I read this for the first time a couple of years ago and noticed how unlike popular culture portrayals of Frankenstein the book is - no lair-like lab where a mad scientist laughs maniacally over his creation, no bolts of electricity animating an assembled corpse. The book is actually much stranger than the familiar pop-culture caricature. Shelley's literary style has more in common with the writing of Austen and the Brontes, and her portrayals of domesticity are familiar to anyone who has read 19th century novelists. So the contrast is all the more stark in the scenes of desolation whenever the creature makes an appearance.
It’s more fun to read it as a prototype of The Talented Mr. Ripley, where there really is no monster except Victor himself whose incapacity to establish meaningful relationships manifests in closeted sexual frustration and homicidal reactions to recurrent shame. Otherwise, after some 17 years of teaching this novella, I’d have to admit it’s amateurish and overwrought, yet so emblematic of the zeitgeist and its contemporary analogues that it has become a must-read in spite of its deficiencies.
You make an excellent point about the importance of friendship. I think Mary Shelley was also thinking about the importance of motherhood and having loving parents. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing by 1818, and women were no longer running household economies the way they used to. The monster was a creation of a man, with a woman having nothing to do with it - a terrifying prospect!
I think that Frankenstein is an amazing novel that is definitely not appreciated for its depth and subtlety. I am not sure that I agree it is a book about friendship. It definitely addresses the need for human connection, but friendship is a lot more complicated than that. One could argue that Victor is as isolated as his creature, and that is down to his inability to create and sustain friendships. Such friendships might have allowed him to step back from himself and examine the consequences of his behavior.
The recent novel Drayton and MacKenzie by Andrew Staritt provides, IMO, an excellent exploration of friendship: what it means; how it works; how it affects the friends, etc.
I have long been a fan of this story, originally because I saw in it some capture of the beauty and terror of creating anything, in my case, art. I had not considered the aspect of aloneness, the important but often troubled relations of friendship in any creative person's life. Thank you for such an elegant and insightful review.
Thanks, Joel. One of the best Liberty Fund conferences I've ever been to was a weekend just devoted to Frankenstein, led by Sarah Skwire. Also, the brilliant Hollywood screenwriter, Adam Simon, was there, too.
It's interesting to think of Frankenstein through the lens of friendship and how the lack of true friendship affects people. It makes me think of Aristotle's quote about how a man who can live without the City is either a beast or a god. Victor tries to become a god (and fails) and the Creature becomes a beast par excellence.
I'm always struck by the Creature's encounter with the De Lancey family. It is where we both see his longing for friendship and how he dissembles. He gives us hints to his true character when he reveals his favorite books, "But Paradise Lost excited different and far deeper emotions. I read it, as I had read the other volumes which had fallen into my hands, as a true history." He later burns down the De Lancey home, but we only have his word that they were not in the building at the time. I don't know that I believe him but he was rejected by his creator who should have loved him unconditionally. I don't know if he would have been "pure" had he not been rejected, but he would have been better and had he engaged more fully with the City he might just have become good.
Why oh Why must we parse books through 21st century eyes. Even Shelley was surprised at how much Frankenstien took off. It was the winner of a contest between her husband and another couple. PERIOD.
I am so tired of this crapatoa around this book to the point I won't read it ever again and I used to love it
I don’t think that is fair to Mary Shelley. Sure, it started out as a ghost story told among friends, but she still had to write it. I am also not sure what you mean about the parsing. I think what Joel is talking about was evident to 19th century readers and helps account for its popularity.
The Isaiah connection makes sense. I don’t know much about the Prometheus angle, but that’s definitely part of it—that’s in her subtitle. She was in part responding to Bryon’s “Prometheus,” published two years prior. But beyond that I know little. I’ll need to read it again and read around it more.
I have wrestled with the subtitle, from the ancient mythology. Now, reading Byron's poem, it seems more akin to Isaiah's clay complaining against the potter for making him as a victim of endless sufferings, without even the hope of death. If so, Mary's book would fit the writing prompt given on that stormy evening.
I read this for the first time a couple of years ago and noticed how unlike popular culture portrayals of Frankenstein the book is - no lair-like lab where a mad scientist laughs maniacally over his creation, no bolts of electricity animating an assembled corpse. The book is actually much stranger than the familiar pop-culture caricature. Shelley's literary style has more in common with the writing of Austen and the Brontes, and her portrayals of domesticity are familiar to anyone who has read 19th century novelists. So the contrast is all the more stark in the scenes of desolation whenever the creature makes an appearance.
It’s more fun to read it as a prototype of The Talented Mr. Ripley, where there really is no monster except Victor himself whose incapacity to establish meaningful relationships manifests in closeted sexual frustration and homicidal reactions to recurrent shame. Otherwise, after some 17 years of teaching this novella, I’d have to admit it’s amateurish and overwrought, yet so emblematic of the zeitgeist and its contemporary analogues that it has become a must-read in spite of its deficiencies.
You make an excellent point about the importance of friendship. I think Mary Shelley was also thinking about the importance of motherhood and having loving parents. The Industrial Revolution was in full swing by 1818, and women were no longer running household economies the way they used to. The monster was a creation of a man, with a woman having nothing to do with it - a terrifying prospect!
"Every where I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded."
In other words: "If you had cared about me, I wouldn't be like this."
Exactly. He says that in so many words.
I think that Frankenstein is an amazing novel that is definitely not appreciated for its depth and subtlety. I am not sure that I agree it is a book about friendship. It definitely addresses the need for human connection, but friendship is a lot more complicated than that. One could argue that Victor is as isolated as his creature, and that is down to his inability to create and sustain friendships. Such friendships might have allowed him to step back from himself and examine the consequences of his behavior.
The recent novel Drayton and MacKenzie by Andrew Staritt provides, IMO, an excellent exploration of friendship: what it means; how it works; how it affects the friends, etc.
One of my favorite novels. This is a smart take on a much-misunderstood classic.
I have long been a fan of this story, originally because I saw in it some capture of the beauty and terror of creating anything, in my case, art. I had not considered the aspect of aloneness, the important but often troubled relations of friendship in any creative person's life. Thank you for such an elegant and insightful review.
Thanks, Joel. One of the best Liberty Fund conferences I've ever been to was a weekend just devoted to Frankenstein, led by Sarah Skwire. Also, the brilliant Hollywood screenwriter, Adam Simon, was there, too.
It's interesting to think of Frankenstein through the lens of friendship and how the lack of true friendship affects people. It makes me think of Aristotle's quote about how a man who can live without the City is either a beast or a god. Victor tries to become a god (and fails) and the Creature becomes a beast par excellence.
I'm always struck by the Creature's encounter with the De Lancey family. It is where we both see his longing for friendship and how he dissembles. He gives us hints to his true character when he reveals his favorite books, "But Paradise Lost excited different and far deeper emotions. I read it, as I had read the other volumes which had fallen into my hands, as a true history." He later burns down the De Lancey home, but we only have his word that they were not in the building at the time. I don't know that I believe him but he was rejected by his creator who should have loved him unconditionally. I don't know if he would have been "pure" had he not been rejected, but he would have been better and had he engaged more fully with the City he might just have become good.
Cicero approves of your critique of Stoicism.
Yes, he claims he would have been innocent had he been treated better, but there’s no real evidence of that.
I too read Frankenstein in this way. It is definitely about friendship and loneliness, though I also see plenty of hubris.
Yes, definitely.
Why oh Why must we parse books through 21st century eyes. Even Shelley was surprised at how much Frankenstien took off. It was the winner of a contest between her husband and another couple. PERIOD.
I am so tired of this crapatoa around this book to the point I won't read it ever again and I used to love it
Sure, if you want to see it as just that, you’re totally welcome to.
I don’t think that is fair to Mary Shelley. Sure, it started out as a ghost story told among friends, but she still had to write it. I am also not sure what you mean about the parsing. I think what Joel is talking about was evident to 19th century readers and helps account for its popularity.
You connect the story to the Stoics. Others connect it to the Potter in Isaiah. But what about Shelley's own connection to Prometheus?
The Isaiah connection makes sense. I don’t know much about the Prometheus angle, but that’s definitely part of it—that’s in her subtitle. She was in part responding to Bryon’s “Prometheus,” published two years prior. But beyond that I know little. I’ll need to read it again and read around it more.
I have wrestled with the subtitle, from the ancient mythology. Now, reading Byron's poem, it seems more akin to Isaiah's clay complaining against the potter for making him as a victim of endless sufferings, without even the hope of death. If so, Mary's book would fit the writing prompt given on that stormy evening.