Connor Hamilton wow I just realized this. He got sick after the death of William so Clerval took care of him. Then after the death of Clerval he got sick and his father took care of him. Then after the death of Elizabeth and his father, he eventually got sick and Walton took care of him. What a guy. 😂

That and the occasional hike

Couldn't have said it better, perfect.

I absolutely agree. Victor made the monster out to be a scientific miracle before, ya know, abandoning him. If he was this amazing advancement, wouldn't he be proud it worked? If he had stayed with him and taught him how a human should act, like a father (if you want to call him that) should, he would have been praised for his existence.

Frankenstein reminds me of the story of Genie the wild child (which sounds like a horrible comparison but hang on...) When they found this little girl who had been kept in a dark room for basically all of her life by her pitiful excuses for parents, all these scientists were clamouring to get access to her because they wanted to know if she could aquire language or be socialized and she was an opportunity to test all these ideas about nature vs. nurture, what have you. And so for a few years Genie was surrounded by these great minds who did all they could to understand her needs and deficiencies and nurture her. But no one wanted to take on the job and responsibility of being her PARENT, of seeing her as an actual human child, and one with enormous special needs due to the massive trauma and abuse she had suffered. The scientists may have had affection for Genie but none of them was willing to put her needs as a vulnerable child ahead of their opportunity for career advancement/scientific discovery. So there was no happy ending for Genie. Once funding started to run out, no one knew what to do with her. She was given back to her mother for a time, which was a disaster, not the least of which because her mother fighting to get custody of her for years meant that she couldn't be adopted by anyone else, and then when her mother faced the reality that she was not equipped to look after a special needs adolescent/adult for the rest of her life, she dumped her on social services, who were utterly ill equipped to deal with such a unique case and Genie ended up being abused again which probably undid any and all progress she had made with the scientists. So maybe the lesson is that parental love and scientific ambition cannot coexist -- one has to choose one or the other. And the results of choosing the latter over the former creates monsters (scientists who take no responsibility for their actions and the harm they do if it was in pursuit of some high-minded ideal).

As I watched this, the boyfriend and I had just had a discussion about female morality and the relationship to Carol Gilligans’ Ethics of Care. Mostly that women can be seen as nurturers. I wonder if Mary had inserted herself into the novel as Frankenstein if her monster would’ve turned out much differently. Thank you for this insightful comment.

So like in young Frankenstein??? Serious response in spite of the joke.

just please dont create AM

That's true. I was doing my course completion work in something related to AI (before I gave up) and I couldn't stop thinking about the Book, so I put a quote from it in the epigraphe.

Your second paragraph really nailed many, many ideas.

wow this was really well said

I think your comment is spectacular. Victor was basically like alot of humans in the act of reproduction eager to do it, but once the seed was sprung he was horrified, because that seed was what was motivating him onward. your right it was not a parental impulse, but he recognized it as reproductive he wanted to see himself. It says alot of flack on the creative act, many other people care about what they grow, but in art usually those people are less heralded. George Lucas guiding and shaping star wars for eternity gets less praise than did Bob Dylan or probably more accurately are opinion on what bob dylan was doing in creating and then resisting. Victor's like that too, he runs away from his own image. The hulk and jekyll/hyde are stuck, but victor and the monster are constantly resisting their oneness and are at odds.

true, I think most of the issue arises from the selfishness of the act. Part of the issue I believe comes from the idea of creation. Just as god supposedly implanted us with... its?... image so to did victor, and so he was only able to see that which he found most repulsive about himself

That would have been cool, but it might have been because of time restraints. Green only did the main themes but he only brought up the nature vs nurture of evil. The monster wasn't born evil he was provoked into becoming evil (nurture by environment.)

The idea that Frankenstein's monster was born with morals and ideals is interesting, especially if you compare that to the ideas in Escape from Camp 14, a story about a boy who started without those qualities but obtained them through the book. I guess, if anything, that makes Frankenstein's monster seem less human to me.

hamsterboy56 Born with morals? No, he learned that as well. When The Monster was abandoned to his own devices what did he do? Did he look for people to kill, destroy property, etc- in a mindless rampage? No, what he did was not only survive but learn about the environment around him. Now, the biography you just mentioned- Escape From Camp 14, I looked it up but have yet to read this work of nonfiction that you are comparing it to a Romantic/Horror Fiction. Other than the nature vs. nurture, I don't have much to go on other than the intro that is freely accessible. Which only makes me curious why you would compare the two to begin with. By all means, enlighten.

He mentioned both of those things.

That would have been an interesting discussion.

Aaron Oates I think rejection motivated the creation to become monstrous. Rejection first by Frankenstein, then by man in the village, then by the blind man's family. The creature gained knowledge through reading and observing the family in the woods but failed to have a steady mentor that fathered and taught him morality. The lack of morality and lack of connection to society's social code allowed the creation to commit the monstrous crimes. But I think it is unfair to hold the creation accountable for the murder because he isn't human and he isn't tied the same moral code that we force onto him. (at least in my opinion, I just feel sorry for the guy. Not Frankenstein, the creation. Frankenstein is a horrible human being).

Wow, I think that you expressed what the book felt like to me but I never could find the words to say it.

You bring up some good points but I got a slightly different impression of Victor Frankenstein from my read through of the book. He was unsympathetic - at least when compared to the creature - but not so much so to call him "thoroughly unsympathetic". I think his case is a sort of "curiosity killed the cat" kind of case to put it very simply. He was lured into creating this creature by the hopes of glory and affection but in the end he was unprepared for what that meant. Despite creating the creature he was unprepared to see it animated. In short he was scared. I don't know what he expected to be greeted with when he successfully animated his creature, but it's evident from his actions in the book that he didn't think his actions through. He's sympathetic in that he deals with the human emotions of fear, curiosity, unfulfilled expectations, irrationality and also in his want for glory and affection. All of those traits in him are very human and that's what, in my opinion, make him a sympathetic character. I also believe that Mary Shelley may have left him as somewhat of an antagonist because she wanted to deal with the question of humanity. By the end of the book, you're left wondering "who was the monster and who was the man?". In a normal story you'd say "obviously Victor" but in a story like Frankenstein where the "monster" is more sympathetic than the man, you're left wondering. You say that Victor goes from protagonist to antagonist, but I'd argue that the story has no real antagonist, at least in the way one would normally think of an antagonist. While Victor is clearly opposed to his creation, I think the greater struggle depicted in the story, rather than being between Victor and his creation is between the two of them and their struggle with the adverse human emotions inherent within us all and the way in which those emotions prevent them from attaining their ultimate goal - that being to love and be loved. This is depicted in Victor's struggle to attain glory and affection through his creation of the monster leading to his disappointment and fear in his own creation and also through the monster's struggle between good and evil and also the fear of being rejected which came about after he was rejected first by his creator and then by the rest of humanity. When it came down to it, both Victor and his creature wanted the same thing; to love and be loved. I think an interesting theme of the novel is their failure to attain that love as a result of their own short comings; Victor's being his fear of his own creation and the creature's being his own appearance and inability to deal with the complex emotions he feels resulting in his own violence. Depending on how you're viewing the story, either Victor of the creature had the ability to solve their own problems, but let their own short comings get in the way of it. Or perhaps the point was that overcoming their shortcomings was out of their reach from the beginning and attempting to change fate or mess with the natural order of things can only read to tragedy. Then again, it's been a long time since I've read Frankenstein so maybe I'm completely off here.

thequeenundisputed I think the thing that stands out to me is the great disparity in circumstances between Victor and the Creature. Victor has a family, education, friends, wealth, and privilege. The Creature has NONE of these things. Victor had been given pretty much all of his advantages except his intellect, whereas the Creature's sole advantage is his intellect. If anything, the story might be a meditation on the vast inequality inherent in society, and how one's character might be affected by society. Victor is almost a caricature of weak-willed privilege, with all his swooning, fainting and fever dreams, as well as his obliviousness with regard to the Creature's very clear threats. At the point in Victor's inner monologue, wherein he posits that his suffering is greater than that of Justine, the nanny who is to be hanged for the murder of Victor's brother, I felt it was a particular low point in Victor's characterization. What a narcissistic douchebag! His pangs of guilt are worse than Justine's impending DEATH? Give me a break, Victor! On the other side of the coin we have the Creature, who against all odds manages to create himself from nothing, to become an intelligent and literate person with virtually no help. And in spite of his intelligence and sensitivity, he's summarily rejected by all and sundry, simply because of his appearance, that is, his station in society. Society shuns and embraces people based on the most superficial traits, it was true then and it's still true now. Maybe that was Mary Shelley's point? As an educated woman with writing ambition, she would be all too familiar with the syndrome.

Siansonea Orande That's a very interesting thought. I could definitely see the story of Frankenstein being a social critique - Frankenstein being someone born into privilege and the Creature being one that starts with nothing, fights tooth and nail to build up a name for himself and yet is still at a loss and considered less than Victor because of this beyond his control. I've really got to re-read this book. I haven't read it since I was about 10 years old and it made a big impact on me at that time. It's such a good book and still very much so relevant to this day.

Why's this one got no summary title? (i.e.Fate, Family and Oedipus Rex: Cr....)

I'm in 6th and just finished!

Wait, you said Hulk is like Frankenstein's monster? I very much disagree, it's much more comparable to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Elfos64 The story of the hulk is bound by the same basic premise of dr. jekyll and mr. hyde, but the comparison that john draws is between the psychological landscape of the hulk's torment and that of frankenstein's monster. to have been cast from humanity for being so monstrous, and to react by becoming so much more monstrous in anger and despair.

Nicholas Lorenson That's just as true of Mr. Hyde. No one liked him, he caused a lot of trouble. For that matter, the same can be said about the hunchback of Notre Dame, and orcs from Lord of the Rings, and the Boggans from that CG movie "Epic" from last year, and really any oppressed minority.

Complete with "I am overburdened"

Nope

What do you mean "nope"? (Not being accusatory or anything, but I'm curious as to what you mean)

It took me a second ,but I got it

+Nekita Krisko Maybe he doesn't think Frankenstein is that bad of a person

Hi! Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on that statement? I see the monster's evil as the fault of his creator. I see the creator's evil as a genuine, though not deadly, series of mistakes and acts of bad character. So apparently I'm going for knowledge instead of wisdom. I'm wonder what you wisdom you meant... Cheers!

Lyka Naranjo people become what others push them to be

True in some cases, but I've met people who've been called monsters but they're actually far from being one.

break the wheeeel!

Gmos are iffy due to lack of proper oversight, our lack of understanding of delicate bodily functions, (causing things like increasing gluten intolerance in the population due to modified wheat), & lack of comprehension of environmental impact.

Petulant Petrichor There are risks in GMO, and it needs to be done carefully and with as much scientific rigor as possible. But the benefits are undeniable. The simplistic rejection of everything GMO is the same terrible error made by Victor Frankenstein and other characters in the novel.

I think society's aversion to change (whether it be technology or something else) is certainly a lesson that can be taken from Frankenstein. However, I think that people's fear of the unknown is not the "only villain" because Frankenstein, a man obsessed with technology, is largely at fault for the entire destruction that occurs in the novel. His selfish nature and cocky ambition caused him to create a huge, horrifying monster. He could have started reanimating something small, and taken time to craft a being that didn't stand out in society as much as the creation did. It was Frankenstein's lack of the ability to foresee problems with his creation that caused so much aversion and destruction. So maybe the real villain in the novel (and life) is the human trait of extreme obsession and need for power and fame that leads to unforseen disasters.

it doesn't even go biiiiii... that is an error, like when the heart monitor is cut from power.

If you mean EKG (which I agree, is using the wrong letters since it was invented by an English-speaker), then defibrillation can, in fact, help restart a heart that's stopped. It's usually used for hearts beating erratically, though, but not always. And it also only helps if it's within seconds of the attack; if they haven't had oxygen to the brain in a few minutes, it's too late for that.

IceMetalPunk Correction: defibrillators don't restart the hearts of the dead, they stop the rapidly beating/quivering (fibrillating) hearts of the dying. Once a patient is flatlined (which I assume is what EKG/ECG going "biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" refers to), defibrillators are useless. A paramedic, doctor, or nurse might give the dead (no heartbeat, no pulse, but still oxygenated) epinephrine/adrenaline to restart his heart, but not a shock. Shocking STOPS a misbehaving heart in the hope it will start up again all by itself properly. FYI

barn owl Well, I did say it's usually used for fibrillation. Are you sure it wouldn't do anything for a heart that's just recently stopped? Like...nothing at all?

You can look up asystole in a med encyclopedia and see how they treat it. A shock doesn't help. Generally you only survive a flatline if it is a secondary problem.

Dunne N' dusted It did cause the creation of microscopic black holes; they just weren't massive enough to survive more than a few nanoseconds.

I believe you're referring to Murphy's Law .

Yes it was! Diablo references are always appreciated!!

Yes, that's an important distinction to make. Frankenstein's monster wasn't about restoring life to those who had died, but instead it was about creating new life. This seems to increase the insult to a creator god and dash the hopes of an afterlife for us mortals.

Did you get the joke? Me from the past is so sick of john correcting him he skipped school

Really? I thought it was common to look at your past self as a sort of self loathing.. Kind of like when you wake up from a night of partying, you immediately regret the stupid things you did. I most definitely loathe the past me, although I never made any 'terrible' decisions.. I simply was so naive and ideological that I couldn't see the outcomes of my ideology, it's just that the idea seemed so good.

of course but they deciced to humanize me from the past,because it fit the theme

Dina Rubina I more worried that it is sign that they are removing him from the series, not just one time.

of course not he'll come back, I HOPE

:D

+Ruthie “WitherQueen” Hyry-Weintraub what is it?

Stan Lee himself said that the Incredible Hulk was inspired by "Frankenstein" and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"

I never thought of it like this before but Hulk is the way he is because his creator, Banner, rejects him. Hulk appears when Banner needs him obviously, but Banner never really wants him. There's actually a really great storyline where Hulk takes over completely with higher intellect functions and heroic deeds on another planet, and when the constant state of danger is over and Hulk is plummetted back to Earth, Banner re-emerges... and wants to surgically-magically remove Hulk from himself forever, not caring who helps him (Dr. Doom) and what he has to do in return. This removal of the creator from the monster is then followed by a Dr. Moreau like hunt to recreate the experiment that made Hulk in the first place because not until he loses the Hulk does Banner really understand what he had in the first place.

Emir Pasanovic I have never read Hulk that way but wow is my mind blown now. Seriously, thank you for a really cool and really insightful analysis!

@@EmirPasanovic Wow, I haven't really thought the Hulk was so complex as a character. That's really amazing. His cousin Jennifer isn't as complex though, but I still like her because of how she embraces her monster form rather than rejects it like Bruce. Maybe the complexity for Jennifer is that She-Hulk is an outlet for her to be free and more confident in herself whereas as Jennifer, she's another face in the big city. Superheroes are so much more than just *POW* *BAM* *WHACK*.

Absolutely marvelous view I couldn't agree more with your view

Despite the novel's warnings against violating nature, I want to agree. This was a triumph. The prospect of bestowing life is powerful and, if presumptuous, not inherently bad. Victor was just an irresponsible jerk. (I'm not just fording a reference. One could draw several parallels with Portal about the overreach of science unconstrained by morality, the destructive pursuit of personal gain, and the callous disregard for life.)

this interpretation is super rad but after reading it I'll always think of the creation as Frankenstein's horcrux.

i'm sure that interpretation would also be super rad to me if i knew the full implications of a horcrux.

You reanimated a corpse, married her, and then divorced her. Am I right?

I married her and THEN found out she was a reanimated corpse. I should have seen the signs. When we left the church there weren't people throwing rice. There were angy towns people with torches and pitch forks.

oh okay that seems more legit

Well, Dina, being legit is what I'm all about...

That is exactly what John said.

Frustrated and rejected outcast who KILLS EVERYONE FRANKENSTEIN CARED ABOUT AND TORMENTS HIM TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.

The Monster is not good. He kills with the full awareness he is doing an awful thing.

isn't it more of a diablo 2 reference? - it looks a lot like Tristram

+Coco And the question of whether the monster was inherently evil, or it became evil via parental neglect and resentment is a call-back to the psychological debate of "nature v nurture",