Comments on: Edward Cullen Picks Up Where Dr. Jekyll Left Off

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:02:53 +0000

“…Dr. Jekyll still retained a sin nature….”

That’s very true. After all, Dr. Jekyll had to choose to let Mr. Hyde takeover him when Jekyll would drink the potion to transform into Hyde. I’ve often pondered this myself. Fascinating.

By: Michael Foster

Michael Foster — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:45:39 +0000

After her husband’s death, Shelley revised quite a bit of “Frankenstein,” toning down a lot of the humanist issues. Once she got away from Percy and his friends’ Enlightenment philosophy, she changed quite a bit (don’t think she actually became a Christian, but came a little more in line with it). Plus by then she was fairly far removed from her father. She had some weird parents….

Speaking of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I find it interesting that, even after he created the evil side of himself in Hyde, Dr. Jekyll still retained a sin nature. He was not (contrary to many cinematic depictions) completely good. A great message that one cannot rid oneself of sin. It will also be a part of you.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:33:25 +0000

I like those moments, and they usually happen—unintentionally—when authors write something good.

It’s really hard to escape what we know is right when God wrote it in our hearts from conception. Believe whatever you want in defiance, but somewhere in every person there is the original knowledge of how the world should really operate.

I also think that Shelley may have wrote Dr. Frankenstein’s character so that he would contrast the monster. While the Doc might have exemplified contradictions to the monster’s worldview, this isn’t to say that the Doc’s worldview is the one in the end of the story that is justified. Lots of stories hold multiple worldviews (if they’re worth reading or watching). But when it comes right down to it, one shall stand and the rest will fall when the storyteller finishes the work.

By: Michael Foster

Michael Foster — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:59:36 +0000

I’ve found that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is unintentionally problematic when it comes to the depiction of human nature. You (and Baldwin) are right that the character of the creature is intended to reflect that man is born good and turned evil only by society. This is a reflection of Shelley’s Enlightenment philosophy straight out of Voltaire’s tabula rasa. There is no innate sin nature, but only societal influences.
However, Shelley unconsciously goes against this theory in the character of Victor Frankenstein. Born of a loving family, Frankenstein should by all accounts be “good.” Yet he speaks of an inward battle, a pull toward anger, despair, and self-absorption. Through this he sets himself up as God and creates life, for the sole purpose of controlling death. In the end, Victor Frankenstein is as much, if not more, of a monster as his creature. So Shelley refutes her argument of “man born good” unintentionally. One of those instances when Truth creeps in without the author’s knowing it.