was real I would be friends with him. In fact I would find it amazing to talk to an animated corpse, it would be the coolest thing ever.


During his nascent period, the Monster might have had a child-like innocence, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that this state persisted throughout the novel. Innocence gave way to malevolence, and that of course, was Shelly's warning about the perils of man playing "God." But speaking of the Monster, I've always wondered if Shelly was jestingly alluding to her close friend, Lord Byron, whose moral turpitude departed wildly from the normative standard of virtue. But I suppose that's the trouble with reading literature in high school, because you only scratch the surface. When I get the time, I'd like to examine the merits of this question, and if I discover anything worthwhile, I'll share my findings.


The monster may not have been innocent as he murdered innocent people but he wasn't evil. All the monster was doing was an ordinary reaction to complete social rejection. I'm sure there are many people in this world who have become criminals because of the way society has treated them.

As for the books warning about "the perils of man playing 'God.'" I think that message is entirely ridiculous. Of course the monster became malevolent, who wouldn't in his situation? If the monster looked like an average human he wouldn't have become malevolent. I think that Mary Shelley's real message is "if your going to create intelligent life using bio technology, don't create a hideous deformed creature with sensitive feelings who obviously will be rejected by society and thus wanting revenge for the injustice made against him/her/it.

#6 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:42 AM

Innocence gave way to malevolence, and that of course, was Shelly's warning about the perils of man playing "God."


I once read somewhat interesting feminist interpretation - that the story is actually a warning about the perils of male playing God, pushing the female out of the powers of creativity over Matter. But I read the novel a good few years ago, so I won't vouch for how much weight this understanding carries. But come to think of it, Enlightement was much of a men's game ( like a few other games ), so it might not be totally without base that this is in fact what she had in mind, as a part of the Romanticist backlash mindset.

All in all, I remember that I didn't find the book very captivating, one of the rare cases where I actually liked the movie better ( Keneth Branagh's that is, not necessarily the antedeluvian Boris Karloff stuff, the face and neck-rods is an image immortalised for eternity though, say Hi ! )

Posted Image


This is the true monster! I personally like this depiction way better because he just looks a lot more powerful and menacing.


Posted Image

#7 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 January 2011 - 08:52 PM

This is the true monster! I personally like this depiction way better because he just looks a lot more powerful and menacing.

Posted Image

Looks like the cover of a romance novel. ;)

#8 The Immortalist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 09 January 2011 - 09:13 PM

This is the true monster! I personally like this depiction way better because he just looks a lot more powerful and menacing.

Posted Image

Looks like the cover of a romance novel. ;)


lol it's actually a scene from the novel :-D

In that picture it's an acurate representation of the way Mary Shelley described how the monster looked like in the novel. Hollywood then warped the image.

Edited by The Immortalist, 09 January 2011 - 09:17 PM.


#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 January 2011 - 01:57 AM

This is the true monster! I personally like this depiction way better because he just looks a lot more powerful and menacing.

Looks like the cover of a romance novel. ;)

lol it's actually a scene from the novel :-D

In that picture it's an acurate representation of the way Mary Shelley described how the monster looked like in the novel. Hollywood then warped the image.

Wow, it kind of looks like Mary was cooking up a bit of a dream-date there, along with her commentary on the industrial/technical/scientific revolution of the day. Aside from what looks like a need for some facial reconstructive surgery, I wouldn't mind looking like the monster. He looks like a fairly paleo sort of dude who's spent some serious time at the gym. And no doubt if you could find the original manuscript, he was hung like a horse... (I know, it's all we ever think about, isn't it?)

#10 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 10 January 2011 - 02:03 AM

Haha, some niche romance genre that would be, but true that the monster obviously looks like he's looking to get action and the guy is going to give in, I mean, look at the six pack and all :-D .

#11 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 15 January 2011 - 04:36 AM

Innocence gave way to malevolence, and that of course, was Shelly's warning about the perils of man playing "God."


I once read somewhat interesting feminist interpretation - that the story is actually a warning about the perils of male playing God, pushing the female out of the powers of creativity over Matter. But I read the novel a good few years ago, so I won't vouch for how much weight this understanding carries. But come to think of it, Enlightement was much of a men's game ( like a few other games ), so it might not be totally without base that this is in fact what she had in mind, as a part of the Romanticist backlash mindset.

All in all, I remember that I didn't find the book very captivating, one of the rare cases where I actually liked the movie better ( Keneth Branagh's that is, not necessarily the antedeluvian Boris Karloff stuff, the face and neck-rods is an image immortalised for eternity though, say Hi ! )

Posted Image



Trivia : in Silesia there is a town once named Frankenstein ( back then it belonged to Germany ) which in 16-something witnessed the so called Undertakers' Affair - during plague, they were caught digging out unholy numbers of corpses to make love powders, magic potions and such, the news spread through German lands and it is speculated by some that Shelley perhaps knew about it from somewhere.

Thanks for reminding me of this interpretation, since retrospectively, my explanation was pretty pedestrian. As for my Lord Byron theory, I think I might of learned of this theory from some obscure source that I read ages ago, because I'm reluctant to believe that I arrived at this question independently. However, it's certainly a worthy research topic, which is the case with almost all facets of Byron. And I share your thoughts on the quality of the novel, which I regard as more of a "popular" variety of literature from the period. But as for Branagh's rendering, I remember thinking that it was overly ambitious failure that suffered from poor direction, and was helmed by a stage actor that is at his best when performing the work of "The Bard." Although I think his portrayal Reinhard Heydrich was a rare exception, and may represent the greatest moment in his very mixed film career.

Edited by Rol82, 15 January 2011 - 09:04 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users