frankenstein. mary shelley.

back in october, i decided to do this whole monster books reading in honor of halloween.  i picked mary shelley's "frankenstein" to start.

if you are a hardcore fan of this blog, you may have noticed that i didn't number this one.  it lacks a number because i didn't check it out from the library. i read my own copy.  my copy is ten years old and a souvenir from my time on the delano high school academic decathlon team.  sadly, like any other required high school reading, i did not read "frankenstein." what makes my non-reading even sadder is the fact that i had a class period specifically for academic decathon in which we spent weeks reading the novel and i still did not read it.  in my (our team's) defense, our advisor left us in the asb room to read on our own.  i know we were the nerds/geeks of the school, but we were still teens and some of us were starting to show symptoms of senioritis.  when given the choice between reading or playing with random toys leftover from afternoon rally games, we always chose the later.  (sorry ms. andreas if you are reading this.)

and sorry mary shelley but the 28 year old me got why the 17 year old could not get into the book. it is quite slow to start. at first the book is a series of letters from captain walton to his sister explaining his voyage to the north pole. it all seems unnecessary until we find out that captain walton saw some monster out in the ice and then finds victor frankenstein who then shares the story of his monster making. (side note: i would also like to encourage everyone to stop calling the green monster with bolts in his neck, frankenstein, he is actually frankenstein's monster. frankenstein is the scientist. i think a modern family episode covered this but wanted to reiterate the distinction.)

back to the creature making, i personally found it disappointing. i was expecting a grandiose and grotesque description of how the creature was created start to finish but there wasn't that much detail. i get that shelley prolly did not have an strong bio background but she could have utilized her imagination more . . . though i guess the whole creating life from human remains is original on its own and i, having grown up with frankenstein's monster every halloween, find it commonplace so i may have had too great of expectations . . . sorry shelley for being so harsh.

i was really harsh on shelley a second time, when frankenstein came into contact with his creation for the second time. i was upset cos all of sudden the creature knew how to talk. i was tempted to stop reading right there and then due to that being so far fetch (i know, like creating a monster is so realistic). but i read on and accepted how he was educated. i really wanted things to work out with him and that family. it was so sweet how he did chores for them. so i was extremely sad when the old man was scared of him. i know the creature turns into a monster but he just wanted to be loved.

it's interesting because even with all the killing he does, i did have a soft spot for the creature. he turns into to monster for understandable reasons; rejection by the ones he loved the most and the realization that he would never have a future mate and would be left all alone in this world. (i mean we all sided with carrie bradshaw in the first sex and the city movie when she went crazy for the same reasons!) also if frankenstein would have nurtured his creation at the beginning versus rejecting him, the creature would have never turn into a monster. (there is an early child development thesis in there somewhere). and they all could have lived happily ever after.

maybe i am just optimistic but i really believe that if frankenstein created a mate for his creature, she would not have turned into a monster. i understood his worries about her rejecting the original creature as a mate or her being just as violent the first, but he was only violent due to lack of affection . . . and then not getting his way (but his demand was for a mate would equate as affection as well). i believe she was would have learned by example just like he did. the creature's ability to learn how to care for others based on the example of the brother and sister caring for their blind father proved he was a blank slate with some kind of "soul" versus innately evil and soulless. he would have never attempted to do chores for them if by nature he was evil; he had to have a heart to respond as he did. so if frankenstein set up a loving environment for the mate, she would have developed according. (again a ECD thesis.)

all of this reminded me of kazuo ishiguro's "never let me go" and it's questioning of whether a man-made life would still have a "soul"? being one that doesn't believe too strongly in religion, i believe that yes the creatures created like frankenstein's creature and the children of "never let me go" would have a soul but not one necessarily issued by god. i believe that the essence within humans and animals to nurture their young ultimately is what constitute a soul. one possess a soul, if they show the ability to care for another's life and well-being, which therefore demonstrates the understanding of the sacredness of life. it can be assumed that i am supporting the idea that god gives everything souls when in fact, i believe that we gain our "souls" as we gain knowledge. which i guess is kinda how adam and eve started. but it's not something that is just given via god but developed from our environment. so due to this both frankenstein's "monster" and the clones of "never let me go" have souls and should have been treated as so. also in the future when we do start cloning people, i will still stick to my declaration above.

so i guess mary shelley's frankenstein is a lot deeper than just a monster story. aside from sorting out what is a soul, maybe it's suppose to be a discussion on religion as well? the subtitle is "the modern promethus", i guess frankenstein stole the secret of life from the gods? or is god like victor frankenstein? creating humans and then being frighten by us, abandon us to roam the earth? thus religion is our search to come to terms with what we are, just as the creature sought out frankenstein? all in all, i am glad that i finally read this, it wasn't too much of a page turner for me but has some important underlying themes.

also i wikipedia'ed shelley because i was curious as to whether she received recognition as the writer because she was a woman. it's interesting cos i always think of the past as being prim and proper but there was a lot of scandals in her life. she believed in free love and her sister got knocked up by lord byron. i mean it's the stuff of british tabloids!