Belated Halloween...

I know Halloween would have been a more appropriate time to post this review but I didn't think of posting it until now. So here is the text of my review of Frankenstein from an upcoming issue of St. Anne's Public House focusing on Cloning. (When it is published, you can hear me read this review at our web site: http://www.christkirk.org/stannespub/transcripts.shtml)

Frankenstein

When most people hear the name Frankenstein, they think of the grotesque,
black and white creature portrayed in the 1931 classic movie. Although we
are familiar with the story of Frankenstein's hideous yet misunderstood
monster, few have actually read this chilling tale of the rebellion of man¹s
creation. Yet Mary Shelley's insight into modern science and the philosophy
that drives it are just as relevant today as her monster is popular at
Halloween parties.

Written by Marry Shelley in 1816, Frankenstein is a response to the
enlightenment mentality so prevalent among modern scientists. In a nutshell,
the book details Dr. Frankenstein's discovery of how to impart life to
inanimate tissue, thereby give life to his creation, and the terrifying
consequences of his discovery.

A student of natural philosophy, Dr. Frankenstein is consumed by his passion
to answer this question: "Whence did the principle of life proceed?" The
consummate natural philosopher, Dr. Frankenstein believed that this
question, and many other scientific mysteries, had not been adequately
answered by his predecessors due to their cowardice or carelessness. Mary
Shelley takes great care to describe the cold and calculating nature of Dr.
Frankenstein's research in learning to reanimate dead tissue. Dr.
Frankenstein is so consumed by his quest to give life that he never pauses
to consider the deeper philosophical questions involved. Philosophy and
science are completely divorced for this modern naturalist scientist. For
Dr. Frankenstein, all that matters is the physical. Because there is no
higher authority, human life is disposable ­ there is no answer for our
actions here on earth.

The belief that man, not God, can discover and impart the mysterious flicker
of life is grounded in natural philosophy. Dr. Frankenstein felt no moral
obligation to care for his creation once he was finished with his scientific
work. This inevitably leads the reader to ask, "What responsibility or care
does the creator owe his creation?"

Once Dr. Frankenstein discovers that he is able to animate a human being, he
falls into the same trap that Adam encountered in the Garden of Eden. That
is, he believes that he could possess the powers of God. This is most
evident when he states, "A new species would bless me as its creator and
source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me."
Unfortunately, that was not the case. And Dr. Frankenstein's arrogant
project ends in disaster.

As the story progresses, Dr. Frankenstein's inherently good-natured monster
is so crushed by the cruelty of man and the rejection of his creator that he
determines to avenge his creator by killing those whom Dr. Frankenstein
loves most. This raises more interesting questions: since Dr. Frankenstein
created the monster, does he have the right to take away that gift of life?
Is the monster really a human being protected by the Sixth Commandment? Or
is he an unprotected animal? The fact that the monster is eventually
educated and exhibits the ability to reason and consider moral issues
indicates that the creature must have possessed a soul.
Throughout the recounting of his story, Frankenstein interjects the remorse he feels
for his unwise actions. "A human being in perfection ought always to
preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a
transitory desire to disturb his tranquility. I do not think that the
pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you
apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your
taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then
that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human
mind."

In the end, Dr. Frankenstein realizes the arrogance of his beliefs. He
cautions the reader to "Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my
example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier
that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who
aspires to become greater than his nature will allow."

In the modern issue of cloning, scientists take on the role of Dr.
Frankenstein. They determine what life to create and when it should be
destroyed. They are forced to ask themselves the same questions that Dr.
Frankenstein sought to answer. Does the scientist impart a soul to his
creation? Is the creation an individual responsible to God? What duty does
the scientist owe his creature? Is it the duty of a parent for a child or a
owner for a pet?

Interestingly, Dr. Frankenstein never refers to his creation as a human; he
is always "the monster". Why is it that Dr. Frankenstein's creature is not a
human being? Because his appearance was gruesome and abnormal? Or is it
because he was made by another man? These are the same moral questions being
debated by our culture today. In 1816, cloning might have seemed a work of
science fiction like Frankenstein. But less than 200 years later, our
society is in fact grappling with the important issue of creating life and
the duty owed to such life.

Mary Shelley offers us invaluable insight into the consequences of toying
with the creation of life. Because man is flawed and his nature corrupted
since the Fall, he is doomed to create in his own image. The monster in
Frankenstein is the unmasked mirror image of natural man. Without a respect
for the sanctity of life, and God¹s creation, man will treat human life as
animal life. That is, nothing special and easily disposed of. For Mary
Shelley, the real monster in Frankenstein is Dr. Frankenstein himself.