• MobBarley700@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    See for me it’s not so much the rejection of science itself as the fact that he was trying to play God and the creature was a reflection of that. There might even be a metaphor in there somewhere regarding original sin and God’s rejection of man. He creates this thing then abandons it because it’s not perfect. Had he an ounce of love things would’ve turned out differently.

    • Zirconium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      He even dug up corpses to pursue this knowledge of creation. He chose to stick to outdated science even while professors and his father tried to show him new fields of science. He wasn’t pursuing science, he was pursuing an outdated model of knowledge.

    • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s a really fascinating perspective, it’s definitely set my mind spinning. I reckon our theories might actually mesh together in a way.

      Consider why Victor felt the need to abandon his creation. Was it not in part due to his dread of society’s judgement, which, in turn, highlights the destructive influence society can wield?

      And regarding the aspiration to ‘play God,’ could it possibly be an offshoot of societal pressures and expectations?

      The novel is incredibly rich, and all too often, it’s overly simplified.

      Great post OP, really an engaging discussion. (At least I think so)

    • Maturin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your version reminds me of Vonnegut’s that was something like this in an imagined conversation with Mary Shelly: “Dr. R - Does it bother you when people call the monster in the book ‘Frankenstein’? MS - Not really. There were two monsters in the book, after all, and one of them was named ‘Frankenstein.’”