The Rory Gilmore Book Club discussion

"It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open..."

So, I am halfway through and hope to finish it on Sunday as I don't have any time to read it before.
I liked it so far, especially Elizabeth... She is a very sweet character : )

I'm hoping to finish this today or tomorrow, once I can get myself off the computer, hee.

You know what I find very interesting upon reading?
How Frankenstein's creature (after hearing him talk, I no longer want to say "monster") develops into a human being after being created, just like it is expected that humans developed from ape-like humanoids to the current homo sapiens. Mary Shelley did that really cleverly.

SPOILER




Marion, don't you think the creature's development was a little too fast, though? He learned to speak, read and write just by watching people through a peephole. And then he found books lying on the woods and what do you know, one of them happened to be Paradise Lost. I was reading that part and went, um, really?

SPOILERS!!

Also, as Felix teaches Safie their language, the monster is listening in. So, there is a bit of "language instruction." But, yeah, overall, there is a huge suspension of disbelief. One that I couldn't get past: how did the monster manage to travel so quickly on foot, and always end up where Frankenstein was, who was probably traveling via carriage? And then, of course, the fact that he came to life in the first place--via "unexplained" means.

Sure, he did develop fast and yes, it is unrealistic that someone creates a new "human" out of corpse parts.
But Frankenstein is sometimes referred to as the first Science-Fiction story and even if you don't think it's Science Fiction, it is Fantasy or maybe even a Horror story (as that is what it was intended to be written). So that was ok with me. Shelley did not try to write a how-to manual for creating life ; )

Yes, I think the book falls to the horror fantasy or sci-fi genre. But even fantasy has to make a bit of sense somehow, and I feel the creature's intelligence is left unexplained. Shelley mentioned that he was more agile (thus the ability to travel quickly, perhaps?) and could withstand extreme heat and cold better than humans, but I don't think his intelligence was mentioned. I don't know, maybe his brain was constructed from the corpses of geniuses, or something? Heh.

It was interesting to me that in the movies, it's always left out--the part about the creature being well-spoken and sensitive. It definetely makes him feel more "human" than "monster" to me.

I'm going to add to the discussion with a little question to ponder here. If anyone has a question they'd like to add, feel free. I know it's early October, and people are just getting started. :)

Why is it significant that the monster is able to feel and communicate? How does this change your feeling toward him? Why do you think the monster that we have come to know as Frankenstein (the bolts on the neck, the grunting, the face on the Halloween masks) is so different from Shelley's original creation? Why do you think, over time, we have come to call the monster Frankenstein, rather than the scientist, as it was written?

Spoilers

I didn't mind suspending disbelief over the speed of the creature's emotional and intellectual development. In fact, I found it lovely to hear him speak of how he was taught to aspire to generous feelings by watching the interactions in the French family. And I was so intrigued by then comparing the creature's devastation over being rejected by society against Frankenstein - who was given every advantage but brought himself to ruin.

But as much as I like considering the story itself, I found Frankenstein's self-pity so frustrating. Over and over, he tells us how miserable he is over what he's done. And I just kept thinking that he brought it on himself with his attempt to escape responsibility for the consequences of his ambition!

(No... My post just did not get saved :-( )

Also spoilers...

Yes Erin, I agree with you there. Frankenstein's behavior was very annoying. Throughout the whole book, I pitied the "monster" and not his creator. I found it terrible how no one was listening to the creature although he tried to explain himself several times.
Even Frankenstein, who actually created him and should have been used to his appearance literally fainted upon seeing him alive, although he was not at all dangerous at that time.
I though it was so weird that not even the French family was willing to listen to him. They were portrait as good people throughout the book, as people who had had an awful fate themselves and therefore should be even more willing to listen to other people.
The old man even liked the creature while talking with him. I would have expected him to defend him in front of his family, their moving away seemed so ludicrous to me. Felix even talked of his father's life being threatened although his father
should have known better after his conversation with the "monster".

I wondered throughout the book if Mary Shelley wanted us to pity the monster or if that is only something modern readers do. Everyone I have talked to so far felt sorry for the monster and was annoyed by Frankenstein to some degree. Does anyone know if the Victorian reader pitied Frankenstein instead of the monster or if Mary Shelley wanted everyone to be sorry for the monster?

SPOILERS









I'm just at the part where Frankenstein's creation is talking to him. I must confess, I got tired of hearing about Frankenstein's woes, and I just wanted his creation to enter!

I was literally shocked that Frankenstein just left the room after his creature had come to life! Then spent--was it two years?--lamenting that he creating him, without trying at all to find him.

I marvelled at the creature's vocabulary when he began talking. I guess I thought that, maybe since he had a previously used brain, it just took some time for the connections to his organs to take hold, then he had access to lots of previous knowledge, and he didn't need so much time to learn stuff.

I'm not sure I ever saw an entire Frankenstein movie (except maybe the Gene Wilder one). The part of one I recall showed him looking at a mirror for the first time and feeling ashamed, then angry, but not having sophisticated language to talk about it.

I have the book that also contains Dracula and Dr. J and Mr. Hyde. It has an itro by Stephen King, who suggests that Frankenstein is probably the least well-written of the three. What do you all think? You can just say what you think about her writing, and not necessarily compare them. I think there *is* a lot of unnecessary stuff in there.

Robbie, that's a great way to explain the creature's intelligence. Wish I'd thought of that! LOL

One of the minus points of the writing, I think, is too much description of nature. Okay, I get that Switzerland is beautiful, and that the creature can appreciate nature's beauty as well as humans. But the descriptions just go on and on that sometimes I just skim through them.

I did read somewhere that all of the lengthy descriptions of nature, and how the characters are soothed by nature's beauty, etc. could be a result of the influence of Shelley's husband Percy Byshe Shelley (Romantic poet--wrote "Ode to the West Wind"). It was strange to me, too, Dini--this is supposed to be a monster story, and there were all of these passages about nature.

Robbie: I think of the three of the ones you mentioned, Jekyl/Hyde will ultimately be my favorite. Here's our Jekyl/Hyde discussion if anyone is interested. There are Frankenstein/Dracula references...

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/4...

I read the same thing Alison, that the description of natural beauty is due to Percy Shelly's influence and I think also due to Lord Byrons influence on Mary. But of course in the global romantic viewpoint nature became more important so Mary was probably just a child of her timeperiod as well. I find it a bit distracting from the story, but I understand where Mary Shelly's coming from.

I read something interesting in the tread about the monster being articulate. I think this gives the story to me a very fine twist. The monster is not just a dumb being, he is wellspoken, refined, even sensitive. This is interesting I think, because it bring us to the question what makes a humanbeing a humanbeing. Can you give live to death bodyparts? What's the worth of such a live? Very interesting in a time when we are more and more talking about nanotechnology or cyberbodyparts to fix damaged organs and such...and what about cloning, want maybe Frankesteins monster was kind of a clone.

SPOILERS


That's very interesting, Kristel: what makes a human human? In the case of this book, the "monster" is articulate, intelligent and originally compassionate -- all very human qualities. I mentioned this to Alison before, that Victor Frankenstein, on the other hand, lets his scientific ambitions ruin him and turn him into a kind of monster himself.

Marion mentioned earlier about the readers being led to feel sorry for the creature. I think it's intentional in Mary Shelley's part, by showing that the monster and the human somehow 'switched' positions, the former being easier to relate to. I don't have references about the Victorian readers' reaction about it, though.

This discussion about human/monster kinda reminds me of the lyrics of a song by Savage Garden (an Australian band which has broken up), "The Animal Song":
"Animals and children tell the truth, they never lie
Which one is more human, there's a thought, now you decide."

What makes a human humane really IS a very interesting and also very important question.
Maybe some of you know Philip K. Dick, he introduces Androids who think that they are humans because they have false memories and everything. Upon reading I found it VERY interesting how the so-called "real humans" behaved less humane in some ways than the androids did.
Well, just sort of a book recommendation for those who want to deal with that question more profoundly.

Great book about what makes a human humane written as a respond for challenge.

Going with the idea that natural beauty should be soothing to the characters, it's an interesting twist that Frankenstein does not find that to be true. Though he's often surrounded by - and comments on - the beauty of nature, he quickly follows that up with ... I'm so miserable, what have I done? That's Erin's loose paraphrase!

I am at the part when Frankenstein is off to London and traveling the Rhine and thence into Holland where he and Clerval take to water once again. the whole of the description of the trip's scenery unrolled a mental filmic vision for me as the Rhine in much of that area he described was a favorite haunt of ours during our years abroad.

HOWEVER -- my thoughts on the book which called me to come here resulted from the passage prior to this where he and the "monster" were sheltered in the hut on the mountain/glacier and the resulting pact made. In listening to the creature tell his tale of how he learned and how he came to feel and the dashing of his hopes when he attempted the community with his cottagers which he so much desired in spite of his awareness of how his countenance would bar the positive result he wished, I began to hear in his voice the voice of a man/human being whose life and experience have cast him out from the main currents of his own society and who wishes reentry and is in a pit of despair and a fog of depression concerning the immensity of change and circumstance which it will take to do so. I also found the voice to "read" as a human disconnected from his God/his creator and thus from the others of his community of faith -- those with whom he shared that belief or faith at one time -- but having debased himself/herself to such an extent that the person realizes him/herself to have become figuratively and literally an abhorrent figure to those by whom he/she was once beloved.

Am I reading too much into this book? I wonder now that I've never read this one as I know it graced many of the should reads lists of my school days.

Nice thoughts, Dottie. I, too, read into the book observations of religion in some of the creature's musings. One can see in him the disbelief in a loving God that many feel when faced with adversity--which is probably most of us [believers:] at least some of the time.

I see commentary, too, on society's greatly valuing beauty over nearly all other things. We often make snap judgements about others based on physical attributes, dress, body decorations, etc. By experiencing empathy with the creature, we can imagine the rejection those born "disfigured" or who have suffered appearance-altering injuries must feel on a daily basis. To a somewhat lesser extent, those who simply don't fit the current ideals of beauty are treated differently. People who exemplify this beauty are also often seen for their appearance alone. I imagine that, if I were to see the creature, I wouldn't be too quick to sit down with him and listen to his thoughts and desires. The creature, although certainly moved as much by beauty as others, comes to love the French family as much for their kind, loving behavior as their appearance.

Interestingly, the movies tend to perpetuate the stereotype of the ugly monster grunting and being angry and ugly inside as well as out.

Another theme I think I see is that of what is natural being beautiful, and what is unnatural being hideous.

Great comments on beauty, Robbie. I found this interesting discussion question to ponder: Why is Frankenstein filled with disgust, calling the monster "my enemy," as soon as he has created him? I think it's somewhat understandable that other people are scared of something that's unlike anything they've ever seen, but Frankenstein, after all, was the one who created and assembled the creature from dead bodies. Could he not have known that the end product would be that hideous? Did he underestimate his own power, deep down not really expecting all of it to succeed?

This is actually what appalled me while reading the book, Dini. I really really really don't understand it: Frankenstein did make the monster. He chose the pieces it is assembled from. He watched it grow while he sew it together (or however he attached the parts). In my opinion, he could have found him ugly and hideous - but as he is familiar with his looks, he should have never run, especially not after he first opened his eyes.
That part seemed pretty unbelievable to me. Frankenstein was the perfect scientist, eager for knowledge, ready to do research... But when he had accomplished what he wanted to do, he ran. Does anyone understand that? I think a real scientist would not have run, he would have stayed, at least out of curiosity.

The fact that he actually managed to bring the creation to life and animation is what made him run -- it frightened him to have to face that responsibility for being in the position of God to this creation. A realization of his science becoming not science but a moral question -- does that make sense? Someone mentioned the relevance in today's scientific quandaries such as cloning, cell research, etc.

Spoilers







Finally finished this!

Interesting that Frankenstein and Walton were both driven by great ambition and pride, yet Walton reversed his course before sending himself and colleagues into certain death. So, these two men took separate paths. Why do you think that happened? Is there *any* explanation?

When we hear from the creature again in the end, he is every bit as "woe is me" as his creator. Is he, to some degree, a reflection of his creator--created in his own image, if you will?

When I read books like this, I often try to give a psychiatric diagnosis to characters. I've decided that Frankenstein is bi-polar.

i just started the book today..i'm excited to jump into the discussion soon! :)

spoiler









Did anyone else's jaw drop at the stupidity of Frankenstein when he sent his bride to the bedroom alone to be "safe"?

Well...





yes. Which also reminds me of the scenes in films of this and other horror stories which one always has to watch them do this same stupid thing. I suppose it's to disarm the scary stuff when it actually appears before our eyes -- but really -- how silly.

SPOILERS





Whew! It's not just me. I was in a fair amount of pain while reading this, and my initial reaction was that old Victor was a putz!

Having only seen the movie and never having read the book, I found it interesting that there was no big lightening bolt, "It's alive! Alive!" scene. The whole thing was very prosaic. "My mom died, I went away to school, met some interesting professors, studied this and that, created a monster, got sick, my best bud came to visit ..." Wait a minute. Go back. "Created a monster?!"

I was also bothered by Victor's blindness to the creature's threat of being with him on his wedding night. Is he stupid, or just monstrously (sic) egotistical?

I didn't find the book all that well written. Stoker is the much better writer. I know, the Swiss Alps are pretty. Can we move on now? The only character that has any depth at all is the creature.

Aside from the obvious themes, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should," and "Clean up your own mess!" I found myself thinking a lot about the value that western culture places, not so much on beauty, but on normalcy. The creature took on a kind of Elephant Man quality for me.

Dottie, you and Robbie brought up very interesting points. If you can see your Creator's flaws and faults, what does that then say about the Created?

I'm glad I am not the only one who didn't enjoy this book. I listened to it on CD, and I'm pretty sure that if I had tried to read it I would have quit. Victor was too immature. I find it hard to believe that someone who studied and work so hard to be able to create life would run and cower in bed once he did it. And then all the illnesses that lasted for months, come on! What a pansy.

I understand why the Frankenstein movies are not true to the book – they would be very boring! BTW I saw Young Frankenstein the other night for the first time - so funny! "You made a yummy sound!"

Are you guys reading the 1818 version or the 1831 version? The 1818 version is what Mary Shelley intended to write. The 1831 are edits she was "pressured" to make...

If you're reading what she was forced into, I hope you get a chance to go back and read the real thing...

This is actually my specialization (19th Century British), so if you have questions, give me a prod and I'll try to get back to you ASAP. I'm not trying to leave a "teaser," but if you want inside info from an Brit lit prof, I'd love to help...

Hugs to all!
Shaindel

Okay, Deborah is RIGHT ON. You are SUPPOSED to think that Victor is a Putz. First of all, The full title of the novel is Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus. Mary Shelley's husband Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron used to go around calling themselves "Prometheans," basically, like Prometheus stole fire from the gods and brought it to man, they were bringing the light of poetry to mankind. (These guys were brilliant, but they had some egos.) And Shelley published his first poetical works under the pen name Victor and then another group under the pen name Victor FitzVictor (so Victor, Son of Victor). So, Mary Shelley is totally lampooning her husband in this novel.

Remember at the beginning of the novel, Captain Robert Walton is writing his sister, Margaret Walton Savill the letters about what is happening... MWS would be Mary Wollestoncraft Shelley's initials--Mary Godwin Shelley's mother, the mother of feminism who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

There are many, many ways to read this novel, but some could be men abandoning their babies and not taking their fatherly "responsibility"...which is basically what Victor does with his creation. Also paranoia of various races reproducing and taking over--when the creature wants a mate and Victor has that long philosophical treatise on if they could mate and form a race of monsters, etc.

Mary Shelley also had a baby (girl, I believe) who was stillborn, and she had a recurring dream in which she (or she and Shelley) reanimated the baby by rubbing her body warm in front of their fireplace...and that inspired her to write this novel as well. Also, although she and Shelley espoused their beliefs in free love, it is supposed that her step-sister Claire Clairmont was at least emotionally involved with Percy Shelley if not sexually... So, there's a lot of emotion going on there about morality/ethics/relationships/social propriety, etc. Claire Clairmont is also the mother of Byron's daughter Allegra... Oh, and the first English vampire story, John Polidori's "The Vampyre" was also started in this horror story writing contest during the stay of Shelley, Mary Shelley, Byron, and others...

I hope this helps...or at least was interesting.
Shaindel

Wow -- who knew! Peyton Place's forerunners.

The more things change... etc. as Arte what's his name on Laugh in would say 'veeerrry interesting'.

Shannon - it's funny that you mentioned "Young Frankenstein," because I was thinking the other day that it was my favorite take on the story. Aside from the fact that it was hilarious (Marty Feldman as "Eyegor"), in Mel Brooks' take, Victor did take responsibility for his creation and the creature wound up a solid citizen. Not to mention half of a song-and-dance routine!

Oh, and Shaindel, I didn't know there were two versions, mine was in a volume that combined it with Dracula and I've already returned it to the library. Thanks for some of the insights. I new she based it on a dream, but I didn't know it was about her lost infant. Oddly enough, Anne Rice wrote Interview with the Vampire as a way of working through her grief over the death of a child.

Unfortunately, I could not really determine which edition I have been reading... It says "First published in 1818" but there is also Mary Shelley's 1831 preface in there.
I read the Penguin edition. Does anyone know which one that is?

Interesting stuff, Shaindel. What were the differences between the edited version and the real one? Some hints would be fine, I guess :)

SPOILERS here...



Like Deborah, I also see Victor as highly egotistical. First of all, he didn't dare to tell the truth about what he's done and even let Justine die. And then there was the whole wedding night issue. I believe telling Elizabeth to the bedroom alone to be "safe" is less about him being stupid than thinking only about himself.

I also read something on the net about the novel's feminist views:

Frankenstein asked himself what his single-minded quest for knowledge has cost him, and whether or not it is morally justifiable. Looking back, he concludes that it is not, contrary to his belief at the time: "if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed". Passages such as this one suggest the possibility that Shelley is writing about the potentially disastrous consequences of not only human ambition, but also a specific kind of masculine ambition. The point of view here may be that of a nineteenth-century woman offering a feminist critique of history.

Thanks so much, Shaindel--I love hearing about stuff like that! You should pipe in more often! And, like Dini, I'd like to hear about the differences. I suspect I have the "newer" version.

SPOILER

Robbie - I also thought it was interesting that Walton and Frankenstein were so similar in their ambition. Their goal becomes obsession. I didn't get any sense that Walton saw that similarity, but I think Frankenstein might have because on his death bed he warns Walton to 'avoid ambition' ... of course he quickly follows that with a contradictory encouragement 'I've been blasted, but another might succeed'! Maybe it was seeing how Frankenstein was destroyed by the consequences of his single-minded quest that made Walton sensitive to his crew's request, even while Frankenstein berated them for thei lack of courage?

I happened upon a film version of Frankenstein last evening which seemed quite true to the book in many regards though there were glaring exceptions. I will hunt up a link to the film info and add it here. Well that didn't work -- my computer is acting or should I say behaving strangely this evening --but it was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein from 1994.

Dottie - is that the film version with Robert De Niro as the creature?

Yes -- and it's the Branagh version mentioned over in the movies fo Halloween thread as I finally put the pieces of info together. As mentioned it looked like an excellent version though I did see some changes so I'm going to rent it to watch it in its entirety.

That movie's a good one, Dottie... tell me what you think about it when you've seen it.

I'm only on Chapter 4 but not loving it yet. I'm listening to the audiobook right now but will read some once I finish my book for book club tonight. I'm hoping it picks up soon.

Here is a website that compares the 1818 and 1831 versions. There are several:

http://frankenstein.machado.googlepag...

There are a few others, but I have TONS of grading/reading to do tonight.

Take care and thanks for the lively discussion!

~Shaindel

Thanks for sharing the link, Shaindel. I still can't decide which version I read, gotta check my copy first.

I really loved this book, because I thought there were so many different ways to think of the relationship b/t Frank & his monster. If you take the Paradise Lost approach, you've got Adam feeling forsaken by his Creator (the why did you make me if I was only to be so miserable? approach). And like Shaindel said, the view of the monster being the child that is discarded or abandoned, once the parent realizes what they have the power to create, and how much responsibility goes with it.

The main thing I took from this reading...what do we OWE to what we create, especially if we go outside of the realms of "accepted" science to do so? It's a moral question and a cautionary tale, and I LOVE those types of stories.

Dottie said it for me right here...

"The fact that he actually managed to bring the creation to life and animation is what made him run -- it frightened him to have to face that responsibility for being in the position of God to this creation..."

I also agree with Erin's assessment that Walton was able to learn from Frankenstein's mistakes--likely saving his own life.

SPOILER:


What does anyone think of the monster standing over Frankenstein's dead body at the end, crying? How sad is it that the man he wanted so badly to hurt was actually the only person on earth that he even had any kind of relationship with--even though it was an unhealthy one?

I really enjoyed this book..I'm read it for my Brit Lit class in college as well and we were talking about some of the interesting parallels between Frankenstein and Walton and how they were both ambitious and in search of something more that would set them apart. Did anyone else pick up any of those parallels?

Also..we talked about how the book was a little commentary regarding the movement of science and technology. Shaindel..or anyone else..i would love to hear your take on that?

Alison:
I liked your point about what do we owe what we create when going beyond [accepted:] science to do so. Foreshadowing of moral/ethical questions we have today with all of the reproductive technology, cloning, etc. Speaks for the point I made in another thread about literature being alive in a way, through each individual reader.

The monster standing over F's dead body crying is typical of children who are abused or abandoned by their parents (or feel as if they are.) They love their parents and long to be loved back by them. The death of the parent represents a permanent loss of their hope that the parent will ever find the child worthy of love.

I recently read a book called Gargoyles about a handsome, self-centered, shallow man who is horribly burned and maimed. He only finds love, friendship and meaning in life after he becomes a "monster." In a way, it's like the anti-Frankenstein. And it made me look at Shelley's book in a different (and more favorable) light.