Actually, it's pronounced Fronkensteen ...

[cosmolinguist]

I hate Frankenstein.

I hate Frankenstein.

I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to put "Frankenstein" in italics. If I do, it means I hate the book, which is true (and becoming more so all the time). If I don't, it means I hate the character in the book, which is also true (and becoming more so all the time). It's hard to choose. I would say both at once, if I could.

The thing that annoys me about this book and its protangonist is that I have no idea why Victor wants to make this creature in the first place. "Because I can" seems to be his only impetus ... but on the basis of that, he neglects the rest of his life for years on end, and then when his experiment works, he runs away because it's scary-looking and he hates it.

Stupid guy. It's like being pregnant, getting all excited, buying baby stuff and going to Lamaze classes, but then in the delivery room saying, "Ew, that thing's all red and wrinkly and slimy!" And running away from it. Can't forget that part. (Actually, Victor takes a nap first, then wanders around town for a while, then bumps into his friend, then is sick all winter, in the way people were back when "swooning" was an understandable response to emotional trauma.)

I mean, really. Why did he make the thing, then? What's the point of this whole story? It's a "classic," so it's about Important, Abstract Things, it can be read a lot of different ways and is philosophical and stuff. I know that. But I would like it better if I could like Victor better. Stupid guy.

< / English major rant >

Comments

[writerdog.livejournal.com]

Wow. Is that what you got from Mary Shelley's Frakenstein? Didn't your Prof expalin anything about the book?

[cosmolinguist]

This is the third time I've had to read it, all three times for class. So much has been explained to me. This is not all I get from the book, certainly, it's just what I was thinking about at the moment.

After writing this, I read an article about "Female Gothic," which pointed out that Frankenstein has to do with birth and that its author's unusual and unhappy experiences of being a mother herself. It was actually quite good, and gave me some interesting ideas on the subject (which is good, because I have to write about it for Thursday).

I don't think I'm all that deficient in understanding the book (this probably isn't a good thing to judge that by, anyway; I write my complaints here so I can get all the illogical stuff out of my system before I have to actually think reasonably), and even if I am, it's not my professor's fault. We're only about a third of the way through it. And we had a fun disctussion in class today about the abstract things I disdained in passing here. :-)

[writerdog.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you were deficient somehow in your interpretation of Frankenstein, it's just that I'm a little used to students who only read at a surface level and never dig underneath. It helps a lot to know something about the author, the times she wrote in, etc. etc. etc. And sometimes Profs just zip through a book because it isn't their fav either, just something they "have" to teach (or so they feel) and never giving it the attention it deserves.

Books -- and I know you know this -- are never what they seem on a first glance.

[comradexavier.livejournal.com]

I wish to point out is the validity, even importance of doing things "because I can." Curiosity and the desire to do things simply to test the realm of possibility are responsible for much of the knowledge and technical ability we possess. Failure to handle success doesn't invalidate the quest.

[cosmolinguist]

Doing something for the sake of doing it is cool with me--I think I'm going to college only "because I can," and I never really have had any real idea of why I do the things I do, except that I want to.

And you're right that the quest can be worthwhile in and of itself; people say all the time that it's about the journey, not the destination.

But in this book, it really does seem to be about the destination. The only thing that's said about the process of creating the monster is about Victor's impassioned state of mind, his complete obsession with this single task. Is it so unreasonable to think that, in the years he was working on this creature, that he may have (or should have) spent at least a little time thinking about what he would do if actually cane to life? He seemed utterly surprised by the result, and he shouldn't have been. What was he expecting?

It's fine to do things just because you can, and not for practical purposes, but you're still responsible, then, for the consequences of what you've done. Even the practical ones.

[writerdog.livejournal.com]

You've never seen The Bridge Over the River Kwai" have you? same principle applies: man's obsession with a task who never realizes the consequences until it's too late.

[elthar.livejournal.com]

You're not supposed to like Victor. He's a putz.

[photomoviegeek.livejournal.com]

as the gay movie reviewers from SNL would say a few years ago, "Hated it!" I hated the book also--had to read it for a sci-fi class; recall falling asleep while trying to read it, then faking the essay. Loved many of the movies, though, especially the one with Robert DeNiro as the monster, & also Frankenstein 2000, which involves some very creative time travel.
So I'm with you--& pity you for having to read it 3 times! Ugh!!

[cosmolinguist]

We talked about movie versions of the story, ever so briefly, in class today. My prof mentioned the Branagh one (in which DeNiro is the monster), and my friend Allison and I giggled. She and another friend of ours had rented that movie once--the first time she and I were in a class that had to read Frankenstein, actually. "Naked Robert DeNiro!" I whispered, because I knew it would bother her. It did; she cringed and covered her face and seemed as if she were trying to scrub the image from her eyeballs with her fingers. The movie didn't go over so well for her. Or me; I thought it was bad.

I, of course, brought up the Frankenstein movie I like best: Young Frankenstein. So, obviously my tastes might be questionable. But, I love that movie! It's so funny! And it's also at least as true to the original story as any of the other Frankenstein movies. And I keep thinking of things from it as I read the book this time and listen to discussion in class about it.

When my professor was listing off Frankenstein movies and I mentioned that Mel Brooks made one, he looked at me sort of strangely ... which I thought was strange because I know he's a movie buff, and even other people in the class know about Young Frankenstein (I know this because some said the name when he looked confused). Then he said, "Oh, Mel Brooks." Yeah ... I thought. Who else could it be? "I thought you said Mel Gibson." Now that's funny.

[internetsdairy.livejournal.com]

It's actually pronounced Frankingstein, as in: "A frankingstein has eaten my baby! There's only the skellington left!"