How about this one?

[bogeycadet]

it's like that phrase "nothing personal." For it to be good science, it needs to be impersonal. But being part of the human race, one must think of the ramifications to the human spirit and not just to the scientific advancement. there needs to be checks and balances.

[chad]

I don't think Victor Frankenstein's experiments were pure science and Shelley takes us to the question well, "What is science?" My understanding, and I think Shelley's as well, was that science evolved from philosophy.

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 02-22-200711:30 AM

[bogeycadet]

So are you saying that Victor is more "the pale student of unhallowed arts" as opposed to true science. For as Victor sets himself up to be a god for "It was the secrets of heaven and earth that [he] desired to learn.” Victor sets himself up to be a god when he says “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” As the serpent in the garden says" you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

[chad]

I agree... He also did use dead body parts- something not considered to be that ethical or moral by many standards I think. Again, it's science or pseudoscience left unchecked. And we are procreators and so, in this way, we imitate God and Victor Frankenstein. Probably, the important question is how do we differ? or do we differ at all?

Chad

[bogeycadet]

Your comment about psuedoscience reminds of "what God creates, the Devil counterfeits."In that respect, man is like the Devil in counterfeiting what God creates in nature. Cloning is counterfeiting through science that which nature creates. The first test tube baby was a man-created concoction to create human life that was unnatural in that respect. The Devil can counterfeit that which God creates. Man wants to counterfeit that which nature creates. Man wants to be God.

Message Edited by bogeycadet on 02-23-200708:35 PM

[chad]

Man wants to be God.

Well, the book is about beginnings and beliefs about beginnings, do you believe that there was anything before God?

Victor does imitate God, but I don't think he consciously does so. The monster also desires to have a mate and I think a presumption is that the monster would procreate with his bride of Frankenstein and I think Victor considers this in his decsion to abort the experiment. But the monster's need is human I think- we all want to be with someone like ourselves, or create a friend for ourselves.

So, does man naturally imitate god in his wish to create or befriend someone like himself or someone that looks like himself, either through natural or unnatural means? I guess this is coming down to beliefs about our origins, which differ in humanity. This difference of opinion may still be insurmountable, at least, it's a challenge for the human being to circumvent, now and in the future I think.

I think she mentions a Hindu belief in her beginning which is kind of interesting...

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 02-24-200709:57 AM

[bogeycadet]

A favorite passage of mine of recent note is from "The exploits of Sherlock Holmes" by Adrian Conan Doyle and John Dickson Carr. In the "Adventure of the Abbas Ruby," the quote is "you place a higher value on the ascetic rarities of Nature than on the intrinsic treasures of man's handiwork." You appreciate and study nature for all its glory and not to make a cheap knock off. On a conscious level, Victor intends for "a new species [that] would bless me as its creator and source" in chapter four. This statement precedes the monster wanting a mate. In chapter 10, the companion says to Victor, "you, my creator,...my natural lord..I ought to be thy Adam. but I am rather the fallen angel" For what is Adam without Eve. As Eve was tempted by Lucifer, "the fallen angel, for to eat of the tree of knowledge was to know like God "But I will not be tempted to set myself in opposition to thee." I believe that in the beginning, there was God. How can such a universe by chance with all the intricacies of Nature?

[chad]

The line after that is interesting: "No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deseve theirs."

People are created for not entirely unselfish reasons. In Victor's case, the reasons for creating the monster are more "pure" or more "unselfish" than mankind's or his own father's- remember that no sex took place. Reasons about why we're here on earth may manifest themslves in life and I hope those reasons would be all positive, in a wonderful world. Sometimes we can find the answers from our parents, sometimes we have to trace our origins all the way back to Adam and Eve, but not everyone believes they existed and not everyone believes God exists- some simply believe in a telescope.

So, to wrap it up, Victor created the monster for humanity, to be a like a God, but the monster he created was just that: a monster, but a monster of selfish creation, something to benefit humanity. He did not have the monster's best interests in mind, and I think, misjudged humanity. There simply was no way the monster could pop in the beauty salon for a makeover.

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 02-28-200707:27 PM

[chad]

I think Shelley intends Victor to be an antihero, as you mentioned, so we agree. He intends to end creation for selfish reasons, and, more specifically, freedom from death. Things go unexpectedly, but it wouldn't be a horror novel otherwise. So well done though, I did like it!

Chad

[chad]

I think Shelley intends Victor to be an antihero, as you mentioned, so we agree. He intends to end creation for selfish reasons, and, more specifically, freedom from death. Things go unexpectedly, but it wouldn't be a horror novel otherwise. So well done though, I did like it!

Chad

Message Edited by chad on 02-28-200708:01 PM