BR#5 – Frankenstein

From time to time as adults we throw a little classic in to our reading. The kind of story that spawned others and has passed the test of time. The kind you could have studied at school. That last one in a way makes it sound unappealing considering we don’t always look back on the book we studied at school fondly. Frankenstein though isn’t one of them, it’s one of the ones you wish you had studied at school. It has so many of those moments you could see yourself analysing in a class, it has layers. It is also very simple and obvious. A main uncomplicated but unbelievable story. Take it at face value and that’s it.

The writing feels like it could be updated although it shouldn’t ever happen. When things are translated they are also updated in language and in a subtle way style. A book written in English will forever be ageing. I would love to know how Tolstoy sounds to a Russian than he is in the latest translation I read. In that sense I can tell it was written in the early nineteenth century. While that’s not a problem it will be one day.

Shelley approaches all sorts of ideas and concepts throughout the book. They are too numerous to go into detail in just five hundred words but she discusses justice, the role of god, she approaches ideas of personhood and what is is to be a person, our understanding of ethics, even existentialism but this was long before it had become an ism. This is an entire philosophy course for a year covered. There are many essays written on it. I imagine it’s a common understanding too that there is the potential schizophrenia angle which relates in a way to ideas of duality in the book. They need each other, the monster never tries to hurt him and when he dies the monster goes off to die too. Did Frankenstein give a part of himself in the creation of the monster. In a way the monster shows more of what we call humanity than Viktor Frankenstein who in the end becomes a monster himself in a sad way. In a contemporary sense we could think of the development of Artificial Intelligence. The monster has not only an ability to learn but has self-consciousness, the ultimate stage of creating free thinking robots. I could go on and on.

Quite interestingly the book has nearly as interesting a back story. Mary Shelley was the daughter of the revolutionary thinkers William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, and the wife of the poet Percy Shelley. In the ‘Year Without Summer’ of 1816 when they were visiting the exiled and infamous poet and writer amongst many things, Lord Byron in Switzerland, the weather forced them to stay indoors and Byron came up with the idea they all wrote horror stories. In a dream over the next few nights the story of Frankenstein and his monster came to Mary Shelley.

Along with all this and not to be forgotten it’s actually quite a good story. You don’t just read it to learn and look smart, you read it to enjoy. I assume they teach it in schools still and if they don’t can’t think why. It’s so full of everything it would be a waste. I ended it really feeling happy that I had just read a good book. We all should, we may just learn a little eloquence and humanity from a monster.

Our Unique Perceptions

How accurately do we imagine ourselves to how other people imagine we are? That is of course an impossible question to answer as it is not only unique to the one person being imagined but is unique again to each person doing the imagining. People either think unreasonably highly of themselves or unnecessarily lowly of themselves and everything in between; as a result of a lifetimes worth of experiences justifiably or unjustifiably leading to that conclusion. We all know examples of extremes both ways in our friendship or acquaintance groups and these are well worn examples of perception and self-delusion. What we don’t always think about though is whether we view that person accurately or whether what we think is actually part of another delusion.

There was a time when I used to believe that there was nothing unique left in the world. I shared this information with a rather creative friend who made music along with a variety of other interesting and inspired works of art and bodies of thought. He was a character, potentially a genius but certainly someone who viewed the world in a way uncommon to most. I have avoided using the word unique there because it would be too easy but he was horrified at my suggestion that it didn’t exist. I can’t really remember my argument anymore for why nothing was unique but I think it came from an idea that everything came from something; music for example was inspired by other music and never existed independently from anything else. These are not necessarily my thoughts anymore and I would likely agree with him now as no one piece of art will ever be exactly like another. Some may be inspired by others to varying degrees but there will always be something put into it by the creator, even not obvious at first, which came solely from the person making it, their unintentional signature move it could be said.

It is with this that we view others too. You may believe it is obvious that your friend thinks very highly of themselves but others view that person with eyes inspired by a completely unique set of experiences and past conditioning. We get easily frustrated when people don’t think like us when we believe what we think to be obvious. The way we view people is unique just as how your friends view you is unique. You may have an idea of your character but if you have a group of five friends, to them there are five different versions of you running around doing things in five different ways. Nobody views you as you view yourself, it is impossible yet we get so hung up on what people think of us. Just imagine how horrified we would be if we really knew how people thought; each and every version. Perception is a remarkable thing.