YES, YES, Say it, He was my Boyfriend!!!

I will begin this book review with a memory of a book review not far in the past. It wasn't the first book review I was ever assigned, in fact I was in 8th grade at Mt. Gap Middle School in Huntsville, AL, and the assignment was an oral book report of a biography. I, somehow, decided by procrastinating that I was not going to do this book report. The day everyone else got up in front of the class to give theirs, I had nothing, and had to say in front of the class that I had not done it. Well, my teacher decided that I still had to do one,I suppose she called my mother, because one day not long after my book report was due my mother approached me and said, "Why didn't you do your book report?" I had no good reasons, so later that day we went to the library, and I checked out a book on Stonewall Jackson. I was to read it and have a book report done in a week or two. Anyway, of course I tried to read the book, but I didn't. I did, however, glean enough information to make up a book report, which I gave in front of the class on a day reserved exclusively for myself. I think I still got a B on the report. The moral is that if you are resourceful enough you can fake your way through anything. WAIT I mean the moral of course is not to procrastinate, so you won't have to look like a fool in front of your peers, and your mother.

I recently read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I enjoyed it. First because of the story. I was amazed at how the movies have butchered this book. I'm sure everyone thinks they know the story, but as I read I honestly didn't know how this book was going to end. There were so many unexpected moments, that added greatly to the plot, which is the strongest point of this book.

Second, I enjoyed the characters. The monster was the most interesting, and the most pitiable. I really didn't feel sorry Frankenstein and his endless lamenting. The monster's story ch 9-16 was the most fancinating part of the book. His story makes the interest in the book, and it was very well imagined. It even interested me in reading Paradise Lost which I have never before contemplated. The monster's intellect shines in his comparison of Adam and himself, and the real tragedy of the novel is that Frankenstein is too self-centered to see that what he has created is more than a body. My problems with Frankenstein I suspect have to do mainly with the writing style.

The writing was at best melodramatic. Frankenstein is always lamenting that he is the most wretched man alive, and the monster joins in the game. The end of the novel is like a contest. First Frankenstein tells Walton, "no creature had ever been so miserable as I was; so frightful an event is single in the history of man(175)." Quite an audacious statement, but the monster has the last lament when he exults, "No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparible to mine(196)." The monster even says he was more miserable when he killed his creator's new wife, than Frankenstein when he saw his bride lifeless on the bed. Finally they stop arguing and the monster decides that the only sure way to be the most "miserable wretch" in the book is to burn himself alive. His description of this death is telling. "I shall ascend my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of torturing flames(198)." As I was reading I wondered if the writing was the style of the day, or just the author. I admit that some other works of that period are similarly prone to "Alas", but not to the extent of Frankenstein.

Now, I'm sure you are saying right now that this blog is getting a little bit long. Perhaps you are right. But I'm not done yet. I want to understand the reason why the creation of life engendered so much misery on all connected with it, consciously or unknowlingly. It has been submitted that Frankenstein and his monster are two halves of the same consciousness. One the intellect - the monster, and one the emotion - the dear Doctor, I am inclined to disbelieve this, for various reasons. The idea is not without merit however, and it leads me to the structure of responsiblity. Frankenstein, by creating, became a father, and in such he failed miserably. He is blind to his responsiblity towards his creature, his offspring. In the beginning of the novel he austentatiously states "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(38-9)." He is fundamentally wrong is attitude towards his creation, and by this he is doomed to fail, and thus death.

When thus approached a relationship between intellect and emotion can be seen through the novel. Frankenstein, emotion, creates and intellect, the monster, destroys. Frankenstein is powerless against his creation once it has turned against him, because he gives the creature recourse to harm him through others, and is unwilling to repent of his mistake. Emotion is often the driving force for change in life, but it must be sustained by intellect, because emotion can not maintain itself without the intellect, witness Frankenstein's constant fatigue, and sickness; but intellect will not understand emotional motives unless taught. If intellect is decieved, or remains unnurtured it will return to the status quo because that is the logical place without proper understanding of emotional investment. In Frankenstein, the cost of an inproper relationship between the intellect and emotion is death for both creature, and creator. The monster, and Frankenstein fail to see the symbosis of their personalities, and their responsiblities to each other. However, it is the primarily the responibility of the creator to recognize this relationship, because as in Frankenstein, the creature is not mentally able to see this without help at first.

I just want to end with one quote, although I did really like the one I was shown before reading this book. This comes from Shelley's own Introduction.

"Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consistin creating out of void, but out of chaos; the materials must, in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to dark, shapeless substances but cannot bring into being the substance itself. ... Invention consists in the capacity of seizing on the capabilities of a subject and in the power of moulding and fashioning ideas suggested to it."

B+