Shall each man find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone?
Frankenstein
by Mary Shelley
Genre: Classic Sci-Fi
About: Dr Frankenstein is a man of genius, but his area of pursuit is not in ordinary science: he seeks to understand heaven and earth. He seeks to create a new life. A new species. Only his ambition becomes his curse as his creation turns monstrous. Stronger than man yet full of the same passions, this new creature searches for companionship, but his beastly form strikes fear and loathing in every one he meets. Hope turns to hatred. Goodness to evil. Reasoning to madness.
Thoughts
This novel is still so incredibly relevant today. Frankenstein's creation could represent the fear and uncanniness around AI. Or his impotence, leading to rage and violence, could reflect the dangers of the Incel community. It's a novel that stands the test of time as the themes continue to shine a light on our fears and uncertainty as a people.
Of course not every part of the novel has aged well. The narrative style, though full of beautiful prose and stunning lines, is slow-paced, repetitive and often unnecessarily flowery. It's also ironic for a novel that gives us this highly original morally grey character, to have so many characters that see in such black and white terms. I don't know how Dr Frankenstein was meant to be perceived by contemporary readers, but for me he is the most unlikeable character in the book. The distain he has for anyone poor, unattractive, or who display different views to himself, is grating to read. As is his complete lack of accountability. He accepts responsibility to destroy his creation, but never alludes to how he failed to guide, care for, or protect the creature he brought into existence. He decides the creature is a monster and evil when it's only act has been to take its first breath. He consistently judges based on looks rather than substance because Dr Frankenstein has the good fortune to be attractive, intelligent and wealthy, and therefore only people like him can be good natured.
Literally everyone in the novel that's described as good has to have these three attributes. Elizabeth is found in poverty but don't worry, she comes from nobility and is beautiful and later inherits land. The cottagers are shown to live a peasant lifestyle, but they were once wealthy Parisians and the creature admires their beauty, kind nature and learns much of his world understanding from them. Whereas the nurse who looks after Dr Frankenstein is poor and ugly and therefore shown as hard-hearted. The professor who's ideas go against Dr Frankenstein is also shown as unattractive and, thus, bad natured. There is absolutely no subtly to any of this.
And yet the creature himself presents the reader with a dilemma. His morality is layered; a product of nature and nurture battling on the page. He was made monstrous and is a genuine threat to mankind. But he was abandoned, beaten, never given love and forced into isolation. It doesn't matter how many times I read it, I'm still unsure of my thoughts. Mary Shelley forces the reader to question who is right? Which narration do we trust, and what would we do in this situation? In either Dr Frankenstein's position, or in his creature's? They are both the angel turned devil. Both cursed and their strange tale is seeped into our culture still, two hundred years later.
Comments