Creating Monsters
Okay, slightly drunk, and went on Facebook (which I know I shouldn’t do when I've been drinking). Saw a post by a fella recounting the story of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and repeating the tired old motif that “man shouldn't tamper in God’s domain.” I hate that sort of message, and although I had some whiskey in me I really like what I wrote in response, so I’m posting it here. I’ll reprint what he wrote first, obviously, but you can skip it if the [tampering in God’s domain] thing is as tired for you as it is for me:
In the prefix of her gothic novel “Frankeinstein" published in 1818 Mary Shelly makes a consension to the unreality of her tale. She writes that however impossible a physical fact her story may represent, her intent on writting was to quote “preserve the truth of the elementary principles of human nature”. Some call her book the first in the beginning of a new literally genre, “the science fiction”, but if she has been successful in her intent, then perhaps there is something of non fiction in it. It is the story of Victor Frankeinstein who stumbles upon the secret of life and decides to make a man, he pieces together a makeshift creature out of spare body parts, and electrifies it into ‘being’. But no sooner is this brute alive than Frankeinstein discovers he cannot control it. It murders his brother then his father, then murders his bride on his wedding night, and finally kills Frankeinstein himself. And what started out as an ambitious science quest ends as a sombre tragedy. If it’s a commentary on human nature, if it is proof of the elementary principles of humanity have been preserved in this story as the author intended, then one message of the story that suggests itself is pertinent to our view of life today, the message of overstepping our boundaries. The premise of life being, “We create our own horrifying monsters” whenever we subvert Gods order and try to control things we were not meant to control. It the earliest lesson of human history depicted in Eden.
My response:
It’s not true that “no sooner is this brute alive than Frankenstein discovers he cannot control it.” What happens is that Frankenstein creates the monster (Adam), but is immediately horrified by it because it’s ugly. He runs off and has a breakdown. Meanwhile, Adam is left alone, knowing nothing of the world (not even how to speak). He’s hungry, cold, lonely and frightened. After further abuse, he eventually hunts down his creator and exacts revenge. I admit the revenge involves killing people who had done him no harm.
Frankenstein created a monster, but not when he stitched together corpses, and not when he infused Adam with life. He created a monster when he abandoned his creation to its fate because it was imperfect. Adam was left to die, but he lived and eventually became stronger than his creator. It could be argued that he learned to be more noble, as well. It’s a very powerful metaphor.
Discuss?