Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley 

 1) What are some major differences between the movie and the novel Frankenstein?

- Hear I mention some difference between the movie and the novel Frankenstein

1. Victor Frankenstein:

Book: Victor is more of a thoughtful, guilt-ridden guy obsessed with learning how to cheat death, especially after his mom dies. His drive for knowledge is what messes him up.

Movie: Victor is way more dramatic and emotional. He’s reckless, and the movie highlights his love life with Elizabeth a lot more, which isn’t as big a deal in the book.

2. Creating the Monster:

Book: The Monster’s creation is super vague. Victor just says he brought it to life, but we don’t really know how. It’s mysterious.

Movie: They go all out with the special effects. There’s a full scene where Victor uses electricity and fancy equipment to bring the Monster to life, which is more dramatic and inspired by older Frankenstein movies.

3. Elizabeth’s Death and Revival:

Book: Elizabeth dies after the Monster kills her on her wedding night, and that’s it. There’s no revival attempt.

Movie: Victor tries to bring Elizabeth back to life after she dies, which is a huge change. But it goes horribly wrong, and she ends up killing herself. This adds more tragedy and drama that wasn’t in the original book.

4. The Monster:

Book: The Monster is really smart and learns to speak well. He reads books like Paradise Lost and reflects a lot on life.

Movie: The Monster is still emotional but not as intelligent as in the book. The movie focuses more on his physical suffering and feelings of rejection.

5. The Ending:

Book: Victor chases the Monster to the Arctic and dies there. The Monster disappears, promising to kill himself.

Movie: The Monster is more emotional. He’s sad when Victor dies and carries his body into a fire, choosing to die with him, which makes the ending more symbolic.

-Conclusion 

Overall, the movie amps up the drama, especially around relationships, while the book focuses more on deeper thoughts about life and creation.

2) Who do you think is a real monster?

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, figuring out who the real monster is can be tricky. At first glance, you’d think it’s the Monster because of how he looks and the terrible things he does. But when you dig deeper, it becomes clear that Victor Frankenstein, the guy who created him, might actually be the real monster.

1. Victor’s Actions:

Victor Frankenstein creates the Monster, but instead of taking care of him, he freaks out and abandons him right after he comes to life. He never thinks about how the Monster will feel or what might happen next. Victor acts super selfishly—he's more concerned about his reputation and feelings than the consequences of creating life. This leads the Monster to suffer a lot, which eventually makes him act out violently. So, Victor’s irresponsibility is what causes all the chaos and tragedy in the story.

2. The Monster’s Humanity:

Even though the Monster looks terrifying and ends up doing some pretty violent things, he wasn’t always like that. In the beginning, he’s kind, curious, and just wants to be accepted and loved. But because everyone rejects him, including Victor, he gets more and more bitter and angry. The Monster is actually more relatable than Victor in some ways—he’s just reacting to the cruelty and loneliness he experiences. His violent behavior is a response to being constantly hurt and isolated.

3. Who’s Really the Monster?:

Being a "monster" in this story isn’t just about how you look or even what you do. It’s about your moral choices. Victor’s choice to create life and then totally ditch his responsibility is what makes him the real monster. He causes so much suffering, not just for the Monster, but also for his family and friends, because he’s too selfish to admit his mistakes and take action.

-Conclusion 

In the end, even though the Monster does terrible things, it’s really Victor’s selfishness and lack of responsibility that make him the true villain.

3) Do you think the search for knowledge is dangerous and destructive?

In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the search for knowledge is shown to be both dangerous and destructive. Victor Frankenstein’s obsession with gaining knowledge and pushing scientific boundaries leads to a lot of tragedy, not only for him but for everyone around him.

1. Victor’s Obsession:

At first, Victor’s interest in knowledge seems normal. He’s curious about life, death, and how the world works. But things go wrong when he becomes obsessed with creating life. He doesn’t think about the consequences or if it’s even a good idea—he just wants to prove he can do it. This leads to him creating the Monster, which triggers a chain of horrible events, including the deaths of his loved ones. Victor’s intense thirst for knowledge destroys his own happiness and life.

2. Knowledge Without Responsibility:

One of the biggest lessons in Frankenstein is that gaining knowledge without thinking about the responsibility that comes with it is dangerous. Victor learns how to create life but doesn’t take care of the Monster or think about the results of his actions. He just runs away from the problem, and because of that, the Monster turns violent and causes a lot of destruction. The novel shows that knowledge, when handled irresponsibly, can have seriously bad consequences.

3. Pushing Boundaries:

The book also talks about how some knowledge might be "forbidden" or too dangerous for humans to mess with. Victor tries to play God by controlling life and death, which ends up backfiring. The message is that some things are beyond what humans should try to control. By trying to break those natural boundaries, Victor causes harm to himself and everyone he loves. The novel warns that there are limits to what we should explore.

-Conclusion 

In Frankenstein, it’s clear that the pursuit of knowledge, when taken too far or without responsibility, can lead to destruction. Victor’s story shows the dangers of chasing knowledge without thinking about the consequences, making it a cautionary tale about the risks of pushing limits without caution.

4) Do you think Victor Frankenstein's creature was inherently evil, or did society's rejection and mistreatment turn him into a monster?

-In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the creature isn’t born evil. Instead, it’s society’s rejection and mistreatment that turn him into a "monster." At the start, the creature is like a blank slate he just wants to be loved and accepted, but people judge him based on his looks, not his actions.

1. The Creature’s Innocence:

When Victor creates the creature, he doesn’t come out evil. In fact, he’s kind of innocent, like a baby, curious about the world and wanting to connect with people. At first, he tries to help others, like when he secretly gathers firewood for a family in the woods. He watches them and learns how to speak, hoping to one day be a part of their world. All he really wants is to fit in and find companionship.

2. Rejection and Loneliness:

But the creature never gets the chance to fit in. From the moment he’s brought to life, even his creator, Victor, is terrified and disgusted by him. Everywhere he goes, people freak out and attack him just because of how he looks. This constant rejection makes him feel lonely and angry. The more people push him away, the more he starts to feel like he has no place in the world.

3. What Turns Him Violent:

The creature only becomes violent after being rejected over and over. When Victor refuses to create a companion for him, it’s like the final straw. He feels betrayed and sees no hope for happiness. So, he lashes out, killing Victor’s loved ones as a way to get revenge for all the pain he’s been through. His actions are terrible, but they come from the suffering and isolation he’s experienced, not because he’s inherently evil.

-Conclusion 

In the end, the creature isn’t born a monster he’s made into one by how society and even his creator treat him. If he had been shown love or acceptance, he could’ve turned out completely differently. Instead, the lack of compassion is what drives him to become destructive.

5) Should there be limits on scientific exploration? If so, what should those limits be?

In Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the novel makes it clear that there should definitely be limits on scientific exploration. Victor Frankenstein’s story is a warning about what can happen when scientists push too far without thinking about the consequences, especially when it comes to messing with life and death.

1. Victor’s Ambition:

Victor gets obsessed with creating life and making a name for himself. He doesn’t stop to think if he should do it, or what will happen after he brings his creation to life. He’s so focused on achieving something great that he ignores the possible consequences. Once the Monster is born, Victor runs away from his responsibility, leading to a tragic chain of events. His ambition makes him blind to the ethical and moral questions that come with creating life.

2. Taking Responsibility:

One of the biggest lessons in Frankenstein is that scientists need to take responsibility for their work. Victor abandons the creature after he brings it to life, which leads to the Monster’s pain, anger, and violence. This shows that there need to be limits on scientific discovery to ensure that it’s done responsibly. Scientists should think about the long-term effects of what they’re doing, not just whether they can do it. If they don’t, things can go wrong really fast.

3. The Dangers of Playing God:

Shelley’s novel also suggests that some types of knowledge like controlling life and death are too risky for humans. Victor tries to "play God" by creating life, but it goes against the natural order, and the results are disastrous. This shows that science should have limits, especially when it involves things we don’t fully understand, like genetics or artificial life. If we push too far without understanding the risks, it can cause more harm than good.

-Conclusion

Overall, Frankenstein teaches that while exploring science is important, there need to be ethical limits. Scientists should think not just about what they can do, but what they should do, and be ready to take responsibility for the consequences of their discoveries.