Frankenquestion #2
Posted by admin on September 11, 2008, 6:53 pm
Does Frankenstein indict technology? If so, why? If not, why not?
4 Responses to “Frankenquestion #2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Posted by admin on September 11, 2008, 6:53 pm
Does Frankenstein indict technology? If so, why? If not, why not?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
While on the surface it would appear that Mary Shelly’s novel indicts technology for its horribly destructive potential, if you examine the specifics of what specifically represents the “technology” in Frankenstein, it becomes clear that Shelly is not indicting technology in itself, but rather mankind for making that potential a reality. I know it seems very predictable that Shelly means for the Creature to be villainized in Frankenstein; after all, he does commit atrocious crimes that seem to stem from his terrible nature. Being that the Creature is a man-made piece of technology, it also seems to logically follow that this is Mary Shelly making a statement about technology in general, how it can far exceed human forethought, and result in terrible consequences if not properly controlled. The main thing to remember, however, is that the Creature is not purely a piece of technology. The key factor that separates him from being purely a piece of machinery is his mind. The Creature not only displays the capabilities to learn and adapt, but he also rationalizes, feels emotions, and makes autonomous decisions. These are the characteristics of the most sophisticated piece of technology on earth: the human being. Therefore, Shelly cannot convict technology for its inherent evils without also convicting mankind of its ability (and sometimes tendency) to exploit that evil, for it is the Creature’s heart and mind that commit the crimes in the novel, not simply the Creature’s hands and limbs.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I find it useful to consider the apparent idealization of the De Lacey family unit. We can think of this family and their situation in the modern day phrase: “off the grid.” Are they, in fact, the opposition of rapid technological and/or urban growth? Is their apparent idealization by Shelley sincere?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
I think that in many ways you can read the novel of Frankenstein and make a case that the author and the novel are warning the public of the dangers of technology. The main theme throughout the novel is the idea of creation, and the power of both the creator and the created. Victor Frankenstein becomes obsessed while making his creation. He is driven by a desire to make scientific advances above what all other man have accomplished. His greed to create this being, to bring to life something(s) that was dead overtakes his every waking moment. But it is his own creation that ultimately causes all his unhappiness, and his death.
In many ways, this can be seen as a warning to all people about the advancement of science and technology. Just as Frankenstein became greedy in his creating, needing to go above and beyond what was accomplished before him, society is ever increasing its need to advance technologically. As society advances, we also become dependent on the new technologies we create. This dependence enables society to never move backwards, as we begin to need these advances to perform every day activities. In a sense, this dependence upon technology is how these advances control us as a society. Whether it is something as simple as a telephone, or as complex as modern medicine, we become disabled without access to these things.
Shelly seems to have set-up a story where the monster can be seen as the force that controls, and destroys, society. This monster, which is a technological advancement created by Frankenstein, wreaks havoc on the lives of people in this society. People are killed and hurt, yet no one, even Frankenstein, is able to control this creature. Because Frankenstein has meddled in something of the unknown and unexplored, he has no idea how to control it. In the end, the monster has the ultimate control over his life.
Though there can be many readings of Frankenstein, it is clear that there are many aspects of this book in which there seems to be a moral warning man to be very careful in this greed and need he has to advance technology and explore the unknown. Man cannot try to play God and create a new universe without dire and tragic consequences, and man should consider those consequences before becoming completely controlled by his own creations.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Just a reply in a nutshell, surface reading of the film sort of thing; but I would say the Elizabeth/Justine/new creature (who is apparently possessing mostly Elizabeth’s consciousness) destroys herself first as a rejection of her two “suitors”’s selfish desires which subjugate her own agency and desire to theirs. Then, and perhaps more significant, as an objection to the very fact and form of her creation/re-animation — condemning the subversive appropriation of creating life, and rejecting her new “monster” being. For evidence of this last, see the examination of the creature’s face and her touching the stitches and looking to her own appearance just before the climatic blaze.