Frankenstein - Chapter 23

Overall: Well here we are

I suppose this comes with any of these sort of precursors to a genre. I know that Frankenstein is considered the first sci-fi book by many, although precursors to the genre are certainly found in older work: More’s Utopia, Cavendish’s The Blazing World, hell even The Tempest shows some shades of what would later turn into pretty standard sci-fi tropes. I’ve heard it described that sci-fi is what makes the improbable possible, as opposed to fantasy, which makes the impossible probable. I take this to mean that sci-fi is generally concerned with things which could potentially, under some circumstance, occur and puts them into a scenario in which we could easily imagine and examine their occurrence. That examination is also key, I think. I remember back in middle school I began reading some of the more pop sci-fi out there. By that I mean the sci-fi that’s so often associated with space operas. Full of byzantine military descriptions, incalculably dense (and probably entirely impracticable) battle scenes, and characters fit more for the military than for the worlds which they inhabited. Particularly I remember the novelizations that came with the original Halo games. These books weren’t very good. It wasn’t until a good bit later that I made the connection that the dystopian novels which I loved--1984, Oryx and Crake, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Watchmen--would fall under the pale of sci-fi by many metrics. Thus, when I was in undergrad and began taking some creative writing classes, I was taken somewhat aback when my instructor said that genre fiction was categorically incapable of being literature. That we shouldn’t write it and expect to be good writers in the same career. At once, I understood the claim, based on the teeming amounts of pulp works that seem to permeate the genre then and now (though certainly I’ll be reading more of those as a part of this project) but I also began to question what he was on about. I referenced books like Brave New World and The Handmaid’s Tale and he said that those didn’t count as sci-fi, they were “speculative fiction”.

I guess, what I’m trying to get at here, is that although Frankenstein is considered the progenitor of the genre, I shouldn’t expect it to have all of the things that I do love in sci-fi. I love the moments where sci-fi ponders what it is to be human, to exist, to wonder where we are headed based on where we are. Seeing at times whether it’s tinged with a sort of optimism about humankind, or if it’s more cynical based on the issues that are presently affecting the world. In some works, going to Mars is seen as a continuation of manifest destiny, of a spirit of adventure and romance that I’m sure may’ve been present in the age of exploration. In other works, Mars is seen as an example of class disparity, a sort of metaphor for segregation. The manner in which sci-fi approaches its subjects largely depends on the politics of the writer and the message they hope to convey.

Frankenstein, meanwhile, is steeped not only in sci-fi, but in gothic horror, revenge tales, and family drama. I think, perhaps, that were I more a fan of those genres I’d be a bit more charitable toward these parts of the book. However, there’s a reason this is ‘Temra reads sci-fi’ and not Temra reads ‘fantasy’ or ‘temra reads horror’. While those projects may emerge out of this, and of course genres tend to blend together, I’ve always liked sci-fi above fantasy, and while I enjoy horror, I tend to think it works better visually than in paper form. At least the sort of horror that I prefer. As I noted last time, the kind of horror Frankenstein seems to work with comes upon a sort of presumed revulsion/abhorrence to the creature and his murders. If that’s the extent of it, though, then I’d as well read Poe. I think he did this sort of gothic horror at the heart of a grisly tale better. Shelley does do wonderfully in what would later become science fiction’s examinations of humanity, consciousness, nature, etc. but that is all just tied down at times by this pretty standard fare enemies narrative.




Vic and Elizabeth have their honeymoon, it is cut short by Elizabeth’s murder. Vic is somehow still bewildered that this could possibly have happened. The only characters in this novel seem to be Vic, Captain Walton (only perfunctory), Adam, and perhaps the De Lacey family. Clerval, Elizabeth, William, Justine, Papa Frank, Caroline, Ernest, M. Krempe and M. Waldman, Mr. Kerwin, they all seem more like props that have one personality trait which they spout so that Vic or Adam can regard/murder them. What was Elizabeth ever getting out of the relationship with Victor? We only ever see her framed in relationship to him and his story about Adam. Given how central she is, and how Shelley was willing to devote an entire chapter to the financial woes of the De Lacey family, I feel like we could’ve spent more time getting to know her. Learn about her struggles after Justine’s execution, about her sticky situation with the Lavenza family, something! Instead, Elizabeth and basically everyone else are just objects used to advance the plot of Vic and Adam. It’s kind of repugnant when I look at it that way. It wouldn’t be so bad if the narrative didn’t seem to particularly favor Victor. He's only ever briefly called out for his behavior, though, instead, the narrative really seems to frame him as our protagonist who, since he’s basically right about everything, is totally justified in assuming that his pain is in some way unique. Which is just pretty gross over all.

Vic attempts to persuade the local authorities to hunt Adam, but they basically refuse him. From there, he becomes resolved to figure out some other way to continue the hunt.