Reading Son of Dex’s reply on the Frankenstein’s monster reminded me of a very common misconception and I think it is time to set the record straight about Mary Shelly’s character Victor Frankenstein: he wasn’t a Dr.
Hollywood gave him that unearned title, but in the novel he was a student of Natural Philosophy (or something like that) and dropped out to pursue his own ideas. When people talk about Dr. Frankenstein, it should only be in reference to the movie adaptations of Mary Shelly’s book. The way Son of Dex wrote the reply makes me think he merged the book and movie characters into one.
Yup, you’re right. Plum forgot that was a movie thing.
The Branaugh film “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, which does much much more faithful to the book than any other film version I know of, sets him at medical school when he does his experiments. I just forgot that the book didn’t also have him there.
I can’t tell you how embarrassing it is that, in a column that started off by correcting the misconceptions between the book and the Hollywood versions, I blew this. =)
[[I can’t tell you how embarrassing it is that, in a column that started off by correcting the misconceptions between the book and the Hollywood versions, I blew this. =]]
No, no, NO! There are a number of ways to handle this other than (gasp) apologising.
1.) Edit the Staff Report appropriately and delete this thread.
2.) Claim you were referring to another, earlier version of the book.
3.) Say, aHA, I was wondering how closely you were reading, and kudos to those TM who caught the intentional error!
I’m just joshing, really. That’s one of the great things about this Message Board… If we leave anything out or make any errors, someone is bound to pick up on it. And we can always edit the reports (and thank the alert readers).
Jill(okay OKAY, I KNOW the delta isn’t in Louisiana so shut up about it, already)Gat
Not only is Victor Frankenstein not a Doctor, he’s only an undergrad. And a philosophy student at that. This is what unsupervised undergraduate research can lead to. If he’d been properly supervised, he would’ve had to fill out DOZENS of reports and forms. The creature would look the same, though since it would be designed “by committee”.
Philosophy student? Not quite. Allow me to quote from the source.
Chapter 3 When I had attained the age of seventeen, my parents resolved that I should become a student at the university of Ingolstadt. I had hitherto attended the schools of Geneva; but my father thought it necessary, for the completion of my education, that I should be made acquainted with other customs than those of my native country.
(description of V. F.’s early days at the university and how a conversation with professor Waldman helped him to decide on a course of study).
Chapter 4 From this day natural philosophy, and particularly chemistry, in the most comprehensive sens of the term, became nearly my sole occupation.
Natural philosophy, in my understanding, is more closely related to modern-day biology than it is to the modern concept of philosophy. And in the book it seems clear to me that V. F. gave life to his creature while he was still a student in good standing at the University, not after he had “dropped out”. Also I’m not sure that the term “undergraduate” would apply, since that distinction was probably not made in the 18th century (which is the time period in which the novel is set).
Philosophy means “love of learning” so natural philosophy is just love of learning about nature. It includes physics, astronomy, geology, and chemistry as well as biology. Perhaps because philosophy has come to mean (in the minds of some) “the love of arguing about inconsequentials,” we now usually call natural philosophy “natural science”. But natural scientists in the U.S. are still awarded Ph.D. degrees, where Ph.D. stands for “Philosophiae Doctor”.
Natural philospohy was a catchall term for the natural sciences during the historical period when the modern distinctions between the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, mixology, etc.) had yet to develop.
Ph.D.'s are now awarded not only to natural scientists, but also to people who do work in things like “Leisure Science”, “Human Resources”, and “Queer Studies”. You could probably get a Ph.D. in goat felching if you found the right lower-tier state university and paid your own way.
And, it’s now pronounced “Frahnkensteen” by his descendants.
As someone who appreciates the straight scientific dope, I would ask all to also appreciate the straight “artistic dope”. Stories like Frankenstein and Dr. Jeckyl are not meant to be taken literally. Mary Shelly was anything but a literalist.
Frankenstein’s monster was his creation. Something he created in the lab of his mind. Something which became stronger than him, BECAUSE of his ego.
The monster was made up of bits and pieces of dead people. These dead people were his parents, his colleagues, people he’d read, people he’d been taught by. And when he pieced them all together then a real Frankenstein was created.
Yeah, yeah, I know the question was could we really do this thing. And my answer is that we all do it every day. We create monsters from the bits and pieces we assimilate and present them to the world.
I’ll leave Mr. Hyde to the active imagination, but it’s actually a lot simpler than mean old Frankie. And there are vampires, too. Ones that don’t appear on Buffy.