Reviews with content warning for Body horror - Frankenstein

I was of course familiar with the core conceipt of the story via cultural osmosis, but reading the original story I found it to be so much more complex and full of nuance! Worth a read.

Content Warnings

savvylit's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot

4.0

I can hardly believe that I've never read Frankenstein before this month! It's a classic for a reason; Shelley's story is chilling and philosophical. Viktor Frankenstein is incredibly unlikeable and the unnamed monster is heartbreakingly misunderstood.

If you're in the mood for a true Gothic classic, you can't go wrong with Frankenstein!

Content Warnings

fionamatilda's review

Go to review page

adventurous challenging dark mysterious reflective sad slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.25

Content Warnings

samanthaardenlockheart's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark informative mysterious tense slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.25

<i>There <b>are</b> spoilers in this review. Proceed with caution. ♥️</i>

Regarding Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley Wollstonecraft, I think that a good topic of interest to discuss might be the dangers of advancing science and technology and how the topic of morality and the sanctity of human life does not fit into objective scientific discoveries.

In this work of literature, Mary Shelley’s main scientific theme is galvanism, which essentially refers to bringing something to a conscious, sentient life through electricity and chemical reactions. For more context, according to Wikipedia, “‘galvanism’ is a term invented by the late 18th-century physicist and chemist Alessandro Voltra to refer to the generation of electric current by chemical action.” Relating back to Mary Shelley’s work, Frankenstein, her character Victor von Frankenstein creates a living being through the combination of body parts and is brought to life by electricity. Or at least, this is the current public perception of Frankenstein’s process. Mary Shelley does not actually specify what exactly brought the creature to life, however, the most accurate assumption is probably something like galvanism since this was such a common idea at the time. However, it is up to interpretation in the novel for the reader. One can assume that it was magic, a chemical, or something crazy like mind control that was the last “step” in officially bringing the creature to life. I have seen this literary technique done in many works of fantasy, for example, as it leaves more to the imagination when the author purposefully leaves out details and has the reader imagine them. As a writer, it is a brilliant mechanism of storytelling in the form of showing and not telling, and I can appreciate that here as well.

Unfortunately for Victor von Frankenstein, his lust for science seemed to have gotten way out of hand upon the “birth” of his creature. According to Audrey Shafer MD, “Shelley wrote the first novel to forefront science as a means to create life, and as such, she wrote the first major work in the science fiction genre. Frankenstein, a flawed, obsessed student, feverishly reads extensive tomes and refines his experiments. After he succeeds in his labors, Frankenstein rejects his creation: He is revulsed by the sight of the “monster,” whom he describes as hideous. This rejection of the monster leads to a cascade of calamities. The subtitle of the book, The Modern Prometheus, primes the reader for the theme of the dire consequences of ‘playing God.’” This insight is very important for science because it can demonstrate the dangers of taking scientific discovery too far. I think science is a field that is critical for society as it is directly related to medicine, which has excelled in improving human health and well-being. However, too much of something good might have dire consequences. This leads to the topic of human life, ethics, and science’s moral failings.

If you really think about it (which I never actually realized until just a few years ago) is that society’s entire system of morals and values does not and literally can not arise out of scientific discovery. I could make this about my faith in God and the fact that I think humans get their sense of morality from God, however, that is a separate topic. Also, as Dr. Audrey writes from Stanford Medicine Magazine, “But, as the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet and how society evolves. In terms of health, medicine and bioengineering, Frankenstein resonates far beyond defibrillation. These resonances include genetic engineering, tissue engineering, transplantation, transfusion, artificial intelligence, robotics, bioelectronics, virtual reality, cryonics, synthetic biology and neural networks. These fields are fascinating, worthy areas of exploration” (Shafer). What I take away from this is very personally fascinating.

I have always found the idea of cloning, especially human cloning, as horrendously wrong and immoral—and this feels like something closest to the scientific subject in this novel. Creating life in such a way by going outside of a living organism’s natural mechanisms of reproducing feels like “playing God,” and that is exactly what Mary Shelley wrote about Victor von Frankenstein doing when he created his poor creature. Not only do I think he created the creature out of narcissistic reasons borne from his god complex, but when he was finally created, afraid, and functioning, Frankenstein abandoned his creature! Not only was Frankenstein selfishly pursuing knowledge as a means to serve himself, but he could not even demonstrate reasonable parental duties to the poor creature. (Though, most parents don’t create their children from rotten body parts and possibly sparks of electricity and/or magic, so the possibility of Frankenstein being a Good Dad™ kind of went out of the window before you even opened the first page.) I think Mary Shelley purposefully includes these aspects of his character in the novel as it makes for a much more interesting read with all of these lessons to take away from it. It taps into her psyche as even she acknowledged the dangers of science going too far past its limits, and why that is fundamentally wrong.

If you are an atheist and do not hold belief in God, your morals must come from somewhere… and it can’t be science. No one can measure in a lab the value of someone’s life. And thank goodness for that. At least society can take this novel and show how while science and medicine are great forces for good in the world, they can also too far. In the spirit of humility, I also know that religion has gone way too far, but since (again) that is a topic for another time, let’s just say that too much of anything always has the possibility of falling into unethical territory. Humans have a selfish nature, and Mary Shelley’s Victor von Frankenstein is a great example of how a societal good has been perverted.

Works Cited

Shafer, Audrey. “Why Issues Raised in Frankenstein Still Matter 200 Years Later | Stanford Medicine.” Stanford Medicine Magazine, 26 Feb. 2022, stanmed.stanford.edu/why-issues-raised-in-frankenstein-still-matter-200-years-later/#:~:text=Frankenstein%20by%20Mary%20Shelley%2C%20left,the%20monster%20coming%20to%20life.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus. Knopf, 1992.

Wikipedia contributors. “Galvanism.” Wikipedia, June 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanism.

Content Warnings