The Project Presentation
        Responsibility and Reproduction in Frankenstein
        Metamorphosis of a Myth
        Frankenstein on stage and screen
Evaluative Comments

The Project Presentation

Frankenstein has become a global cultural icon for the horrific. He represents the destructive agency which cannot be controlled by its creator, and which causes the ruin of the creator. Anne Mellor says:

Our fear of genetic engineering, nuclear war, biochemistry stems from the tradition of Frankenstein. Scientists who try to manipulate or change nature may do more damage than good.

Mankind seems intent on testing the limits of science. Prideful and arrogant, man is tempted by the power granted by scientific innovation to play God. The injudicious use of that power can become the most destructive of human forces. Scientists have discovered ways to manipulate nature, to destroy and change the world and ourselves and even to produce artificial life. I will focus on the issue of scientific responsibility because it is a major theme in Shelley's novel and relate it to contemporary ethical issues surrounding reproductive technology.

A large portion of contemporary texts that deal with medical ethics is devoted to issues of reproduction, but very little is said of the responsible application of the technology before it becomes problematic. Science without foresight begs the question of responsibility. It is a question which Mary Shelley sagaciously brings up in her novel. Modern scientists do not seem concerned with questioning whether or not to use the methods they develop; their discourse, and much of their energies, seem to centre largely on how to deal with the problems their methods create.

The influences of her parents' writing in Shelley's philosophies as they exist in Frankenstein cannot be overlooked. William Godwin established a philosophy of responsibility in Political Justice 2: 519-528:

[T]he true perfection of man was to attain, as nearly as possible, to the perfectly voluntary state; that we ought to be, upon all occasions, prepared to render a reason of our actions; and should remove ourselves to the furthest distance, from the state of mere inanimate machines, acted upon by causes of which they have no understanding.

This is to say, we are all responsible and accountable for our own actions. I looked at half a dozen or so books on medical ethics and found only one which has a section dealing with responsibility in the area of technological advances.

[R]esponsibility in the contemporary world and with the awesome power of technology which may be used for good or evil has changed. We cannot evade the responsibility that comes with this change -- the responsibility to use technology wisely, not only for the sake of our patients but for the sake of the future. In a sense, we need to be able to foretell the future, to reenunciate norms and standards as substitutes for the norms and standards left behind by technology. If we fail to do this, the future is bleak.

Erich H. Loewy, M.D., Textbook of Medical Ethics. (NY: Plenum Medical Book Company, 1989), p. 69.

Scientific advances have progressed well ahead of the ethical considerations which should accompany them. Bloethics is a field which has been comparatively slow to develop.

In Shelley's novel, the existence of the monster is a condemnation of science without a soul, without conscience and of the people who would dare to imitate God. In her introduction to the 1831 version of Frankenstein, Shelley writes of her idea of a man-made man:

Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world. His success would terrify the artist; he would rush away from his odious handywork, horror-stricken.

Mary Shelley Reader, p. 170

When Frankenstein casts himself in the role of God, he envisions a new race; he deliberates on his decision before proceeding:

When I found so astonishing a power placed within my hands, I hesitated a long time concerning the manner in which I should employ it.

Frankenstein, Chap III, p. 82.

However, his hesitation is concerned more with the size of the project he should undertake, not whether or not he should proceed:

Although I possessed the capacity of bestowing animation, yet to prepare a frame for the reception of it, with all its intricacies of fibres, muscles, and veins, still remained a work of inconceivable difficulty and labour. I doubted at first whether I should attempt the creation of a being like myself or one of simpler organization; but my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man.

Frankenstein, Chap III, p. 82.

Hospital Ethics Committees serve the purpose of deliberation. The University of Alberta Hospital has an Ethics Committee. Its Terms of Reference define the committee's purpose:

To improve the quality of decision-making and policy formation within the University of Alberta Hospitals by raising awareness of and sensitivity to ethical values.

University of Alberta Hospitals Ethics Committee Terms of Reference, 1.0

The committee's guidelines describe ethics as dealing "with an escalation of problems from basic situations through issues, dilemmas, conflicts, moral distress, to moral outrage" (The Elements of an Ethics Consultation: Guidelines approved by the Ethics Committee, p. 1). The committee facilitates decision-making in conditions of medical distress, for instance, when people are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to disconnect life support. The committee does not make the decision for the parties involved; its role is limited to providing information, clarifying issues, and presenting ethical considerations. The committee does not operate in the areas of research or new discovery.

Shelley wams of the disastrous consequences of overweening pride in the scientist. Frankenstein learns, too late, of the dangers and responsibilities of scientific discovery. He tells Walton that he cannot divulge the secret of generation and life:

I will not lead you on . . . to your destruction and infallible misery. Learn from me . . . how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge.

Frankenstein, Chap III, p. 81.

Clearly, it is undesirable to circumvent natural processes in the continuation of the species. Shelley's attitude in this regard is influenced by her mother's writing. Mary Wollstonecraft writes, in Vindication of the Rights of Woman (138-139):

Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.

The laws of nature, according to both Shelley and Wollstoneeraft, should establish the boundaries of our behaviour. Victor Frankenstein exceeds those boundaries, as do many of our new technologies.

The desire to procreate is one of humanity's most powerful impulses. In the 1970's we journeyed into the world of science fiction brought to life with the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first "test-tube baby." After her laboratory conception in a petri dish, her arrival was anticipated globally with speculations about mutations and birth defects. Far from being monstrous, she was a perfectly normal little baby, bom into a loving home. The Frankenstein aspect of her birth arises in its aftermath. Today, in vitro conception has become fairly commonplace, but it has generated unanticipated problems. Recently a Calgary hospital faced the dilemma of what to do with frozen embryos. The frozen matter held the essence of new and viable life. They had been harvested, frozen and held in reserve in case implantation of their siblings proved fruitless. The embryos had reached their "Best Before" date and something had to be done with them. What to do? Would their destruction be tantamount to murder? Sperm and ova had united and cell division had begun -- did they, in their frozen state, constitute the beginning of life? The parents had all the children they wanted and did not want to have these implanted, but neither did they want to offer them for adoption. If they were given for adoption, what would be the chances of the child later procreating with a biological sibling? It presented ethical problems that might have been solved or avoided before they arose if some foresight had been involved.

Victor's desire to create life is a perversion of the normal procreative urge. He creates life without benefit of woman or womb, with disastrous results. Shelley's elimination of woman from the reproductive process is no doubt an extension of her own grief at the absence of her mother and the death of her daughter. The distancing of sex and reproduction involves a denial of human nature. The technology that allows it is unnatural, and therefore frightening and something to approach warily.

Mary Shelley foresaw that artificial reproduction and scientific developments could create problems. The doctors who conceived Louise Brown apparently did not, considering the ethical problems we now face. In our country, in true Canadian fashion, we are trying to establish legislation to govern unnatural procreation. Alberta's first test-tube baby surrogate pregnancy is facing criminal action if the baby is not born before legislation is enacted. (Considering the speed with which our political system works, there is probably no need for concern.) Once again, though, we have put the cart before the horse, forging ahead with new technology without working in concert with the agencies which govern our lives. Shelley's novel reflects her concems with the path upon which science has set its foot. No doubt she wondered what the future would bring if scientists, like Victor Frankenstein, are permitted to proceed unchecked. Her father's influence is apparent in this aspect of Mary's musings.

William Godwin looked to the future of propagation in Political Justice 2: 519- 528:

The men . . . whom we are supposing to exist, when the earth shall refuse itself to a more extended population, will probably cease to propagate. The whole will be a people of men, and not of children. Generation will not succeed generation, nor truth have, in a certain degree, to recommence her career every thirty years.

This theme is taken up in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which was published in 1932. Huxley envisions a utopia in which procreation is the monopoly of the factory. Babies genetically programmed to have characteristics which will best suit them for their predetermined social roles are created in a series of test tubes and vats, surrounded by hoses, in artificial amnioticfiuid. Sex is just for fun and has nothing to do with reproduction. In fact, natural reproduction is disgusting and anyone with an actual mother would be a social pariah. People put their faith in the system and worship Henry Ford, the father of mechanization and the assembly line. Education occurs subliminally, through recorded state messages played in nurseries and dorms.

There is a hint of Huxley in a recent article about education reforms in Quebec. The provincial government there is proposing that, from the time a child is placed in day care (that is, as young as six weeks), s/he will be prepared for preschool and then public school. The government will legislate the activities that take place inside day care centres. The private sector will become involved later "to meet the demand for specialized workers [and] to ensure the province has workers capable of meeting local business needs." So, from the time you hand over your infant at the day care, the government and business will be actively involved in his/her upbringing.

We are facing the world Shelley envisioned. Philosophers and ethics boards are dealing with the questions the scientific world has evaded. Scientists have the ability to generate animate matter in specific forms and to create life where it otherwise would not exist. We actually have the technology to harvest ova from fetuses and produce children whose biological mothers were never born. This technology is benevolent, altruistic, noble and dangerous. Mary Shelley's message is that we must act responsibly when we consider tampering with nature. We should question our actions before the fact, not wait to deal with the consequences afterwards. When Mary Shelley saw in her dream "the pale student of the unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together," she had a vision of science without soul or conscience. This is an issue which is very contemporary as we involve ourselves with genetic engineering, trying to improve the species of human. I can't help but think that if Mary Shelley were aware of our struggles today, she would say "I told you so."

The focus of my discussion is trying to place Mary Shelley in a literary context. First, I want to briefly look at the earlier myths that Shelley appears to have been influenced by and look at how she reinterpreted these themes in her text Frankenstein to apply them to concerns within her own culture. I then want to look at the literary influences Mary Shelley in turn had on 19th and 20th century writers and how they have again employed variations on the myths to address their own cultural anxieties about science.

The three main stories I want to discuss are Prometheus, Paradise Lost and Dr. Faustus. They are linked by common themes: knowledge and the quest for knowledge. Knowledge as possession of the Gods- the secrets of life and powers that are elusive to humans. humans go against their Gods by aspiring to know more and attempting to take the knowledge and the power into their own hands with disastrous results. Oedipus' hubris or overwiening pride is another representation of the destructive potential of knowledge and attempts to aspire to god-like status.

Prometheus myths:

1) Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus -- Prometheus brings fire (symbol of knowledge) from Heaven and bestows the gift on mankind. For this, Zeus has him chained to a rock and ravens come and eat his liver.

2) Prometheus creates Man out of mud and water (from Ovid's Metamorphosis).

"Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time...renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption" (40).

Paradise Lost by Milton:

Eve eats of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, brings about the Fall of Man. The Archangel Lucifer rebels against God (aspires to godliness) and is cast from Heaven.

"What a glorious creature must he have been in the days of his prosperity, when he is thus noble and godlike in ruin. He seems to feel his own worth, and the greatness of his fall" (155).

"All my speculations and hopes are as nothing; and, like the archangel who aspired to omnipotence, I am chained in an eternal hell...I trod heaven in my thoughts, now exulting in my powers, now burning with the idea of their effects. From my infancy I was imbued with high hopes and a lofty ambition; but how I am sunk!....a high destiny seemed to bear me on, until I fell, never, never, again to rise" (156).

Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe:

"Faustus seeks the power that comes from knowledge, no matter what the cost. To get this power Faustus must make (or chooses to make) a bargain with the devil...Faustus for his part desires the power that comes from black magic, but the devil on his side exacts a fearful price in exchange -- the eternal damnation of Faustus' soul...Faustus aspires to be more than a man -- a demi-god, a deity. His fall is caused by the same pride and ambition that caused the fall of Angels in heaven, and of humanity in the Garden of Eden"

The quest for knowledge is an important recurring theme. Dr. Frankenstein as a scientist comes to realize the consequences of aspiring too high. He goes from a man with a close family, to nothing. Like Faustus, he seems to have sold his soul for knowledge. He plays the role of Prometheus, creating a man from cadaver parts. Like Lucifer, his creation rebels against him. He has eaten of the tree of knowledge and now must pay the price.

Frankenstein: "You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been" (25)

Frankenstein: "I see by your eagerness, and the wonder and hope which your eyes express, my friend, that you expect to be informed of the secret with which I am acquainted; that cannot be: listen patiently until the end of my story...I will not lead you on, unguarded and ardent as I then was, to your destruction and infallible misery. Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow" (39).

In his text The Billion Year Spree: The True History of Science Fiction, Brian W. Aldiss does an excellent job of linking Mary Shelley to a later movement in literature. He states: "science fiction was born in the heart and crucible of the English Romantic movement in exile in Switzerland, when the wife of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote Frankenstein: or the Modern Prometheus....[t]he elements of that novel are still being explored in fiction, because they are still of seminal interest to our technological society" (3). Indeed, most discussions of the history of science fiction call Mary Shelley "the mother" of the movement. Shelley seems to provide the distinct linking point where the Gothic literary movement begins to evolve into science fiction: Mary is the first to combine the knowledge myths with the scientific discourse of the period which Jody has presented, that characterized the scientist as the noble seeker of knowledge who, through experimentation could obtain the secrets of Creation, and become the creator themselves. While the knowledge is now specifically scientific, the same cautionary tale applies and continues to apply more pertinently to our modern technological age. Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein/ Monster has become a popular metaphor of scientist/science retranslated by writers in the following centuries. Some critics suggest that Dr. Frankestein is the most influential fictional portrayal of the 'mad' scientist figure as proud creator who practises science without a 'soul' or conscience . The monster is seen as a metaphor for any of the unnatural, uncontrollable by-products of scientific experimentation that get away from the master and lead to destruction. In the 20th century the monster has been metamorphised by technology into the figure of the robot. Or the Doppleganger reading -- that Frankenstein's monster is the evil side to himself -- has been readapted too.

19th Century

"The Birthmark" -- In this short story by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a young scientist named Aylmer has been working feverishly on idle experiments in the lab, when he finally sets his sights on his beautiful wife's one imperfection- a tiny hand shaped birthmark. He becomes so obsessed with the birthmark and on formulating a cure that when he looks at his wife, he sees nothing else. He creates the cure and forces her to drink it. The birthmark disappears and then his wife dies quickly thereafter. Obvious cautionary tale about the ethics of science, and about destructive potentials and unforeseeable outcomes of scientific creation.

The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G Wells -- perfect example of the 'Frankenstein' type scientist. Dr. Moreau secludes himself on an island where he can carry out his cruel vivisection (live dissection) experiments freely. He is trying to transform animals into a race of beastmen. Moreau indoctrinates them into worshipping him as their God and Creator. "These creatures of mine seemed strange and uncanny to you...but to me, just after I make them, they seem to be indisputable human beings....This time I will burn out all the animal, this time I will make a rational creature of my own. After all, what is ten years? Man has been a hundred thousand in the making'" (78-9).

Frankenstein: "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 their's" (40).

However, the beasts begin to revert back into their original states, stage a rebellion against him, kill him and re-inherit the island. Moreau lacks ethics in his experiments; he doesn't consider the implications of his work and is unable to maintain control over his creations despite his efforts: "[t]o this day, I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter" (75).

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson -- Dopplegänger theme -- two sides to one man. Dr. Jekyll finds a potion that allows him to transform physically and spiritually into a lecherous alter-ego he names Mr. Hyde. He tries to control his oscillation between selves but soon he finds he has no control and the evil Hyde dominates and destroys the good Doctor who had brought him "out" in the first place.

20th Century: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. An ambitious entrepreneur creates a genetically engineered dinosaur park on a secluded island. Attempts to contain the population through controlling reproduction and segregation in electrified paddocks fail and "nature finds a way" to rebel against the scientist.

In this discussion, I have attempted to trace the origins of the knowledge myths which influenced Mary Shelley, show how she readapted them into a modern scientific version that has been again picked up by 19th and 20th century writers as an appropriate myth to employ in the presentation of modern scientific technological anxieties in science fiction novels: a modernization of the Modern Prometheus myth if you will.

Many regard H.G Wells as the father of modern science fiction, but I assert, Mary Shelley was the mother. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in expressing her reactions and anxieties towards the rise of science in her lifetime, has provided a framework for ethical and critical approach towards science and technology that has endured.

In applying a cultural studies approach to Frankenstein, we see that the monster is an important figure in popular culture, as well as in science and literature. In its dramatized versions, Mary's work is adapted, and at times compromised; yet despite this, the thirty movie versions ultimately demonstrate the enduring relevance of her story.

Shortly after its publication, Frankenstein was performed on the stage. The first play adaptation was entitled Presumption, or The Fate of Frankenstein, which Mary Shelley saw at the English Opera House. She was pleased with its work and noted that T. Cooke's performance of the monster was "well imagined and executed". The Frankenstein monster also became incorporated with other figures like Faust and the Vampire in the 1826 production of The Devil Among the Players. General speaking, all of these theatrical versions met widespread success. Yet their theatrical treatments compromised critical elements of the book. For instance, the Brother's Brough 1849 production of Frankenstein; or the Vampire's Victim omitted Walton from the work, while also discarding the gradual development of the monster, Frankenstein's moral struggle, the creation of a mate for the monster, and Elizabeth's death. Instead, the production focused on Frankenstein's hubris in manipulating nature, and the theme of man playing God in creating a creature in his own image.

As film became a medium to embrace the Frankenstein myth, several versions emerged, including Thomas Edison's ten minute, silent version, and James Whale's Frankenstein (1931) and The Bride of Frankenstein (1935). In Whale's two films, Boris Karloff crystallized our visual image of the monster that still pervades our perceptions today. Whale's Frankenstein is also of interest in that "Henry" Frankenstein's assistant Fritz chooses the abnormal brain, thus displacing the blame from the creator. In this way, the understanding that Whale imparts works against the grain of Mary's version in which the monster is not inherently evil, but rather, conditioned by his environment. Yet Whale's 1931 version also spoke to the inhumanity of society in their treatment of the monster as they chase him, and he dies from a fall off a windmill. His 1931 version was followed by The Bride of Frankenstein four years later which begins with Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester) telling Percy and Lord Byron that the monster survived the fall.

Since then, Frankenstein has survived other alterations-- some cheap and rather distasteful offerings like the blood, gore, and sexual excess of Paul Morissey's Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. The myth has also been embraced in children's films like the 1967 Mad Monster Party in which Frankenstein's monster, Wolf Man, the Mummy, and Dracula come together, and Frankenweenie. The appropriation of the Frankenstein monster in children's films indicates how Mary Shelley's theme is sacrificed for entertainment value. Not only do the makers and audience disregard her warning about playing God, but they fashion her monster into a plaything, devoid of any fearful quality. In other instances, the Frankenstein archetype or hubris theme has translated into films not directly grounded in the story itself, like The Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands, and Jurassic Park. Like Frankenstein's monster, Edward Scissorhands evokes sympathy from the audience as they witness the pathos that his creator has inflicted upon him.

Evidently, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has endured a series of transformations that have both diminished and enhanced its significance. In the early plays, human concern receded in the place of a sadistic and, at times, comic viewing of the freak. In film, Boris Karloff more effectively imbued the figure with compassion and subtleties that reinforced Mary Shelley's point. However, in all of these versions, perhaps one significant element has been lost, that one would think would instead amplify in our intellectual advancement -- that is the ethical debate over science. For instance, the most recent screenplay, Kenneth Branagh's version, does not completely embrace the scientific debate. As Caryn James argues of Branagh's version in "Seeking the Man Within the Monster": "Since the linchpin of "Frankenstein" is a fascination with the moral ramifications of science, this story should be even more relevant today than it was in 1818 . . . Today's astounding medical advances even fulfill some of Mary Shelley's implicit prophesies, but Branagh never addresses that, preferring to keep his film exaggeratedly quaint." Yet although film has in some ways compromised Mary Shelley's purpose, it has disseminated and made an archetype of Frankenstein's monster. As each of us has discussed in our group, it has become the guiding trope of all aspects of our culture -- from science, to literature, to popular culture. It is a figure known to all, a reflection of our own selves and our relentless struggle for knowledge at the cost of humanity.

Some evaluative comments on the project

Drawing the monster and the story of Frankenstein into the scope of popular culture signalled to me the way the issues raised in the story speak to deep-rooted anxieties around issues such as scientific creation. I was particularly interested in the examination of Jurassic Park and Edward Scissorhands as modern permutations of this myth. The presentation contexualized these modern, pop-culture links well in the earlier discussions of science, bio-ethics, and myth. I am also interested by the way the story has been transformed into a myth, its character a type. It would have also been interesting to explore the kind of cultural slippages between Frankenstein the creator and Frankenstein the monster.

This project was clearly very well researched and provided some very interesting links and connections to other areas. I especially liked the cultural approach and the way in which Mary Shelley's subject regarding science and ethics was related to today's events and issues. The links to the knowledge myths and the doppelgänger concept were nicely tied together and very well presented. The amount of research and effort put forth was obvious in the many external references, not only to other authors and their works but also to medical journals and newspaper reviews. The poster display adequately supported and expressed the oral presentation. Overall it was very well done and instructional, even if a bit long.

I found this presentation covered a lot of material. Each of the topics presented could have been further developed into separate presentations. It was obviously very well researched and very impressive. Perhaps some of the information about medical ethics and other literary works could have been scaled down a little for more reference to Mary Shelley's work.

Good presentation. The subject was thoroughly investigated and was made easy to comprehend. I especially liked the poster presentation -- well planned. Here is a thought though -- do you think that in today's world of technological advances that a modern day Frankenstein may be created? i.e., genetic engineering between man and beast?

I like the far reaching aspect of their presentations that looked backward, forward, and at the present. I liked the segment on literary influences the most because it tied everything that we've discussed in class together and also, I now know where to look for Mary Shelley's influence and influences.

Wonderful presentation and poster. The work, research, effort, and time that must have gone into the presentation is highly commendable. I enjoyed the sections on how Mary Shelley has influenced others -- her ideas are really universal.

Brought up the idea of the pervading sexual imagery that arose and that was used to explain the writing. It was interesting that it always seemed to be the men who were focused on the possible sexual interpretations and Victor was always the dominator over nature.
        The issue of the ethical questions in the whole process that Frankenstein went through is very relevant for today. Mary Shelley seemed to be predicting the future in medical advances. The whole section of the presentation dealing with the medical and ethical questions caused some anxiety as to where society as a whole is heading in regard to this issue.