Unlike many, I had some warning that the original Frankenstein is far different than what pop culture has made it out to be. For starters, Frankenstein is the maker of the monster, not the monster itself. His creation is never given a name and is simply referred to throughout as "monster," "fiend," "demon," or "devil."
Frankenstein is the result of a competition between friends to see who could write the best gothic novel. Percy Shelly and Lord Byron, two of the four, were already well-known writers. However, it was the unknown, Mary Shelly, who completed and published her story. And became famous for it.
Personally, I found the story to be overly long winded. Lengthy passages were spend describing Victor Frankenstein's horror at what he created, his worry about what the monster would do next, his anger and hate for the creature, and so forth. In other places, the monster describes in great detail his process of learning how to speak, read, and reason.
Even so, the story is compelling and deep. It explores many different elements of morality. Most prominent among them, in my opinion, is what happens when man tries to play God. Although I believe that man will never discover how to create life (I think God has reserved that for Himself), there are many ways man has tried to make himself master of things that do not belong to him. Just because science is able to do something does not mean that it should be done.
And that is just the surface. Morality as a whole is debated. What makes a monster? Can good be forced to become evil? Is evil excusable because of the past experiences of the person? When, if ever, is revenge satisfied?
The original is far deeper than the typical horror story the name Frankenstein brings to mind; however, it is still a story befitting the title.
Frankenstein is the result of a competition between friends to see who could write the best gothic novel. Percy Shelly and Lord Byron, two of the four, were already well-known writers. However, it was the unknown, Mary Shelly, who completed and published her story. And became famous for it.
Personally, I found the story to be overly long winded. Lengthy passages were spend describing Victor Frankenstein's horror at what he created, his worry about what the monster would do next, his anger and hate for the creature, and so forth. In other places, the monster describes in great detail his process of learning how to speak, read, and reason.
Even so, the story is compelling and deep. It explores many different elements of morality. Most prominent among them, in my opinion, is what happens when man tries to play God. Although I believe that man will never discover how to create life (I think God has reserved that for Himself), there are many ways man has tried to make himself master of things that do not belong to him. Just because science is able to do something does not mean that it should be done.
And that is just the surface. Morality as a whole is debated. What makes a monster? Can good be forced to become evil? Is evil excusable because of the past experiences of the person? When, if ever, is revenge satisfied?
The original is far deeper than the typical horror story the name Frankenstein brings to mind; however, it is still a story befitting the title.
No comments:
Post a Comment