Author's Note
This story is the fourth installment in my "Origins of a Writer" Series.
Part 1: http://www.launchora.com/story/origins-writer-part-1
Part 2: http://www.launchora.com/story/origins-writer-part-2
Part 3: http://www.launchora.com/story/origins-writer-part-3
If you don't have time to read the previous parts, it's okay! Lucky for you, the actual stories aren't related, so all you really need to know before you start reading Part 4 below is the Author's Note portion of Part 1. And just because I'm so accommodating, here it is ---
Believe it or not, but I wasn't always a great writer (if you're laughing at this statement, I can't hear you).
In my first year of college at UC San Diego, I took a class called 'Theatre And Film' (I think), in which we studied (watched) films that were based on stage plays. Instead of exams, we were graded on essays comparing each adapted film we studied to its original written play.
Obviously, I got an 'A' in this class (this is a verifiable fact, and I am boasting because it was my first A in college). But on a more serious note, this class (and the 'A' grade, just saying) was particularly important to me because it was the first time I wrote something I wanted to write.
Basically, when historians in the future research my life, they will find traces of Launchora's origins in this class.
So to continue celebrating Launchora's first weekend of story-publishing (i.e. June 20-22, 2014), I'm going to publish some of my college writings/essays in this multiple part series, which I would like to call "The Origins of A Writer". Yes, I just made that up and then changed the name of this story to reflect it.
---- End of Author's Note from Part 1
This essay (part 4 of the series) is the beginning of my next set of college writing, which I did for a class called CAT 2 (Culture, Art, Technology). As with Parts 1 to 3, I stuck to writing about things I liked to read and write about (books, movies, TV, etc.). And for those of you have already read my first fictional story "Tabula Rasa", you might be interested to know that I wrote that story as the final assignment for this class. I published Tabula Rasa separately because this series is all non-fiction writing. And also because I published Tabula Rasa before I started this series. But mostly the first reason.
This essay was written on January 20, 2008, and is reproduced here word-for-word, typo-for-typo. As always - don't judge my writing, judge 18-year-old me's writing.
Warning: I just re-read this essay after over 6 years, and I genuinely do not remember writing this - I don't even remember ever reading Frankenstein! And if I didn't read the book and still wrote this, I guess I am good at faking it? Because I only referenced the book twice and they were both from the same page. No wonder I got a B in this class. Still, I must confess that this essay is probably the weakest piece of writing I have ever produced. The good news that it is all uphill from here!
ESSAY FOUR
The Frankenstein Conundrum
With Frankenstein, Mary Shelley attempts to create a horror story where the fear is not of a human being or a machine, but of one’s own mind and the consequences of isolation.
Although having three separate narrations, the novel is entirely in first person. Such an approach to the text tells the reader more about the personal difficulties of the narrator, as well as the narrator’s opinion of the other main characters/narrators.
However, this unique technique makes it hard for the reader to infer Shelley’s own standpoint. Moreover, one can conclude that Shelley deliberately intended to write the story in such form, as she uses the tale of Frankenstein to illustrate her viewpoint on the concepts of discovery, invention/creation, science, and feminism.
Throughout the tale, knowledge is blamed as the key to all evil that consumes Frankenstein - and probably would have consumed Walton as well if he hadn’t met the scientist. Soon after Frankenstein creates his ‘monster’, he suddenly realizes what his hunger has lead him to. “The beauty of the dream vanished.”(chapter V, p35) - here Shelley puts light upon the purposelessness of Frankenstein’s thirst for knowledge, something he had desired for so long, but when he had it he didn’t know what to do with it.
Perhaps Shelley is trying to say that it isn’t knowledge or its hunger that corrupts its pursuers, but rather lack of selfless ambition. Frankenstein attempted and succeeded in recreating life from dead limbs and organs, but for what purpose? And then how come all of a sudden he sees the monstrosity and hideousness behind his work when he himself decided to create it using dead limbs? What he had just achieved alone would have satisfied any scientist.
Shelley addresses Frankenstein as ‘The Modern Prometheus’, but Prometheus’s intentions were to help mankind, whereas Frankenstein’s intentions aren’t revealed at all - not once does Shelley tell the reader what lead to Frankenstein’s sudden change of heart for something he spent more than two years in isolation on. Instead she gives a simple yet direct explanation for the reason of Frankenstein’s hatred towards his own creation, the difference between a human and a titan - “The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature.”(chapter V, p35)
Frankenstein was so blinded by the impending success of his hard work that for some time he distanced himself from basic human feelings. Only on the completion of his quest did his human instincts, paranoia first, catch up with him and hence his reaction. Ergo, the subtitle ‘The Modern Prometheus’ that Shelley gives to Frankenstein clashes with Victor’s personality, and possibly suggests Shelley’s literary sarcasm.
Shelley also addresses the centuries-long problem that man has had with 'science' - that the evil resides in the pursuer’s intentions, rather than the content. However, she isn’t entirely cynical about this topic, something evident in the character of Walton. Walton does not share Frankenstein’s frame of mind, as he isn’t yet blinded by the same purposeless desires. His views on the power of knowledge and discovery are not driven by thoughtless ambition, and hence leave room for the consideration of their consequences. In Walton, Shelley shows that side of human nature which is cautious in its approach, which explains Walton’s decision to abandon his expedition. Shelley further uses Walton’s situation to show the helplessness of men of such beliefs, those who may be selfless in quest for knowledge, who are only discouraged by the experiences and/or opinions of those who aren’t.
Perhaps it is Walton who deserves the title of ‘The Modern Prometheus’.
Science and human nature aren’t the only two themes that can be found in Shelley’s work. The lack of any main female characters, or the deaths of Justine (Frankenstein’s mother) and Elizabeth, may seem odd to some since the writer is herself a woman as well as the daughter of a feminist; but Shelley uses the women in the story to her advantage in describing the sexist nature and vanity of scientists. Frankenstein’s attempt to create life fails miserably(to him), starting a chain of events that lead to the suffering of a lot of people in his life. By keeping the women away from causing any direct influence to the wrong doings of Frankenstein and his monster, Shelley tries to elevate women as the more rational of the genders. This has not been seen in works before this novel, where women were more like initiators and mostly the cause to key plots, ranging from misunderstandings to wars in some cases.
There may be many ways to interpret Shelley’s ideas and thoughts, but the lack of any direct opinion made by Shelley leaves all interpretations as just possibilities. Her viewpoint on science is skeptical, since with Victor she spends so much time explaining his pain rather than viewing the cause. Walton’s decision to end his expedition suggests Shelley’s belief of discovery being synonymous with invention, which further highlights her distrust in science. The story works well as a horror tale, but fails as one with a unbiased message, insinuating the search for any relation to the real world to be pointless.