Frankenstein
Mary Shelley
I don't know if I would classify this as science fiction, but I suppose that the fundamental elements of the genre are there. And, considering that it was written in 1818 or so, I think it's fair enough to say that it is at the very least an interesting inquiry into the results of playing God. What I found most interesting about the book is that its focus is really quite philosophical, regardless of what Hollywood has done to Dr. Frankenstein (his monster, by the way, goes nameless). Instead of focusing on the horror of the monster, the book really focuses on the creator's tragic demise, his one fatal mistake that ended up distancing him from human relations long enough to allow him to become a monster in creating one.
Frankenstein's monster ultimately draws more compassion than the man in the story; by the end, it is the human who has been unreasonable and the monster who has been sorely mistreated. Frankenstein himself admits that his creation's desperate plea for a companion is warranted, and that his actions in destroying Frankenstein's life are at least understandable. Here Shelley puts the reader in a peculiar position: who is the villain in the story? Surely Frankenstein's monster is physically appalling, and perhaps takes revenge a bit too far, but doesn't the good doctor also do so himself?
Frankenstein is not merely a horror story. Indeed, it is hardly frightening at all, except perhaps in the reader's own imagined vision of the man sewed together from corpses. The book instead invites the reader to examine the limits of science and the morality of certain scientific initiatives, as well as the question of what makes a human a human. The fact that both protagonists are evil and good makes the book's implications linger on after the last page is turned and invites discussion and contemplation on the very nature of human existence. On the eve of human cloning it is perhaps not unwise to consult this book as to the effects of creation on the creator.
Grade: A
Mary Shelley
I don't know if I would classify this as science fiction, but I suppose that the fundamental elements of the genre are there. And, considering that it was written in 1818 or so, I think it's fair enough to say that it is at the very least an interesting inquiry into the results of playing God. What I found most interesting about the book is that its focus is really quite philosophical, regardless of what Hollywood has done to Dr. Frankenstein (his monster, by the way, goes nameless). Instead of focusing on the horror of the monster, the book really focuses on the creator's tragic demise, his one fatal mistake that ended up distancing him from human relations long enough to allow him to become a monster in creating one.
Frankenstein's monster ultimately draws more compassion than the man in the story; by the end, it is the human who has been unreasonable and the monster who has been sorely mistreated. Frankenstein himself admits that his creation's desperate plea for a companion is warranted, and that his actions in destroying Frankenstein's life are at least understandable. Here Shelley puts the reader in a peculiar position: who is the villain in the story? Surely Frankenstein's monster is physically appalling, and perhaps takes revenge a bit too far, but doesn't the good doctor also do so himself?
Frankenstein is not merely a horror story. Indeed, it is hardly frightening at all, except perhaps in the reader's own imagined vision of the man sewed together from corpses. The book instead invites the reader to examine the limits of science and the morality of certain scientific initiatives, as well as the question of what makes a human a human. The fact that both protagonists are evil and good makes the book's implications linger on after the last page is turned and invites discussion and contemplation on the very nature of human existence. On the eve of human cloning it is perhaps not unwise to consult this book as to the effects of creation on the creator.
Grade: A
No comments:
Post a Comment