FRANKENTIMES
Bringing Monsters to Life Since 2021
Bringing Monsters to Life Since 2021
"Because if Frankenstein has taught us anything, it's that experimenting with technology to stitch random bits into a a monstrous whole can't possibly be a bad idea. "
By Maddie Barkes
Originally published in 1818, Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was revolutionary. Shelley’s original idea for the story came two years earlier in 1816 while creating a submission for a friendly scary story writing contest with her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Byron, and others. They were spending time together on a dreary vacation at Lake Geneva. There was an odd weather phenomenon that was having lasting effects in the area, making the weather dark and dank with dazzling displays of lightning, which you can read all about here (link to Gwyn’s article on the 1816 weather).
This whole atmosphere allowed for Mary Shelley to be heavily inspired in the writing of her first novel. The whole story didn’t come to her immediately of course, but the seed was planted as they passed the days away on that atmospheric vacation.
Shelley’s original title “Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus” shows the significance of the storyline within the cultural context of the time. We know that she was influenced by multiple other authors who wrote about the Greek myth of Prometheus in which he moves outside of the means of humanity and steals fire from the gods. This concept of mankind moving outside of their means and creating beyond what they are meant to is what many people believe to be the one of the main themes for the story of “Frankenstein” (hence the name). The creation of life from death by the hands of man is what many would deem to be going too far in the name of science. This concept of going too far in science wasn’t uncommon, as there were many advancements happening during this time, in science, medicine, and technology that had many people wondering where the line should be drawn. This is a concept that we in the modern age are familiar with, especially within the genre of science fiction. With all of our movies and books about technology overtaking humanity, it is clear that this mindset towards science has continued on for a long time. Understanding how others felt about it in the past and using that as a point of comparison for our mindset now can be a very helpful tool for many.
Of course another common theme in the novel is the idea of humanity and, in turn, what makes us human. Was the monster human? He was created from human parts, and yet was ostracized and treated as “other.” So, what makes us human? The emotions and desires that the monster learns throughout the novel, what could be argued to be the “soul,” seems like a good answer. The question of the monster’s humanity is present throughout the novel and leads to a larger questioning of the defining traits of humanity in general.
Another theme that is present in the novel is nature versus nurture. The monster’s development was arguably stunted through the lack of guidance from Dr. Frankenstein. The monster had to learn everything by himself and the influences that came into his life. The family that he was able to observe and what he was able to read had a heavy impact on his development, but as his mindset changed and because of the fact that he developed emotions (both positive and negative) it leans more in favor of nurture being the most influential factor. This concept is highlighted more obviously in the 1931 “Frankenstein” movie in which they literally use a criminal’s brain by mistake in the creation of the monster. This predestines the monster to be evil in the movie’s world. The novel however, makes the opposite point in its storytelling, ultimately concluding that the monster became “evil” or “bad” as a result of what was done to him, not inherently because of who or what he is.
So, why should you read Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”? Not only does the novel give modern readers a look into the mindsets and conversations of the time, it gives access to many big conversations in philosophy through a more digestible method: through the story of a torn scientist and a big confused monster.
The image used in this article came from a post called “Literary Affairs” on the website https://www.thedailybeast.com/literary-affairs. Some information was taken from the article “The Strange And Twisted Life Of ‘Frankenstein’” from the New Yorker’s websitehttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-strange-and-twisted-life-of-frankenstein.
A year characterized by some of the most interesting weather Europe has ever seen, 1816 has come and gone. It is with a heavy heart we say goodbye. As we enter into 1817, however, “England Exposed” is happy to provide updates on some of 1816’s most scandalous affairs.
Mary Godwin, daughter of the writer William Godwin, has been known to run off with her poetry-writing paramour, Percy Shelley. Though unmarried, the couple ran off once again last summer with Godwin’s step-sister, Claire Clairmont. The trio traveled to Switzerland’s Lake Geneva, where they met up with the infamous Lord Byron and a physician named John Polidori. It is not surprising that Percy and Byron. who are known for disregarding social custom and embracing philosophies of free love, were involved in the scandalous trip to Lake Geneva.
Percy and Mary’s extramarital exploits are nothing new. However, this time around, their actions seem to have harmed more than their families’ reputations. Though the families have tried to keep it quiet, “England Exposed” has uncovered a chain of suicides that transpired in the aftermath of the Lake Geneva trip. Fanny Inlay, Mary’s half-sister, reportedly committed suicide in October— only a few short months after Mary’s travels. Percy’s wife, Harriet Westbrooke, committed sucide in December. Perhaps the women were driven to suicide because of the ruinous impact Percy and Mary’s affair has had on their families? One cannot help but wonder.
Percy, newly unmarried, proceeded to marry Mary Godwin twenty days after the discovery of his late wife’s suicide. Do his actions adhere to proper social decorum? Probably not. At the very least, Mr. and Mrs. Shelley are no longer partaking in an extramarital affair.
In other news, the Shelleys were not the only unmarried couple spending time together on Lake Geneva. A letter written by Lord Byron reveals that he had an affair with Claire Clairmont, and the affair did not end well. He said of Claire, ““I never loved her nor pretended to love her—but a man is a man—& if a girl of eighteen comes prancing to you at all hours of the night—there is but one way—the suite of all this is she was with child.” Claire, it seems, threw herself in Byron’s path. Byron could not resist. In this situation, Claire seems to have followed the philosophy of free love that her step father and step sister have previously adhered to. The consequence is a child out of wedlock. This is not unusual for the Godwin family, as Mary gave birth to several children before she married Percy.
Claire’s account of events differs from Byron’s. In her eyes, Byron was the villain and she was the victim. Claire’s personal journal presents as Byron a “[monster] of lying, meanness cruelty and treachery—under the influence of free love Lord B[yron] became a human tiger slaking his thirst for inflicting pain upon defenseless women who under the influence of free love...loved him.” According to Claire, Byron took advantage of Claire’s affections. This seems plausible for Byron, a man who is known for his dalliances with women. Either way, the strained relationship between Byron and Claire does not bode well for their child’s future.
Sources:
Lord Byron’s letter to Douglas Kinnaird (20 January 1817)
Claire Clairmont’s unpublished memoir
https://romantic-circles.org/reference/chronologies/mschronology/chrono.html
Arctic Explorer Walton Interviews 'Mad Scientist' Frankenstein
In our interview with Victor Frankenstein, we were able to get to some of the deep rooted emotions that Victor had surrounding his recent activities. Here is what he had to say.
Robert Walton: So Victor, what inspired you to play God of sorts and create the creature that is running loose?
Victor Frankenstein: As I was studying to be a doctor, I became fascinated with life and death. Throughout my studies, I started to believe that I could create life with science.
W: I see. How did you react after your work was successful? All of those intense studies came to fruition. How do you feel?
F: At first I was proud. I had done it, something no one had ever done before. Sure, people have been creating new life from the beginning of time, but I was able to accomplish an act so incredible, it hadn’t been done since God created Eve from Adam’s rib.
W: It was quite a feat. it makes sense that you would have been proud. What changed? You seemed to be proud up until recently, where did it all go wrong?
F: You see, dear Walton, those are completely different questions.
W: Okay then, let’s start with my original question, what changed and took away your pride in your creature?
F: The change was rather drastic. I had hoped to create something beautiful, wonderful, and good. Instead, I created a monster. My opinion changed once I looked upon its face and realized its atrocity.
W: I see, can you describe to me the magnitude of the atrocity?
F: I would rather not reflect upon it.
W: Well then, I won’t push it, in your personal opinion, what went wrong in this whole process?
F: My mistake was meddling with life in the first place. I I altered creation as I had hoped, but did not realize that it could be my personal destruction. My mistake was not realizing that I could not control what I had created.
W: So Victor, If you were able, what would you change?
F: I think that I still would have attempted my creation, but I think I would have taken better control of the monster at the beginning. I would force the creature to be more obedient to myself and those who are really human. When things went wrong, I would have taken care of the situation sooner.
W: Indeed. What did your family and friends think about what you managed to accomplish?
F: I did not make them aware of what I had done. I could not reveal the source of my misery, lest they would despise me. I had committed a foul tragedy. My dear friend Clerval did find out...in the most difficult of ways. As did my young brother and my love, Elizabeth. These are my life’s regrets.
W: Would you care to discuss any influences in your life that led you to your work?
F: I would credit the venerable Professor Waldman, my instructor at the university at Ingolstadt. His encouragement to investigate alchemy has helped me develop and continue my research, even though I did not complete my education.
W: So, Victor, what comes next? You must have future plans, once you depart my ship, how do those fit in with your research?
F: To be honest, I don’t really know, I think I want to get back to my studies. One take away I have from this whole atrocious experience is that I have achieved greatness, and I will do it again but with less flaws. There is so much that we can accomplish with modern technology and I personally believe that there is more that I can contribute to science and society.
W: So Victor, as our time on the ship together is coming to a close, I want to thank you for taking the time to talk with me, it has truly been an honor. I have one final question, if there is one thing that you could say to the readers of this interview, what would you want to leave them with?
V: My imagination was vivid, yet my powers of analysis and application were intense; by the union of these qualities I conceived the idea, and executed the creation of a man. Even now I cannot recollect, without passion, my reveries while the work was incomplete. I trod heaven in my thoughts now exulting in my powers, now burning with the ideas of their effects. From my infancy I was imbued with high hopes and a lofty ambition; but how am I sunk!
By Grace Longstreth and Layni Miller. Frankenstein's final response is from the novel, Frankenstein (Norton Critical Edition, pg. 152)
Ad by Kaela Bailey
Crossword puzzle by Savannah Dowler
Weather Report:
"The Year Without a Summer"
By Gwyneth Boike
You can put your beach gowns back in storage, because this summer will be like none you have ever seen before. Expect cloudy skies and relative darkness throughout the middle months of the year. Gloomy showers are also to be included in the forecast, as well as chilly temperatures.
It is very unlikely that crops of any kind will survive this phenomenon due to the low temperatures and lack of adequate sunlight. This will most likely cause a scarcity in food, so we are asking that you please do not rob your fellow farmers or hoard any produce.
Unfortunately, this decrease in food supply will cause an increase in the value of food, so think twice before you feast on your salvaged produce. This will make it quite expensive to feed the horses the oats that they need, making travel more of a burden than it already is. Do not lose heart, however, because we have just received word that Karl Drais is experimenting on a new form of travel--a strange contraption with only two wheels, one in front of the other. It probably will not catch on, but we appreciate his valiant efforts to improve travel.
It is not an ideal time to be living in Europe or North America, as this fateful summer of 1816 will be without the warmth and sunshine that usually accompanies it.
Now, before you pack your valises and sail to southern countries to escape the depressing weather befalling Europe, you might want to rethink your travel plans, especially to Southeast Asia. Indonesia’s Mount Tambora erupted back on April 5, releasing ash and debris into the atmosphere, causing this catostropthic weather change. This caused massive amounts of particles to crush nearby homes and villages, killing many who did not have the chance to escape.
So, unless you would like to dig to your hotel or swim through ocean ash, we would recommend that you sit this summer out, staying inside and preparing for a bleak few months. We can only speculate that in the future, 1816 will be known as the tragic “Year Without a Summer.”
By Lauren O'Grady
Three months ago, a Swedish man’s strangled corpse was located on the shores of Ireland. Today, the only suspected perpetrator walks free.
An Irish beach became the center of a criminal investigation when Henry Clerval, 25, of Geneva, Switzerland, was found murdered. Local fisherman, Daniel Nugent, was the first person to discover the homicide. He was fishing with his son and brother-in-law at the time of the murder. He stumbled across Clerval’s body when bad weather forced him to bring his boat back to shore.
Clerval initially appeared to be a drowned man that had washed up on the beach. However, the dryness of his body and the bruising on his neck revealed a more harrowing reality: Clerval had been murdered by strangulation. The murder had been so recent, in fact, that Clerval’s body was still warm. Upon discovering the newness of the death, villagers attempted to revive the young man. They were unsuccessful. Their efforts quickly shifted to pursuing justice for Clerval.
Witnesses were able to piece together a small profile of the murderer. One villager reported seeing a man leave the shore shortly before Clerval’s body was found. Another villager made a similar report. Allegedly, the mysterious man was alone in his boat, and he was spotted within the vicinity of Clerval’s body. He seemed to be fleeing the murder scene.
Immediately following the night of the killing, Victor Frankstein, Clerval’s friend and fellow Swede, appeared on Irish shores. His boat docked around the same place the murderer left, and his boat matched the description of the murderer’s. He was immediately taken into police custody, and he has been the primary suspect in Clerval’s murder.
Despite Frankenstein’s suspicious arrival in Ireland, new evidence has cleared his name. Authorities were able to confirm Frankenstein’s alibi. He was not in Ireland at the time of Clerval’s death; he was on the Orkney Islands. In light of this revelation, Magistrate Kirwin organized a legal defense for Frankenstein. The grand jury conceded to Frankenstein’s innocence before the case reached public court. Frankenstein has been acquitted.
Villagers seem to trust the court’s decision, though they remain wary of Frankenstein. Regarding the acquittal, one villager remarked, “He may be innocent of the murder, but he has certainly a bad conscience.” Regardless of Frankenstein’s personal dilemmas, the evidence supports his innocence, and he has been spared the death penalty. Meanwhile, Clerval’s murderer is still at large.
Authorities urge anyone with information on the homicide to come forward and report what they know.
Source:
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Crime Report What on the surface looks like an era of great scientific discovery has a grave history. By the 16th Century it was becoming more accepted and favorable to learn about anatomy directly from the source, a human body. This led to the Murder Act of 1751, which prevented the bodies of executed murderes from being buried. Thus, medical students could legally use them as cadavers and study anatomy through public dissection. However, this act added to the problem rather than solved it. It created a greater need for cadavers as more and more desired to learn from the human body. The demand was greater than the supply.
The solution became exhuming and selling buried bodies. Since buried bodies were not considered to be property, they could be taken and sold without restriction. The public hated this, causing mourners and cemeteries to build gates and cages in order to protect the dead. It was to no avail, as the need for bodies provided considerable profit on the black market. Those involved in the business, “Resurrectionists” or body snatchers, became commonplace and would even go to extreme measures, such as murder, for the sole purpose of selling the bodies.
This was the case with “The London Burkers.” Named after the infamous Resurrectionists from Edinburgh, Burke and Hare, “The London Burkers” trial focused on three men: James May, John Bishop and Thomas Williams. They confessed to their respective roles in the plot. Bishop and Williams were arguably more heinous as they lured a 14-year-old boy, promising him work, and gave him rum with Laudanum, causing him to become unconscious. Then Bishop and Williams lowered him into a well, drowning him. Next May came on the scene, unbeknownst of how the body was acquired, and the three sold the body. All three men were found guilty and sentenced to death. After these crimes were brought to public attention, the Anatomy Act of 1832 was formed, giving legal recognition to the rights of a corpse. Perhaps the tragedies of Frankenstein could have been avoided if this act was in place in Victor Frankenstein’s day. (Source: nationalarchives.gov.uk )
Miniature of Mary Shelley by Reginald Easton
By Lorena Oplinger
By Abby Helmuth
Last Saturday, the Jail Square of Glasgow teemed with spectators as convicted murderer Matthew Clydesdale was led to the gallows. Two months ago, under the influence of intoxicating drink, he killed a 70-year-old man. The townspeople’s nerves were worked to a fever pitch - Clydesdale was the first murderer to be hung in Glasgow for 10 years. Clydesdale’s death was uneventful, however, compared with what happened next.
Clydesdale’s body was taken down from the gallows after the pronunciation of death and transported to Glasgow University where another crowd gathered around the anatomy theatre. Dr. Andrew Ure and Professor James Jeffray prepared for the corpse’s arrival by charging their galvanic battery. When the body was in place, the men made various incisions in the body to which they planned to apply the electrical current.
The results of their experiments were frightful. As the charged metallic rod was applied to Clydesdale’s knee, his leg kicked violently; his stomach rose and fell as the electrical current was applied to his diaphragm. To all appearances the criminal breathed once again! One onlooker stated that the “most horrible grimaces were exhibited . . . in the murder’s face.” Several spectators left the theatre, their stomachs unable to handle the gruesome sight. An unnamed gentleman was carried fainting from the room.
I was able to gain an interview with Dr. Ure, who denied having resuscitated Clydesdale (in my conversations with witnesses, many of them stated that Clydesdale had come back to life). Dr. Ure understood how this mistaken view could have been perpetrated: "When the one rod was applied to the slight incision in the tip of the forefinger, the fist being previously clenched, that finger extended instantly; and from the convulsive agitation of the arm, he seemed to point to the different spectators, some of whom thought he had come to life." Dr. Ure did not deny, however, that reuniting Clydesdale’s soul once again with his body was the ultimate intention of these experiments. He stated that such an event, “however little desirable with a murderer . . . would have been highly honorable and useful to science.”
Note: Andrew Ure’s experiment on Clydesdale took place 8 months after Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” was published. This experiment was similar to several previous experiments conducted by Luigi Galvani and Giovanni Aldini which took place before the publishing of “Frankenstein.”
The picture, general information, and quotations are taken from the following sources: https://scienceonstreets.phys.strath.ac.uk/new/Galvanisation.html
The Journal of Science and the Arts, Vol. 6, Andrew Ure’s “Account of some Experiments made on the Body of a Criminal.”