What I like most is that Victor's sin is not creating the creature, it is running away the moment he sees it. He does the technical part and rejects the role of the father. That is where everything you mention comes together: artisans turned into factory parts, the obsession with progress, and a creature that learns to speak, reads Milton, and only asks for someone to look at it without disgust. It says so itself, it should have been his Adam, but it ended up being the fallen angel. Something similar is happening with AI. Everyone asks what a machine is capable of doing, and almost no one asks what we owe to what we create, or to the people it displaces. Great article, the kind that leaves you wanting to reread the novel.
I totally agree with you here--especially because the text describes the creature almost as if an infant, kind of grinning at his "father". It is Victor that rejects what he cannot control, an actual human other (and an actual woman as mother). He wants life on his own terms.
Yes, and the scene backs you up. The creature smiles and stretches out a hand toward him, and Victor bolts. It also hits harder when you remember Shelley’s own mother died days after giving birth to her.
Yes! And that it never occurs to Victor that “I’ll be with you on your wedding night” could mean he’d go after Elizabeth and kill her! Solipsism, anyone?
Excellent take. Thank you for writing this. Also, I’m 2/3rds of the way through A Tale of Two Cities with my four youngest children (we are also studying the French Revolution at the same time). At first, they had a hard time getting through paragraph-long sentences, but now they hang on every word and are horrified that Charles Darnay has gone to Paris (spoiler alert!). Knowing the plot twist, I can’t wait to see their reaction when we get to the end.
"In other words, Victor Frankenstein can manufacture a “life,” but he cannot manufacture the love that human life needs to flourish."
Well, technically this is not true, is it? The monster, as you say, desired love. Even corporeal since he wanted a wife, unlike AI which cannot have sexual desire since it's a machine. The monster was created from human flesh, but unlike normal humans, its desire could not tell the difference between material desire and desire for divine order. Or am I wrong?
Anyways, Eros is not something passive. It is a primordial force created at the beginning of time that can lead to all sorts of trouble.
My main point here is that Frankenstein's experiment went wrong because, with a merely technocratic worldview, he was unable to recognise the innate, intrinsic worth of his creation (life) or the intangible and transcendent quality of man that cannot simply be "made" — a human life consists of love, a divine quality that cannot be bought or manufactured. Yes, in this story Victor successfully created a being capable of desiring love (not possible in the real world), but then failed to love himself which led to disaster. Implying that a reductionist, technocratic worldview is insufficient for flourishing, and to flourish you must accept that there are things about our nature that call us to the eternal and not only the material.
I have no problem with the technocratic points you make. I have a problem with your ideas about love. Or more precisely your thoughts on Mary Shelley's ideas. Did Shelley believe that God so loved the world he gave his only son? I haven't read the book in ages but it seems to me that the monster, according to you, wanted some kind of material love but was rejected. He was rejected because he was ugly.
So, now we're moving from a quantitative problem, a bunch of people working in harmony, to a qualitative problem. Whcih is, what is beauty? Because, according to your synopsis, he couldn't find love because of something beyond his control, his looks. I don't see the connection with divine beauty or higher love. But, I haven't read the book lately, so pardon me if there is this desire for divine love Shelley was concerned with.
Generally, Romanticism was considered a more vainglorious movement. The artist, poet wanted to put himsef in the position of God. He wanted his own outsized emotions to come first, not God's, because they, and I assume Mary Shelley, didn't believe in He existed. Or, if there were gods, they are more interested in form, like the ancient Greek gods, rather than this very complicated thing called love.
What I like most is that Victor's sin is not creating the creature, it is running away the moment he sees it. He does the technical part and rejects the role of the father. That is where everything you mention comes together: artisans turned into factory parts, the obsession with progress, and a creature that learns to speak, reads Milton, and only asks for someone to look at it without disgust. It says so itself, it should have been his Adam, but it ended up being the fallen angel. Something similar is happening with AI. Everyone asks what a machine is capable of doing, and almost no one asks what we owe to what we create, or to the people it displaces. Great article, the kind that leaves you wanting to reread the novel.
I totally agree with you here--especially because the text describes the creature almost as if an infant, kind of grinning at his "father". It is Victor that rejects what he cannot control, an actual human other (and an actual woman as mother). He wants life on his own terms.
Yes, and the scene backs you up. The creature smiles and stretches out a hand toward him, and Victor bolts. It also hits harder when you remember Shelley’s own mother died days after giving birth to her.
Yes! And that it never occurs to Victor that “I’ll be with you on your wedding night” could mean he’d go after Elizabeth and kill her! Solipsism, anyone?
Another beautiful piece, thank you.
Excellent take. Thank you for writing this. Also, I’m 2/3rds of the way through A Tale of Two Cities with my four youngest children (we are also studying the French Revolution at the same time). At first, they had a hard time getting through paragraph-long sentences, but now they hang on every word and are horrified that Charles Darnay has gone to Paris (spoiler alert!). Knowing the plot twist, I can’t wait to see their reaction when we get to the end.
Amazing, will you be joining us next week in the book club?
I may try, but, as a homeschooling mom who also helps run a family business, it’s tricky to find time to join discussion groups!
We're the only animal that can learn from a stranger who died centuries before we were born
Very nice!
The technocratic paradigm and current state of artificial content make for a riveting reread of the original 1818 novel. Here too, the religious themes are increasingly prescient, especially those pertaining to the human desire to know and create. Never before have these been so relevant. You would appreciate this: https://thomasobrien.substack.com/p/frankenstein-was-never-just-a-horror?r=1wocq8&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
"In other words, Victor Frankenstein can manufacture a “life,” but he cannot manufacture the love that human life needs to flourish."
Well, technically this is not true, is it? The monster, as you say, desired love. Even corporeal since he wanted a wife, unlike AI which cannot have sexual desire since it's a machine. The monster was created from human flesh, but unlike normal humans, its desire could not tell the difference between material desire and desire for divine order. Or am I wrong?
Anyways, Eros is not something passive. It is a primordial force created at the beginning of time that can lead to all sorts of trouble.
My main point here is that Frankenstein's experiment went wrong because, with a merely technocratic worldview, he was unable to recognise the innate, intrinsic worth of his creation (life) or the intangible and transcendent quality of man that cannot simply be "made" — a human life consists of love, a divine quality that cannot be bought or manufactured. Yes, in this story Victor successfully created a being capable of desiring love (not possible in the real world), but then failed to love himself which led to disaster. Implying that a reductionist, technocratic worldview is insufficient for flourishing, and to flourish you must accept that there are things about our nature that call us to the eternal and not only the material.
I have no problem with the technocratic points you make. I have a problem with your ideas about love. Or more precisely your thoughts on Mary Shelley's ideas. Did Shelley believe that God so loved the world he gave his only son? I haven't read the book in ages but it seems to me that the monster, according to you, wanted some kind of material love but was rejected. He was rejected because he was ugly.
So, now we're moving from a quantitative problem, a bunch of people working in harmony, to a qualitative problem. Whcih is, what is beauty? Because, according to your synopsis, he couldn't find love because of something beyond his control, his looks. I don't see the connection with divine beauty or higher love. But, I haven't read the book lately, so pardon me if there is this desire for divine love Shelley was concerned with.
Generally, Romanticism was considered a more vainglorious movement. The artist, poet wanted to put himsef in the position of God. He wanted his own outsized emotions to come first, not God's, because they, and I assume Mary Shelley, didn't believe in He existed. Or, if there were gods, they are more interested in form, like the ancient Greek gods, rather than this very complicated thing called love.
Here's an idea.
Chemistry can make gold. Boom