Re: Frankenstein

Twirlip of Greymist (
Wed, 9 Oct 1996 13:09:11 -0700 (PDT)

On Oct 9, 5:55pm, Anders Sandberg wrote:
} On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, E. Shaun Russell wrote:

} > For example, to use a story we all
} > know, look at "Frankenstein". That is really a transhuman novel. If only
} > Dr. Frankenstein had thought things out a bit better before he 'created a
} > monster', then he might have discovered a way to create a rationally
} > functioning, intelligent human being.
} I agree, the story contains a very transhuman vision - but Shelley isn't
} (consciously) trying to tell it. What "Frankenstein" tells *us* is that
} we as creators are responsible for our creations and their well-being,
} but what it tells the general public is that meddling with Things Man Was
} Never Meant To Know is a Bad Thing.

That's what the general public got from it, but is that really all
Shelley meant to convey? Frankenstein did create a rational,
intelligent human being, except for size and stamina. The nutcase
running around is Frankenstein himself. "Too ugly! Too ugly!" The
'monster' goes bad out of loneliness and spite. But that is so obvious
if you read the book that I have trouble imagining Mary Shelley wasn't
aware of that.

Actually the general public didn't get anything from the book, because
the general public hasn't read the book. The general public saw bad
movies loosely inspired by the book. Personally, if we ever start
suppressing technology I nominate audio-visual mass media. Make people

Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*>

"It is a proud and lonely thing to be a prince of Amber, incapable of
trust. I wasn't real fond of it just then, but there I was."
-- Roger Zelazny, one of the Amber books, Corwin