Discussion
There are many approaches to discussing Frankenstein,
and we intend to accomodate them all. Arthur Paul Patterson's
A Frankenstein Study (the link is available at Links in the
About This Site and Others section) is a good site to visit to
begin with. At this site there are a number of ideas expressed
by readers that are well worth looking into, such as Danny's in
the advertisement called So Strange a Vehicle, which is found
in the sample advertisements in the To a Candid World section.
If you would like to offer your ideas, we would be glad to hear
from you. [Contact]
We recommend that those interested in the question of Science &
Religion visit the Meta site. There various points of view join in
a discussion moderated by Billy Grassie, a man possessing poetic
judgment well suited to the task. Here is a link to Meta for your
convenience. [Meta List on Science and Religion] Some of the
contributions to this discussion page began with comments made
in Meta postings.[Main Page Menu] [kitchen door] [Contact]
Discussion Postings:
[Our Perceptions of Perfection]
[New Divisions in Frankenstein Discussions (June 13, 1999)]
[Problems Regarding the Engagement of Science and Religion
(June 8, 1999)]
As Spinoza observed, we judge the creation of another according to what we
think the purpose of the act of that creation was. When we notice that some
parts of Victor Frankenstein's story are inconsistent with what is known of the
operations of the universe, we think that such parts of the novel are imperfections.
Experts, such as Leonard Wolf, having spent much time identifying the seeming
flaws, lead us to conclude that, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would have been
improved by the removal of the discrepancies which detract from Victor's story.
Wolf says that the reader must choose between late December and early
October as the time of Victor's arrival in England, implying that Mary Shelley
blundered. No consideration is given by Wolf to the possibility that the character
Shelley created tells a story that a navigator in his right mind would question or,
absent explanation, would know must be in whole or in part a fabrication, or
that the horror of Margaret Saville seeing a loved one manipulated, so that he
departs from the principles he had recognized as necessary to his highest purpose,
could have been something that she intended. Yet, as Mary Shelley did not remove
these discrepancies, which she could have easily done at the same time that she made
numerous changes for the 1831 edition, we ought to consider the possibility that Mary
Shelley included and preserved discrepancies in Victor's story as vital parts of what she
called the "machinery" of her story. In other words, we ought to ask, have we and our
experts understood her purposes as well as we might?If, as Spinoza says, the absolute virtue of the mind is to understand, an examination
of Frankenstein that seeks to discover purpose in those seeming errors Shelley
included and preserved may result in the "exhibition of universal virtue" the preface
to Frankenstein states is one of the chief purposes of the book. Whatever
understanding of ourselves individually and as one humanity available through such an
"exercise of untried resources of mind" is lost to us, if we assume, as our experts have,
that Mary Shelley was an incompetent designer of the machinery of her story.If prejudices limit understanding and so are barriers to the absolute virtue of mind,
Wolfsehr's theory, which holds that seeming errors in Frankenstein are vital design
elements, deserves consideration proportionate to the infidelity which prejudice is
and to the enormities it spawns. When we examine Frankenstein as though the
seeming errors were intentional elements of a design aimed at achieving the goals
mentioned in the preface, an entirely new picture emerges, one not limited by
Walton's expectations.E. K.
New Divisions in Discussions of Frankenstein
[Print version]Hail Mary Shelley!
The second paragraph of the preface to Frankenstein
suggests that author has attempted to reproduce the
complexity of our world and the attendant sensations
and emotional and mental responses to that
complexity. The whole of the preface suggests that
the purpose of this replication is to enable us to better
understand ourselves. We should not be surprised to
find that situations, like those encountered by those
who question so-called religious doctrine, arise from
the working of the ãmachinery of a storyä (1831
introduction). Schism with regard to the story itself is
to be expected, which possibility is enhanced by
changes that appear in the 1831 text and the authorâs
remarks concerning those changes.The value of reproducing divisions among readers of
Frankenstein in the way suggested here is that the
divisions, while arising in ways mirroring those that
occur in our world, will be new. That is, there will be
believers and doubters among those of Dr. Darwinâs
school. There will also be agreement among some of
Dr. Lawrenceâs school and those who saw his
writings as attacking their faith.The division that quietly began in the last decade
concerns the matter of the ãevent on which this
fiction is foundedä(preface). That is, in which
category does belief that Victor created the Creature
put the reader, the enervated or the robust? Note that
doubting that Victorâs story is true does not require
that the doubter hold that no such event is possible.
The discrepancy of nine months, which Shelley insists
on including in the later version, is not something
that can be dismissed. The question of how this
discrepancy came about makes Victorâs revision of
Waltonâs account a matter of unusual interest. Note
that, for those who would hold that belief in the event
of creation is essential to the story, Victorâs many
changes might be used as a kind of proof of the
inerrancy of the text we read. This provides us with a
situation not unlike that encountered with so-called
religious belief and discrepancy in the Hebrew and
Greek Bibles.The effect of such parallels may be among the most
valuable contributions of any writer of the English
language. When it is appreciated that examining the
discrepancies of the Frankenstein texts produces
greater confidence in the mind of its author, a way is
opened to greater appreciation of ancient texts, such
as the Greek and Hebrew Bibles. Thomas Paine and
Thomas Jefferson, with their doubts concerning
Christian doctrine, had responded in ways which
were not always as constructive as they might have
been. Anyone, with the kind of reading Mary Shelley
had done, could make such an observation and
provide a means to correcting it. Jefferson, by leaving
the miracles out of his own version of the Greek
Bible, was leaving out ãmachinery of a storyä that
was very likely included for future use in discovery of
some truth. The very thing that would have been
most useful to Jefferson in persuading others to his
point of view was something he cast aside. The story
of the miracles in the eighth chapter of Matthewâs
account strongly supports Jeffersonâs view of Jesus as
a man, but Jefferson doesnât see that. The twists
suggested by Mary Shelley are marvelous and often
quite humorous. What would the Jefferson version of
Frankenstein leave out? By the way, the
discrepancies with regard to the year Walton met
Frankenstein are like those that arise when trying to
establish the year of Jesusâ birth. This should not be
assumed to be unintentional.Such is the remarkable value awaiting humanity,
when divisions devised by Mary Shelley come into
play. Faith need not be the word that is used to cover
a retreat from truth. Hail Mary Shelley! The
machinery of her story works wonderfully.R. R.
Problems Regarding the Engagement of Science and Religion
[Print version]
Some problems that are certain to be encountered in any serious attempt
to produce mutually beneficial relations between institutions identified
as scientific and those identified as religious are not apt to be understood
by many of those who would make such an effort. In order to assist in the
process, we offer some observations from To a Candid World, such
as the difference between religion and superstition. We recommend that
Meta subscribers make use of Shelley's Frankenstein, noting that those
who identify themselves as religious and those who identify themselves as
scientific in their approach make the same mistakes as readers of the
famous novel. To see the truth of this observation, those who have read
Frankenstein may read "Name Us"in the list of advertisements above.
There are other things about Frankenstein that we think are well worth
the attention of Meta subscribers. We will be adding material of that sort
under the heading of Science & Religion for their use.It is useful to note that the preface to Frankenstein begins with the
author's declaration of doubt, not of a religous article of faith, but
rather a scientific one. In her introduction to the 1831 edition, we
see that the doubt, so emphatically stated, was pretended or reported
in error."They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin, (and I speak not of what the Doctor really did,
or said that he did, but, as more to my purpose, of what was then spoken as having been done
by him,) who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means
it began to move with voluntary motion."This explains the doubt expressed in the preface.
"Not thus, after all, would life be given."
Yet, Shelley immediately follows with:
"Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things:
perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together,
and endued with vital warmth."This is a particularly interesting statement, when examining Marilyn
Butler's assertion that Shelley's changes to the text in 1831 were
motivated by a need to distance herself and the novel from vitalism so
as not to suffer as Dr. Lawrence had. (This is discussed on page 94
of To a Candid World.)So why does Mary Shelley begin with a strong declaration of doubt
concerning a scientific idea? This seems to be an important question
to Shelley. By telling us about the pasta experiment and then attributing
authorship of the preface "as far as she can recollect" to Percy,
she both raises the question and tells us that, if we want an answer,
we will have to find it ourselves. You would have to ask my husband,
she is saying. Percy is dead.This discrepancy is added to a number of others considered in To a
Candid World, some of which are quite remarkable. They are not
corrected because they are not errors. Neither are the new ones in
the 1831 edition. Shelley has written the story of a son of man and
prefaced it with a pretended declaration of doubt. The "exercise of
untried resources of mind" could hardly be more obviously suggested.Through the story of a scientific enterprise gone awry, and in which
a superstitious fear is embedded, Shelley is suggesting a review of
the so-called religious enterprise alluded to throughout. The contra-
dictions are enormous. The "supremely frightful" mocking of "the
stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world" is followed by
her bidding her "hideous progeny" to "go forth and prosper"!We have a monster for whom we have considerably greater
sympathy than we have for Victor Frankenstein. Walton provides a
useful comparison in that regard. We know that, given the opportunity,
the Creature can do things for others that will increase their happiness.
We know that he would not be ungrateful of any kindness. The Creature
can be a friend or an enemy, yet the intention was that he would be
a happy friend of humankind. Although it is not often noticed, the
Greek Bible presents a similar situation. To those Jesus says
will come to him addressing him as Lord and who have done a
number of good things in his name, but whom Jesus rejects as people
he never knew, the rejection must be monstrous, and the one who
rejects them must be a monster.The problem may be as simple as this:
The prayer Jesus taught points to the things that he desires to see
fulfilled. Although the people Jesus rejects did many good things,
the things that they might have done to further the progress toward
fulfillment of desires, mentioned by their Lord in his prayer, never
made it onto their list. Their problem is one, not of evil, but of disorder
of good things. Discovery of the disorder and correcting it may be
done by revisiting ground already covered and paying attention to
the discrepancies that were not noticed or investigated before.
Why did Jesus say that the man who did not worship him had a
greater faith than the man who did worship him? (Matthew 8)When Cicero suggested that all humankind be summoned to judge
which of the various doctrines concerning the nature of deity is
correct, he was suggesting a rather scientific approach (De Natura
Deorum). It should not be too surprising that the Greek Bible poses
questions appropriate to the very convention Cicero called for, or
that it has so much in it that recalls Rome and its great crisis. Any
effort to promote greater understanding between those institutions
identified as religious and those identified as scientific will be
frustrated, unless the effort includes the three essential requirements
of Simplicity, Equality, and Sincerity. When those who identify
themselves as religious speak of "evidence" and say that the scientist
ought to consider "all of the evidence", they should be prepared for the
possibility that they themselves have not been as thorough in that
regard as they have preferred to think.Almost Anonymous