[kitchen door menu]
The editor of an agricultural periodical, writing on the topic of
the often heated debate concerning genetically modified organisms
and food, suspects that the "pervasiveness of the Frankenstein
story is the result rather than the cause of such innate concern"
with regard to such scientific developments such as interspecies
gene transfer. The editor asks if we have some thoughts on this
or if we might direct him to some research or commentary along
this line.
We immediately thought of the discussion moderated by Billy
Grassie at the meta site. The link to this site, which has long been
on our discussion page, will be added to the link section of "about
this site and others" soon. The meta site is archived and is
equipped
with a search program. See "meta views" at the link:
[Meta List on Science and Religion]
There is certain plenty of
scientific expertise there, although it might take Billy's help
to locate the best resources on this topic.
My thoughts on the agricultural editor's take
on the matter:
I agree with him that the fears "are deeply rooted in the
pysche of many of us," and that Shelley was aware of this,
rather than conjuring new specters. To support this, I point to
Dr. William Lawrence, a friend of Mary and Percy Shelley.
Lawrence lost his copyright to his book, Lectures on Physiology,
Zoology and the Natural History of Man under the British
law
that denied copyright to authors who attacked "natural or received
religion". Marilyn Butler argues that the changes made to Frankenstein
for republication in 1831 show that Mary Shelley was an attempt to
protect her copyright to the novel by distancing it from Lawrence's
vitalism. While we agree that Mary was aware of this danger, we
point out in TCW (p. 94) that Butler's thesis does
not explain the
discrepancies Mary kept in the novel, nor does Butler seem to
appreciate the astonishing "machinery of the story" of which
these discrepancies are a part. For related observations concerning
what Mary was creating, see this from [discussions].
What Mary Shelley's Frankenstein points to in so many
ways is
the need to notice how the things that are most important lose their
place, as moral tendencies get out of hand. That fears, innate or
conjured, must be dealt with rationally, in order to prevent more
human tragedy, is what she had in mind in also seen in Shelley's
response to reception of Frankenstein. For example, the
first
stage adaptation of her novel offered a creature we would not
recognize today. The creature Shelley saw portrayed on stage
was nothing like Karloff's creature. Instead, the creature was
physically attractive and inwardly hideous, the very reverse of
what we have in films. Shelley was very pleased with the
production. We think that this was because the departure from
what she had written (her creature was indeed physically a horror)
would help to establish the story's metaphors or, to put it in
today's language, to make it mime-orable.
Edmund Burke's recommendation of prejudice as engaging the
"mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue," as it "does not
leave the man hesitating in a moment of decision" might be seen
as operating to some degree on both sides of discussions of
Frankenfoods today. It is so easy to be drawn to one side or
the other in any argument of this kind. Seldom do we appreciate
the value of Godwin's simple observation that both sides have
the same problem with letting things get out of hand.
I hope that this helps and that anyone who has anything to add
to this will join in. Only yesterday we heard a discussion on
the radio concerning a medical treatment revived from the
forties, which some were saying is superior to hormone
and surgical treatments commonly emloyed today. It would
be helpful to include Frankenfoods in the subject line of e-mails
responding to this.
Tom
[Return to Main Page] [kitchen
door menu]