Talk:Frankenstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frankenstein article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Frankenstein has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Langlit.

This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Tasks you can do:

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Frankenstein was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for July 2006.

Featured on Template:March 11 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

[edit] Image

I changed the bookcover image (though it was recently placed) to the Barnes and Noble Classics bookcover for Frankenstein. I didn't really like the last one, and thought that it was neither asthetically pleasing nor in support of the content of the novel. I feel that the previous image reflected the popular image of Frankenstein, and not the complexity of the novel (which through popular culture is lost). I particularly like this cover image, and I think that it shows the complexity of the novel, not to mention the overall disposition. If you feel that it is absolutley nescesary to change it back, don't without stating your reasons. ^_^ --Whatcanuexpect 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to post ALL book covers you can find and caption them with the different aspects they depict. Jclerman 18:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, by the rules of Fair Use, you have to mention the publisher in the text. I'm sure Barnes and Noble is very happy with the viral marketing. Can't we find an old classic book cover from the 1920s or 30s? -- Stbalbach 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use does not require you to mention the publisher--it's not a quid pro quo. You do have to indicate who the publisher is on WP's image info page. Nareek 18:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear, Stbalbach. By displaying this particular book cover, Wikipedia is, de facto, being used to promote sales of this particular edition. If not a classic book cover, how about an illustration depicting Mary Shelley? My Wiki tech aptitude is not sufficiently advanced to make the change myself, but I sure wish someone would.

Please sign your comments. There is nothing wrong with using the cover of a book to illustrate the article on the book. It is perfect acceptable under Fair Use -- go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and you'll find hundreds of examples. As Nareek says, it is not necessary to identify a publisher, though for the sake of completeness we usually do. And under fair use rules we can't use an image of Mary Shelley because the article is not about Mary Shelley. 23skidoo 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the summer

During the snowy summer of 1816, the "Year Without A Summer," the world was locked in in a long cold volcanic winter responsible for the deaths of million, caused by the eruption of Tambora in 1815. In this terrible year, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley visited Lord Byron in Switzerland. After reading an anthology of German ghost stories, Byron challenged the Shelleys and his personal physician John William Polidori to each compose a story of their own. Of the four, only Polidori completed a story. Mary conceived an idea, and this was the germ of Frankenstein.

I do not understand quite clearly why the terrible winter due to the volcanic eruption is mentionned here. What is the relationship, and how did it impact the birth of the book exactly ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

They were all stuck inside looking for something to do. Monopoly hadn't been invented yet so they decided to write stories instead. I'll see if I can find some references for this. -- Tim Starling 07:51, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] consistency?

Someone very much needs to revise and correct the plot summary: as it reads now, Justine is framed for murder twice, and Victor Frankenstein shows up at the beginning of the book to relate the entire tale, a tale that ends with his death, which begs the question of how he's telling it to Captain Walton. -- Antaeus Feldspar

Better now? -- Tim Starling 03:50, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Much better. BTW, how do you get that timestamp after your username? -- Antaeus Feldspar

Four tildes ~~~~. Three for just the username. -- Tim Starling 07:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Monsters category

I put back the Fictional Monsters category tag, which had been removed earlier. The rationale for removing it was sound: true, Frankenstein usually refers to the scientist, not the monster. However there have been many occasions in which the monster has been referred to directly as Frankenstein, most recently in Van Helsing. Plus, I've also seen the scientist referred to as a monster as well. Although it isn't strictly correct, I feel the name Frankenstein has become so synonymous with the creature that it becomes conspicuous by its absence in this category. If there is any way to make a "pipe change" so that the category listing says "Frankenstein's Monster" that would be great, though I am told this cannot be done. Having said all this, I just looked at the category and at present all that's listed there are characters like Elmo from Sesame Street and the cereal box monster Franken Berry. It's pretty useless as is, but I imagine someone will start adding Dracula and the like to it before long. Maybe. 23skidoo 04:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just created a separate article for Frankenstein's monster, so I'll add the tag there and remove it here. --Fourthgeek 03:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] suggested article name change

Recently, the wikipedia article The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was renamed Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, because that is the actual title of the published work.

With that in mind, the article Frankenstein should be renamed Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus.

Are there any objections to this move? Kingturtle 18:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain as to whether such a move would work for this, since this article is more about Frankenstein the franchise than, per se, an article on the book by itself. There has already been a case of a duplicate article being recreated under Frankenstein Monster, and it's possible it might happen again even with a redirect. I'd wait to see if there's more of a consensus one way or the other on this before doing a movie. 23skidoo 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I am against a name change -- The Modern Prometheus is clearly a subsidiary title and change would create an odd precedent (eg "Brideshead Revisited" would have to change to "Brideshead Revisited. The Sacred and Profane Memoirs of Captain Charles Ryder"). Also I think it is important that all Frankenstein links go direct to the book as the primary reference not via film or disambig pages. --mervyn 12:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Belefant

I haven't read Belefant's little book, but I am very skeptical of his thesis simply because Victor's alibi for Clerval's murder is a key element of the plot. It enables him to leave Ireland completely vindicated. <>< tbc 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Belefant does make that claim, so it's worth mentioning. You're right about the alibi for Clerval's murder - I'll put something in the article if it's not there already. Robin Johnson 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Had Tim Chambers read my book he would have seen that I analysed all three murders from the viewpoints of means, motive, and opportunity. I show that Victor's alibi for Clerval's murder is impossible. Arthur Belefant, 28 June 2006

I will endeavour to read this book as I was unfamiliar with this theory before reading this article. I did pick up on the occasional hint that the monster may be part of Victor's imagination while reading the book, but if this is the case how do you explain Walton's encounter with the creature at the book's end? Mosquitor 12.43, 10 Aug 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Monster's Name

The Monster actually calls itself a wretch, so it does have a name (or at least a title) and was not ugly save in the sense of being sublime.

Phooey.

"Oh! no mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch." "...its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy daemon" -- Victor

"monster! ugly wretch! you wish to eat me, and tear me to pieces--You are an ogre" -- William, Victor's brother

"I was, besides, endowed with a figure hideously deformed and loathsome..." -- the monster

(emphasis mine) <>< tbc 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hehe, tbc winsOreo man 15:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wretch" isn't a title or a name. It's a descriptor. Doesn't count. We're talking names like "Viktor" here. Now if there were a line somewhere in which the Monster says "Call me The Thing" that would be different (plus Mary Shelley's descendents could sue Marvel Comics...) 23skidoo 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein's Monster

Considering the difficulties posed with posting about the monster, the story, and the scientist, I've made a separate article for the monster. It is relatively thorough, but needs information from this article to be moved there. --Fourthgeek 03:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Я люблю эту книгу! Никогда не читал никакую другую книгу получше!

[edit] So sad!

My God, this book is so depressing! Don't you guys agree? — 24.18.2.61 20:10, 19 October 2005

Discussion pages are for discussion of the article, not of what the article is about. Cheers. Robin Johnson 09:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Didn't know. — 24.18.2.61

Does anyone here know when the story started and finished? Not when it was written - when it started. — Thanks, ktp20 xox 86.129.47.193 10:33, 18 June 2006

The novel Frankenstein is set entirely in the 1700s. The main story is framed by letters from Captain Walton, who meets both Frankenstein and his monster separately in the arctic, shortly before each dies. Captain Walton's first letter is dated "Dec. 11th, 17 --" The author does not specify any more specific time.

To sign your name and the date automatically, type the tilde character four times in a row. The tilde character is what appears above the "n" in the character "ñ". — Walloon 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In his second letter Walton quotes "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", which was first published in 1798. This suggests that his first letter could be dated 1797 at the earliest or 1798 at the latest. All Scars 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another name and possible inspiration

According to Paul Johnson (journalist)'s "Intellectuals", Percy Shelley was a student of various writings on the illuminati, which may explain why Fankenstein studied at Ingolstadt. Also, the monster may have referred to himself as "Adam", possibly after Adam Weishaupt and definitely after the biblical Adam. I'd like to know what you think about this before I add it it. Orville Eastland 02:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What's "Intellectuals", a blog, academic journal, etc..? The Adam part would be more apros in Frankenstein's monster under an "Analysis" section or somthing.Stbalbach 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a book, published first in the UK in 1988. I'll post the quote as soon as I can. Orville Eastland 02:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. "The Illuminati had been institutionalized in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt at the German University of Ingolstadt, as guardians of the rationalist enlightenment. Their aim was to illuminate the world until (as he (i.e. Weishaupt)argued) 'Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.' In a sense this became Shelley's permanent aim, but he absorbed the Illuminist material in conjunction with the agressive propaganda put out by their enemies, especially the sensational Ultra tract by the Abbe Barruel, Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobitism (London, 1797-98), which attacked not only the Illuminati but the Masons, Rosicrucians and Jews. Shelley was for many years fascinated by this repellent book, which he often recommended to friends (it was used by his second wife Mary when she was writing Frankenstein in 1818). It was mixed up in Shelley's mind with a lot of Gothic novels which he also read, then and later."

That's from page 32 of the Harper Perennial edition, first published in 1990. Orville Eastland 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein name

Some anon said: The name "Frankenstein" breaks down into FRANK, which is a pet name for FRANCIS which is from the Latin name FRANCISCUS meaning "a free man" and STEIN which translates into "stone". Thus we can view "Frankenstein" as "a free man of the stone", or "freemason".

Give a source, please! Otherwise it will be deleted. BTW, creative people can also claim that it means frankfurter + stone = hot dog cooked in a stone oven. Jclerman 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE GIVE A SOURCE FOR THE FREEMASON INTERPRETATION Jclerman 03:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The element "frank" is German, and has no derivation from Latin. Following an etymological path through "pet names" is not usually the way things are done. The Latin word you are wanting is "francus," not "franciscus," and it was a Late Latin "borrowing" from Middle High German that was in turn borrowed by Old French and then by Middle English. Unless I am very much mistaken (always a possibility if not a likelihood), "frankenstein" would translate as "stone (or stronghold) of the free men," not "free man of the stone". Besides, it's a fairly common surname in German-speaking regions. It wasn't invented by Mary Shelley, and attempting to reverse engineer a hidden meaning into it is ridiculous. Canonblack 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's removed, original research and problems discussed here. --Stbalbach 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Frankenstein

Dr. Frankenstein currently redirects to here, to Frankenstein. Should it instead redirect to the page for the character Victor Frankenstein?

--Pieoncar 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, seems like it should. Not sure how to set up redirects, can someone? Robin Johnson 10:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Jclerman 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main page selected anniversaries January 1st

The main page sentence omits the word "novel:" "...a science fiction (novel) by Mary Shelley...." Can someone please correct it? Thanks. -- Rewster 05:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Websites

Although I agree with the deletion of the spam site, I disagree with the reasoning that other sites deleted earlier today were "unencyclopedic". One is an in-depth examination of the films ("Frankensteins Castle") while the other ("A New Reality") examined the book. And there was also an interesting site ("Toonopedia") that gave a quick history of the early comic book adaptations. I believe they're valid to include here so long as this article includes discussions of the Frankenstein franchise and not just the original book. If anyone wants to make their case that these sites shouldn't count, please do so here. I did, however, delete the IMDb link as it was more appropriate for Shelley's page, and the individual film articles should have their own. 23skidoo 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

The division of this article by splitting off Frankenstein's monster seems awkward--inevitably, there's considerable discussion of the Monster in the main article. Wouldn't a more practical division be to have an article on the novel Frankenstein and then an article on the various adaptations? Nareek 11:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is the monstor goes beyond the novel. So it wouldnt be a simple matter of merging this article into the novel article, since this article contains a bunch of info about the monster thats not from the novel. To merge this article into the novel article + a separate adaptions article, would loose the context that this article has created about the monster, and be confusing. We need an article that just talks about the monster, irregardless of novel or adaption. --Stbalbach 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My proposal would be to move the parts of the monster article that deal with the novel's monster to this article, and move the parts that deal with the monster in film, comics and general culture (along with the similar parts of this article) to a new article. It seems like a much more logical and consistent division; as it is, this article has both (inevitably) quite a bit of material about the novel's portrayal of the monster, as well as material about subsidiary works that have as their only connection to Shelley's novel the character of the monster--which means that they really should be in the other article.

If this doesn't seem more logical to anyone else, of course, I'll drop the idea.Nareek 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah understood, its logical, but Im not sure you understand the point of this article. Its about the monster. Its not about the novel or movies. They have their own articles. --Stbalbach 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, there's too much stuff to be dealt with in one overview article. The way that was handled was to take the stuff about the monster itself out into its own article--I do understand that. What I'm questioning is whether that was the best choice, given how central the monster is to the novel, and even more so to the cultural legacy of the novel. I think it's impossible to separate the material very cleanly using the current set-up, which is why I would suggest a different separation--the novel on one hand, including the monster in the novel, and the adaptations and other legacies of the novel on the other hand. Nareek 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that could possibly work also. I agree the legacy stuff should have its own article. The monster presents a problem. I would rather see the monster article merged back into the novel article, even if it contains non-novel information, rather then split the monster material between multiple articles (novel and legacy) and loose the contextual information in the process. Its hard to discuss the monster just in the context of the novel, or just in the context of later adaptions, that would be a restriction for no reason other than an abstract organizational one. --Stbalbach 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

There is a Schloss Frankenstein, in Hessen and it is near Darmstadt (Schloss = castle) except that it's only flattened ruins, the castle has been completely demolished way before Shelley's times. This makes it a perfect location for such a novel since you can always re-create the castle's past in your story.

[edit] Franklinstein

It is important to note that "The Modern Prometheus" was the most famous nickname of Benjamin Franklin during this time. The novel can be read as a warning about the dangers of technological advancements in this sense.Matthew 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, that would be worth noting. Nareek 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise

This article is too much about the nivel and does not talk about the adaptions enough there is loads of other media why talk almost evclusively about the novel-user:Dr. Septimus

Did you see the sections "Film adaptations", "Television adaptations" and "Other adaptations" in this article, listing and discussing many other incarnations of Frankenstein in various media, most of them with links to their own articles? Robin Johnson 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bride of Frankenstein

The title of the 1935 movie is simply Bride of Frankenstein, not The Bride of Frankenstein. -- Walloon 15:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I accidentally undid your edit while reverting some vandalism - looks like we were both working on it at once. Robin Johnson 15:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overkill

My only objection to this article (and the other one on the poor monster itself) is the constant repetition of this idea:

the creature was not an "evil creation", it was born an innocent blank slate, it was Victor's rejection of the creature that taught it to be evil.

How many times must we be reminded of this? I lost count at around five. Are contributors trying to push a POV, or is this just sloppy organization of the writing? I'm going to assume good faith here, but I don't think the idea needs to be mentioned more than once per article.

It reminds me of the classic Liberal idea (no, not U.S. politics!) which posits that human beings are born good, i.e., with no evil inclinations - in contrast to the religious doctrine (especially in major denominations of Christianity) of Original sin.

Or even the modern Broadway play South Pacific:

"You've got to be taught to hate and fear / You've got to be taught from year to year / It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear." [1]

There may also be parallels to the Unification Church doctrine of the Fall of man. Ah, well, food for thought. --Uncle Ed 21:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the monster says he has a big rage inside him, i know this can be interpreted as he has rage because of what people have done to him but surely you would'nt want to kill every last one of them?

Not forgetting he describes his reasons: "I am malicious because I am miserable". He also backs it up with another reason, or statement form his point of view after experiancing the world after Victor recjected him: "Was man... so powerful, so virtuous and magnificant, yet so vicious and base". You're right, he did start to be an innocent clean slate but along with all the negative things he didn't start off with, he also didn't know laws. His killing is mostly because Victor did abandon him but also because of the way society treated him when he was out in the world and with no restrictions he knew of, his rage, justified in his own opinion, was let loose. - Seanu$ (Unregistered) ((Currentlu writing 'Who does the reader have the most sympathy for - Victor or his creature?' Essay))

[edit] Influences

I just noticed that this article and the one on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner do not reference each other, yet Ancient Mariner was an influence on Shelley in writing Frankenstein, and this shows in the latter's structure: both, for instance are cautionary tales set (partially at least) in a "sea of ice" (North Pole/Mer De Glace/Antarctica) involving a Chinese Box structure of storytelling where the main narrator tells his story before introducing the main story. Both are partially Gothic, partially Romantic in genre, warn of the dangers of violating nature, and deal with the theme of justice (and both are reputed to have been written by people very high on drugs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.165.248 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a source for this? If it's your own original thought then it can't really go in (even though it's interesting!) Robin Johnson 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than various teachers, no. I have just been studying the text, however, and RotAM, along with Paradise Lost and the Promethean Myth were regularly cited as contextual references. Someone must've written something about it out on the interweb somewhere! Theonecynic 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Having said which, Shelley does of course quote the RotAM early on in the book. Theonecynic 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankenstein in popular culture

I created a new article and migrated the popular culture material from this article and from Frankenstein's Monster to it

This article is too long.
Frankenstein's Monster was duplicating the same material as this article resulting in an unintended fork. It was not clear where to put derivative material, it was ending up some in both article, some in one article or another.
There is enough derivative material to justify its own article (even sub-articles), and a separate article for the novel its self.

--Stbalbach 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== Analysis == Clerval's Murder Tim Chamber's comment is wrong. Had he read my book he would have seen that I demonstrate that Victor's alibi is an impossibility. Not only that, but the alibi is backed up by no winesses or evidence.

[edit] Unflattering portrayal of Islam

I'd like to add a note on the main Frankenstein page to reference the anti-Islamic sentiment inherent in the portrayal of Safie's father (named only "the Turk") in chapter 14 [2]. He is saved from an unjust imprisonment by the De Lacey family, initially agreeing to give Safie's hand to Felix in marriage if he is rescued. But because "[h]e loathed the idea that his daughter should be united to a Christian," the "treacherous Turk" goes back on his word and, once free, tries to force his daughter to join him in Constantinople (ostensibly to be "immured within the walls of a harem"). Meanwhile, the De Laceys are all reduced to abject poverty because of the Turk's treachery.

Alas, I know of no research or criticism on this matter which I may cite -- and of course original "research" (does this count as research?) is verboten. How, then, to call this to attention? -- Scartol 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this particularly notable or was this simply the way such characters were treated at the time? For example, if you read British novels from the 1930s-50s you'll often find depictions of blacks that today would be called racist (Live and Let Die the James Bond novel being an example). But at the time the attitudes were commonplace enough so as to make the depiction actually NN. If Shelly was simply reflecting the attitudes of her time, then it really isn't notable, even if by today's standards it might be considered unflattering or offensive. If the opposite can be found -- as in Shelly receiving criticism -- then that's another matter. 23skidoo 17:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Shelley is absolutely reflecting the attitudes of her time -- I told my students the exact same thing. However, I don't think that makes it un-noteworthy. Toni Morrison's book Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination examines precisely this sort of cultural imagining of "the other", as applied to race in the United States (through analysis of the works of Poe, Melville, Cather, and Hemingway). Isn't ethnocentrism worthy of note, regardless of its pervasiveness? After all, even Wikipedia works to eliminate this sort of systemic bias. Perhaps this is a case where an actual work of criticism must be found to give validity to the problem? -- Scartol 20:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism alert

This article appears to have been vandalized, I have made preliminary changes. Additional changes may be required.

---

I also made other changes because of this. Can someone ban the IP for modif please? — Enigma55 ^{(talk • email) 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] ==Frankenstein in popular culture==

{{main}} tagged instead?100110100 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

Frankenstein in popular culture is a useful article, but shouldn't there also be a simple disambiguation page called Frankenstein (disambiguation) that lists the novel, several movies called Frankenstein and the Edgar Winter song, among other items?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Talk%7EFrankenstein_e045.html"