Your draft Essay #2 is due on Monday, October 24th. Please bring three copies to class with you; I will assign peer review groups in class on Monday (tell you who to give your essay to).
By Monday, October 24th: Read Frankenstein up to Chapter 8 (which you should be up to by Friday, anyway).
By Wednesday, October 26th: Read Frankenstein up to Chapter 16.
For your blog response, due by NEXT WEDNESDAY (Oct. 29th), please consider some of the following questions:
1. Discuss Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with creating another being as it relates to contemporary issues of science and technology today. What parallels seem to exist between today’s reality and this fictional story? What are the parallel ethical issues? Provide examples and quotes.
2. In what ways does the monster exemplify or seem to describe the contemporary idea of the cyborg? Is the monster an early literary version of the cyborg? Why or why not? Provide examples and quotes.
For Friday, October 31st: please have the rest of Frankenstein read; also, have your comments ready to hand back to your peers.
Monday, November 3rd: NO CLASS; Final ESSAY # 2 papers due IN CLASS ON WEDNESDAY, November 5th!
18 responses so far ↓
thang08 // October 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm |
I am interested about the gender role in Written on the Body, and I commented last week. I have decided to explore why Jeanette Winterson hides the narrator’s name in this novel?
I have a lot of questions for you. For example, do you think science and technology have proved that females are not capable like males? Why the author of the novel does not credit the science and technology? Can you tell why the narrator goes away from them?
Ian T // October 22, 2008 at 9:28 am |
The nicest thing about being the first to post here is that I get to address the obvious. Cloning! This book is taught in religious schools as a warning about science. When science starts to to god’s job the bogey man will come and eat you! Perhaps this is what the author had in mind when she wrote it. Frankenstein does show a rather unreasonable fear of his creation once completed. Maybe all the terrible things that happened as a result of the creation were acts of god. Perhaps the hubris of man is a path to destruction. I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. Now humans want to use stem cells to cure disease. They want to create life from other cells through cloning. Thank god fanatics all over the world have this book to show them that god will bring certain doom to all of us who dare do his job.
Dr. Frankenstein’s fear of the creature, while irrational, is proved to be well founded in retrospect. However, it was his irrational fear that caused the violent nature of the beast. I’m reaching to draw a parallel between the book and the irrational fear of the religionists regarding cloning. I don’t think that the hatred of conservatives toward clones would cause a massacre…but who knows?
izamojda // October 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm |
The ideas of re-animation, cloning and creating a super-human have been discussed in some form or another since the dawn on time. These ideas have been met with fierce resistance by the general public for a multitude of reasons. Some believe that such ideas go against the teachings of their faith. They argue that it is not man’s place to interfere with mother nature. There are also those who fear the social implications of such experiments. Who will be able to afford re-animation or cloning of a loved one? Who will be able to afford the therapies in order to make themselves live longer or to make their children genetically superior? The answer is: the very wealthy. Currently, it is believed that we are all born relatively equal, and through hard work, we can attain a certain amount of success in our lives. If the rich are mainly the ones that have access to such therapies, it would certainly stack the social, political and economic playing field in their favor. Life enhancing/altering therapies could have a devastating effect on our social structure as we know it.
Also, what if these re-animated, re-engineered creatures/humans end up being discriminated against? Will this creature have the same rights as you and I, under the constitution? Is the creature simply flesh and bone, or is there a more human quality that lurks beneath it’s re-engineered body? Where does this human quality come from, from the brain or from a soul?
Another question is what compels scientists to devote their lives to the discovery of these therapies? It is the pursuit of power, “The ancient teachers of this science…have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven…and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows” (49). The idea that a human can control the very nature of the universe is a very powerful and intoxicating idea. One major fear is that a person will start out with noble intentions to assist humanity via science, but the subsequent power will corrupt them. “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs”(55). Dr. Frankenstein’s statement is clearly delusional. Who would accept an eight foot tall cyborg into their community!? All at once, Dr. Frankenstein’s delusional merriment comes to a screeching halt when he beholds the creature as it takes its first breath. “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? “ (58). This brings up the next question of who will be responsible for these creations? Dr. Frankenstein simply runs away! It is then, when he decides to run away, that he creates a monster. All creatures need nurturing, food and shelter! His irresponsibility as a scientist and the potential irresponsibility of current scientists is yet another very serious issue to consider when discussing life enhancing/altering therapies.
fazizi2 // October 24, 2008 at 2:09 am |
Frakenstein and the concept of cloning have a lot in common. In reading the novel “Frankenstein,” and taking a look at cloning, one can see how much the two topics have in common. Several controversial issues come up. What is life? What defines a person? Does the idea of being your own creator literally appeal to cloning and Frankenstein’s monster. Cloning does bring up a lot of questions. This is controversial because many see this as a wrong in the human society. Much like Victor sees his creation as a devastative plague on the people of his time.” In general, cloning is the modern Frankenstein, just like Frankenstein is the modern Prometheus. Prometheus stole fire from the gods. He took something that did not belong to the humans and gave it to them. He was punished. In the same way, Frankenstein let his ambition overpower him. He took from God what was not his and created a monster. Basically cloning is playing the role of God, which can never happen. If these lame scientist actually think they have the answers to everything in life, tell them to put a soul into something that is already dead…hmmm lets see how far they can get..=/
marycreed // October 24, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
Frankenstein is considered one of the major fundamental novels of the Gothic literature genre, but is seems that Mary Shelley also embodies other literary genres through her characters. This is most notably seen in Elizabeth and Dr. Frankenstein. Elizabeth can be seen to represent the literary period just prior to Frankenstein, of Romanticism. During this literary period much emphasis was put on nature, ways in which nature can teach. Writers like Emerson and Thoreau exemplified this through their writing. Elizabeth is described in such a way that she symbolizes this literary period. “She busied herself with following the aerial creations of the poets; in the majestic and wondrous scenes which surrounded our Swiss home” (pg.38) On the opposite end, Frankenstein represents Realism and the quest for knowledge “While my companion contemplated with a serious and satisfied spirit the magnificent appearances of things, I delighted in investigating their causes”(pg.38)
When Dr. Frankenstein becomes consumed by his project he is unaware of the beauty that surrounds him. This can be paralleled to the manner in which in the real present society as a whole has lost appreciation for the beauty for nature. Shelley is writing in response to the changes that are happening both in literature and in the world in reaction to the rapid advancements in science. She criticizes these changes that are causing a substantial disconnect in people and a of loss beauty, and of wonder for life.
sableotey // October 26, 2008 at 12:10 am |
I don’t think this monster was an early literary version of a cyborg because a cyborg is a person who is partially flesh and bone, but has one or more robotic appendages electronically linked to his or her nerves. With that being said, a cyborg is a human being, already conceived, born, and birthed by his mother, not man made. In the story of Frankenstein, the monster was man made. Frankenstein created life and by doing this, he’s playing the role of God. No man can create another being. Who is he to think that he could even began to place himself on a pedestal of a higher power. When I think of cyborg, I think of all of the new technology that one uses to make life more “livable” or worth living for. From my experience and observation of life, beauty is the key. Everyone wants to be beautiful right? Although the monster was indeed monstrous looking, but he was still a life. A life of a combination of different body parts from different places, things, people, and animals. It was like, all of these different body parts, completed him. This made him whole. Some people feel like they need these different body parts to make themselves whole, just as Frankenstein did when he created the monster. Nowadays people do things to not only help sustain life (pace maker) but to “Enhance” life. Some people just aren’t happy with who they are or what they’ve become and feel as though physical surgery can make everything all better, but it doesn’t. How can one have someone or let someone love them when they don’t love themselves, for who they are, just the way they are, the way that God made them. You have to love yourself first.
vsanad // October 26, 2008 at 7:48 pm |
There are definite parallels between Frankenstein and modern science especially around issues of knowledge, limits, and pursuit.
Frankenstein in his vicious pursuit to quench his “hunger” for knowledge defied all limits to accomplish the task. He fails to think of the long term effects, maybe negative ones, that his creation may have on society; mainly because he was blinded by passion, pride, and the feeling of divine destiny/duty.
Parallel to modern scientists, their duty is to take science to the next level. Every scientists, doctor, technologist, etc. is encouraged to venture beyond today. In the 90’s, society rejected advancements to the Human Genome Project. Today its Stem Cell research, who knows what tomorrow brings. However, notice how both accomplishments build upon each other. Although both are separate events, they paved the road for evolution. Both events I am sure were designed with good intentions in mind; but no one can account for mistreatment and manipulation of those findings. As with Frankenstein, he did what he feels he was put on earth to do. It maybe that he assembled Frankenstein with good intentions however, the minute he saw his creation he was scared of it; kind of like a “O God what have I done” moment.
His creation, Frankenstein, was rejected by society; it was foreign to them. Generally people fear what they do not know or understand. I am sure that his creation, paved the way for new advancements to take place.
The monster was created in secrecy using “dangerous knowledge” and dark/supernatural ways. Just by reading the book I would say that Dr. Frankenstein was a mad scientists, but he quickly removes himself of that category “I am not a mad scientist) p70.
cteran // October 26, 2008 at 10:32 pm |
Frankenstein’s monster, a scientific creation, is similar in many ways to advances made in fields of biological engineering. Organisms are, in a sense, biological computers using the senses (touch taste etc) to interpret data (sounds, smells, images) and formulate courses of action based on this data. It has been shown, through stem cell research, cloning and DNA engineering, that humans are on the verge of controlling nature and creation itself in the hopes of bettering mankind.
“Whence, i often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed?”(52). This is one question that has concerned humans even in pre-history and has given rise to religion and science. It has also given rise to various questions such as: Can a created being have a conscience? Will human life be devaluated? Can death be forestalled? Questions like these are at the forefront of the ethical debate surrounding these advances in technology.
In a world where technology is accelerating ever faster benefits, conferred through our understanding of life, are everyday realities. Like any tool naturally it can be misused, but is any use misuse? Short term benefits can make a population blind to the, subtle, long term negative consequences. Two things similar in this regard is the money market (easily accesible credit covers up debt, when the U.S. dollar is tied to all goods and services produced this is disasterous, eventually debt must be collected but if there is no actual money bankruptcies and value loss occur to reflect actual worth), which has propelled the U.S. economy since the seventies, hence economic meltdown. And Agriculture (Farming and animal raising is one of the biggest causes for pollution, desertification, deforestation and water/energy consumption) which enabled humans to have control over their food supply and expand exsisting populations hence overpopulation and “global weirding”. Both at the time of their inception were viewed to be only of benefit to those it served. Both have been showed over time to have some serious shortcomings not noticed only because of ignorance to the subtle changes taking place.
The same can be said perhaps to genetical engineering, it has yet to be witnessed what exactly these negative consequences will be. In a world where various surgeories can change appearance, life can be created from nothing, and humans are increasingly using technology to improve or replace aspects of themselves anything that was once considered unique may become the common, a great feat a mundane trick and a certain degree of holiness that has been attributed to all living things might vanish. Frankenstein’s creation, in pursuit of “perfection”, becomes a horrible creature. It stands to reason that if “perfection” was so easily attainable that it couldnt all be true.
thang08 // October 26, 2008 at 11:56 pm |
In a dictionary, cyborg is defined as “a hypothetical human being modified for life in a hostile or alien environment by the substitution of artificial organs and other body parts.” It is also defined that cloning is “the technique of producing a genetically identical duplicate of an organism by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized ovum with the nucleus of a body cell from the organism” When we analyze these two meanings, it is impossible that the monster in Frankenstein is an early literary version of a cyborg since the definition of cybory tells that a cyborg is a person who is partially bone and flesh, but has one or more robotic appendages which are electronically linked to his/her nerves. “So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein,-more far more, will achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation (49).” However, the quote explains that the monster is created by Dr. Frankenstein. In fact, Dr. Frankenstein might apply the cloning to create the Monster that is in today science and technology.
“Remember, that I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed (Pg 103).” When we look the life Adam in our Christian Bible, he and Eve want to be like their creator, the God. Then, the fallen angel, Lucifer, also tries to compete his God. Because of these, they are separated from God. For example, Adam and Eve are supposed to leave Eden Garden. In this text, Dr. Frankenstein also disobeys the will of God, and faces God’s punishment in several ways. For instance, his younger brother is killed by the Monster. Finally, I assume that the author writes that Dr. Frankenstein parallels to Adam and the fallen angle.
bgray11 // October 28, 2008 at 10:19 pm |
Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession grew to the point of him ultimately blocking out his surroundings and focus only on the creation of his creature. “The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit (56).” His obsession sparked the minds of scientist today who believe in cloning and even stem cell research. Who would ever think it would be possible to build something from pieces and for a completely different object. The parallels of cloning and creation of life seems to be the greatest existence between today’s reality and this fictional story. The ethical issues of Frankenstein have to do more with the looks of the creature. The creature itself isn’t a monster and just wants to be accepted in the world. I mean cut the guy a break; he didn’t ask to be brought into this world. Sometimes you just roll the dice and get snake eyes. A cyborg is considered to be any organism that has both artificial and natural systems. Because the creature contained both human and machine parts, it would be considered a cyborg. Yes the monster is an early literary version of the cyborg because Dr. Frankenstein builds the creature with organs like an eye, a finger, a liver, and other organs with mechanical/artificial parts.
jassgroce // October 29, 2008 at 12:21 am |
Discuss Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with creating another being as it relates to contemporary issues of science and technology today. What parallels seem to exist between today’s reality and this fictional story? What are the parallel ethical issues? Provide examples and quotes.
Dr. Frankenstein is overly obessed with creating the “creature”. He locks himself into his study an will not come out. He was overly obsessed with the mindset of having the creation in mind. He forgot about his family as a whole. He even says in the early chapters how he forgot about the existance of his family. He gets obessed with the human body, body form, body acts and overall human life itself. Victor is able to go into graveyards and hunt for body parts that fit the mold of what he needed. This relation of science is to modern studies in many ways. The scientist in todays world obsess over what they are able to do. The create clones, stem cells and other such things that is creating life. They are also playing GOD in the terms of what they think they can do. They think that they can “create life” but life cannot be created by a human being. Life is only created by the supernatural being that I refer to as GOD. In the end of the novel the character both frankenstein and the creature’s life back fire. Just like science research with cloning things are going wrong with what they are doing. why can they not realize that that is wrong?!?! Ethical issues involved in the story can even expand beyond talking life into your own hands but what does one do once they have created life. Frankenstein neglected his creation, ran from it, hit from it, until it found him. Victor became a father to him and neglected to see himself as such. he made a mistake and would not own up to it.
cbaileyb // October 29, 2008 at 12:40 am |
1. Discuss Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with creating another being as it relates to contemporary issues of science and technology today. What parallels seem to exist between today’s reality and this fictional story? What are the parallel ethical issues? Provide examples and quotes.
We as humans have a desparte desire to always be right and to prove it to others. We have the need to take the knowledge that we have and to push it further than it have been taken before us. Not only this but we feel the need to prove that we are the best and over control orver those things that others do not. When asked of the background of his education Dr. Frankenstein replied “I replied carelessly; and, parly in contempt, mentioned the names of my alchymists as a the principal authors I had studied.” (Shelly, 47) In this Frankstein proves his arrogance, he felt as if he knew more than his future professor. It is this arrogance that gets Victor Frankenstein and modern scientist in trouble. We build, we mold and we create more and more and more. Why? To simply prove that we can. Not only that but us like Dr. Frankenstein feel as if we have the right to manipulate the laws of nature. Modern science, cloning. Frankenstein the unnatural creation of life. Both are playing god. Both of which do not look at the far stretching cause and effect of their arrogance.
rachel5702 // October 29, 2008 at 1:52 am |
I would have to agree with those above who talked about Frankenstein playing the role of God. We as humans do not have the right to create life and I think that when we as people do that, we are trying to play God’s role. Technology is constantly growing and improving and yes we want to create medicines to improve the standard of living, but that is ok as long as we do not cross the line and attempt to do only what God has ultimately has control over. Frankenstein wanted to be known for discovering something great and creating life, but when he actually did, everything began to go wrong in his life. He was living out the consequences of taking on the role of God.
HB // October 29, 2008 at 10:17 am |
My point of view is that the monster of frankenstien dealing in both ways that , at some extent it is dealing with the comtemprary idea of cyborg because there is use of technology for the modification of human abilities whose given it life or power so it can survive. But by scientific view it was not a cyborg as OED defines a cyborg as “a person whose physical tolerances or capabilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by a machine or other external agency that modifies the body’s functions; an integrated man-machine system.”
While the cyborg may not function in quite the same ways as Frankenstein’s monster, it does serve as a precursor to the cyborg. Specifically stating that Frankenstein’s creature is not a cyborg, Donna J. Haraway writes
unlike the hopes of Frankenstein’s monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos. The cyborg does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust. (Simians, Cyborgs, and Women 151)
d3stin3d // October 29, 2008 at 9:06 pm |
1. Discuss Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with creating another being as it relates to contemporary issues of science and technology today. What parallels seem to exist between today’s reality and this fictional story? What are the parallel ethical issues? Provide examples and quotes.
There is a quote that I once heard “if you play with fire, you are going to get burned.” It came to me while I was reading the novel Frankenstein because the good doctor decided to raise himself higher than his peers to do something no one had ever done before. In doing so, Dr. Frankenstein emulated an act only God can do. As it is today, some scientists do the same thing. We have very advanced technology than what Dr. Frankenstein had during his time and with that, they use it to not only re-create life but to actually produce it. Now and days scientist can make a woman pregnant with envitro technology, cure certain diseases with stem cells that come from other human beings (more specifically-fetuses), and clone animals among other things. I believe Dr. Frankenstein wanted to be referred to as some sort of god or creator as his creation called him. “Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam…”(127-128). Certainly it seems the same way with the scientists today. I don’t understand why the scientists try to recreate life by means of technology anyway. Is it that they want to be known for doing something that seems impossible as did Dr. Frankenstein? Altering the natural flow of nature can really be harmful. As Dr. Frankenstein found out, his creature wreaked havoc all across the regions of Europe. It did not perform as he thought it would. So what about our scientists today? What will they do if their creation doesn’t work quite right. What if something goes wrong with the cloned animal. Although it is a copy of itself, it is a new being that may not act like the scientist thinks it is supposed to act. I hope they think about that before they get an idea of cloning humans. Truly it is unknown what may take place if they try or are even thinking about doing something like that. I hope one of them take a good look at this book before they do because they may be in for a surprise. The scientists would only know how the original mind would work. What if the cloned mind is the evil part of the copied person? These type of acts are truly heavy and should not be followed through because that job is already taken.
parkhannah // October 30, 2008 at 1:14 am |
While I was reading this book, one of the movie came out in my mind which is called “The Island”
The movie is story of a future world where wealthy citizens have the option to have themselves cloned in order to insure they have a guaranteed matching source for organs, blood, or any other replacement body parts that may be needed. So it is basically about humans creating another lives in order for them to keep alive.
Human has endless desire and Dr. Frankenstein worked on his goal of achievement by creating what he calls “LIFE” which made him regrets.
“Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow (54).
Frankenstein could see the danger of his desire for glory. He realized the way that it took over his life and blinded him to the pitfalls and terrors of the actions to which his ambition drove him.
Purpose of cloning is to make better future. but like ↑ said, what if the cloned “it” is the evil part of the original? I personally don’t believe human can take over the roll of GOD.
farhan23 // October 31, 2008 at 12:18 am |
Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession with creating his monster is sort of like a double edged sword. He was so enthusiastic and passionate about creating something and giving it life. He wanted to unlock the mysteries of the human body and cure desease or even death so many good things, but when time came to face his creation, he cant find the same passion and courage to do so. I can see how this may seem to you guys as him playing the role of “God”, however, to me it seems a lil different. wouldnt it take alot more ambition and courage to try and even come close to being God? Isnt God the almighty? the creator of the heavens and the earth? One would think that it would certainly take more balls to be God than Dr. F has. I think his mission was more exploratory and oout of curiosity rather than out of any ambition. I doubt that God would ever duck and hide from humans. No offense but its not safe to say that he plays the role of God.
Then how bout modern day tech? Cloning is a huge issue in contemporary science. People are always trying to explore new avenues of science each day. Cloning is already performed on animals. arent we next? Then doesnt that make those scientists who are doing so God? No. Just like Dr. F, they’re tryna explore a new area in science n tech (not the building across from us). Stem cell research is a HUGE issue currently. there are so many ethical dilemnas that concerns people, yet scientifically it can provide break through insight into human anatomy. Wouldnt it be great to find out where so many of our health problems come from and how we can prevent or even get rid of them completely? Sure, kill a baby for it though. There’s always the other edge of the blade isnt there? It all depends on perspective. Dr. F’s original perspective was to come up with a creation and be able to go beyond what great scientists in the past had done. But when he finally finished creating it and then confronted his creation, he almost sh** himself. I think humans as a species are so keen to explore and try and find new places, things,and ideas that sometimes we dont put much thought into what the end result might be. We shouldnt. I agree with Hannah and i think we should leave the creating and running of things to the One who knows how. Lets all just chill n enjoy the two secs we have of life.
sbr291 // November 2, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
Dr. Frankenstein’s obsession grew to the point of him ultimately blocking out his surroundings and focus only on the creation of his creature. “The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul, in one pursuit (56).” His obsession sparked the minds of scientist today who believe in cloning and even stem cell research. Who would ever think it would be possible to build something from pieces and for a completely different object. The parallels of cloning and creation of life seems to be the greatest existence between today’s reality and this fictional story. And By doing so they seem like if they are playing GOD. I find it wrong to do it but they have to research because god made man and a mind of man to think and to think about that is a totally different part. We as people have a desperate desire to always be right and to prove it to others. We have the need to take the knowledge that we have and to push it further than it have been taken before us. Not only this but we feel the need to prove that we are the best and over control those things that others do not. When asked of the background of his education Dr. Frankenstein replied “I replied carelessly; and, parley in contempt, mentioned the names of my alchemists as the principal authors I had studied.” (47) In this Frankenstein proves his arrogance, he felt as if he knew more than his future professor
You must be logged in to post a comment.