Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Post Reply New Topic

I think I never read a book in which I could relate so well to the feelings of a character. Lifelong loneliness, being misunderstood, feeling abandoned, self-pity, sadness, hiding, being different, desperation, repelling humans and being perceived as a monster even though being harmless. I share his feelings totally, minus the anger and revenge, but considering the way he came into existence the anger is totally understandable.

Who else here relates to the monster?

I do relate to him very much, and this is one of my favorite books.

I was going to post the exact same words

I felt great emapthy for the monster. He is a metaphor for art being larger than life, of art imitating life imitating art. It seems obvious to me that Victor Frankenstein's narcissism was based on Mary's ironic view of Percy Shelley at that time, as a vain, eccentric and obsessive artist who allowed not only pride but also ego, infidelity, and lust for immortality to destroy his moral code, their relationship, and, ultimately, his own life.

This, absolutely!

Interesting interpretation.

Weve all seen the 1930's Hollywood Frankenstein (which is distorted from the original novel).

Then in the Seventies Mel Brooks did his spoof of THAT Frankenstein in "Young Frankenstein"- further removed from the original novel. Yet the best scene in "Young Frankenstien" is the "Putin on the Ritz" scene. Have often wondered why I always fall off my chair laughing at it. My conclusion is that the scene shows the fine line between tragedy and comedy: the creature is like a child, or an animal pet, being abused by its caretaker, and being abused for the sake of the caretake's own vanity. You could just as easily cry as laugh at it.

I learned from an interview with Mel Brooks that the scene was Gene Wilder's idea. Mel Brooks didn't even "get it", but allowed Wilder to go ahead with it.

From what you're saying it sounds like Gene Wilder was somehow channeling Mary Shelly herself, and was tapping into an original theme in the novel- knowingly or not.

I've never seen the Frankenstein films, Mel Brooks, or any literature-based films except for the recent Mary Shelley movie with Elle Fanning. I've read the bios and journals of Mary and Percy, though. I love Percy's writing but he was a Grade A a***hole as a person, almost as bad as Byron.

Based on that clip, I agree with you.

Sidenote: I don't even watch Brontë adaptations. I'm just not into film.

I've always identified with the monster. In fact, a good case for the monster being autistic can be made.
As far as movie adaptions go, my favorite has been Marry Shelly's Frankenstein, starring Robert DeNiro as the monster, and Kenneth Branaugh as Victor Frankenstein. While it's hardly the best example of a great film, it's the most loyal adaption so far. DeNiro, as ever, is incomparable.

Did you see Victor as autistic too? That crossed my mind, despite his obvious narcissism and the Darwinian overtures.

I've never considered that. I must think about it.

Loved the book Frankenstein. Could relate a bit to both the doctor and the monster. Still remember the part that quotes rhyme of the ancient mariner:

"Like one who on a lonesome road, walks on in fear and dread
And having turned round once more turns no more his head,
For close behind he knows, a frightful fiend doth tread."

What would be your arguments?

I thought of him as very empathetic, for example during the time he spent in the shed next to the cottage and observed the family. I think he was good at observing the emotional changes and feelings of the family members and their social relations to each other. Even when he didn't yet understand their verbal language he learnt to understand the people quite well. Considering that he's never had social contact before except people reacting in horror to him, I find he was relatively socially mature. Also he was very aware of his own feelings and discovering new ones, even though he didn't know how to name them.

Victor I don't consider autistic either. He was mad and obsessed and egocentric... But I don't remember thinking he had other problems with social interaction when I read the book.

Maybe next time I re-read the book I will pay more attention to both the characters with that question in mind.




I have never seen a Frankenstein movie. If I one day decide to watch one and that one is the most loyal adaptation I will watch it.

I take the monster to be autistic because while he learns how to speak and read, it's only through imitating those NT's he observes. Yes, he is empathetic, as are many autistics, but fails at displaying proper emotions, such as when he murdered Frankenstein's younger brother.

I'm sure the NTs also learnt how to speak and read by imitation.

The creature was only a few years old and within those years experienced practically no social contact at all (besides people running away at his sight or wanting to hurt him). Yet he did not lack theory of mind and understood humans relatively good emotionally without that someone had to tell him he needed to learn certain things.
He also felt there should be an emotional connection between him and them. In real life I speculate that a real human would be in a much worse mental state if deprived since birth from all social contact and I imagine under those circumstances NT's couldn't have done better than the creature at understanding humans emotionally and their social relationships.

Btw, I wonder if the brain Victor put into the creature's head had some influence on his behaviours and character.

What harmed the creature's interaction with humans was his appearance, not a social skill handicap. Both are things though that can lead to social isolation.


I don't think murdering is an autistic thing.

No, murder normally isn't an autistic thing, but inappropriate emotional reactions can be.

Killers don't show remorse in general, but them not being horrified by their terrible actions (there are of course exceptions) is a product of their socio- or psychopathy. Not autism.

The monster could be classified as a non-human animal, a different species from man. Humans in general don't show very much emotional reactions or guilt when killing animals belonging to another species. Mostly it is not a crime to kill other animals, and the humans wanted to kill the monster too. The monster killed a handful of animals who were not of his own species and he was a vegetarian, therefore had a considerably lower count of deaths of other animals that he was responsible for than the average human does.


Do you think Victor is reacting more inappropriately (unrelated to autism)? He laments the murders but those feelings don't properly inform his actions and don't make him really want to prevent the murders (for example the monster warned Victor that he'd kill Elizabeth if Victor married her, but despite this terrible knowledge Victor went ahead and married her, therefore causing her death. He didn't want it any other way, even though he shows negative emotional reactions).