Frankenstein, Part 2: Crash Course Literature 206

In which John Green continues to teach you about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. You'll learn about romantic vs Romantic, the latter of which is a literary movement. John will also look at a few different critical readings of Frankenstein, and you'll learn about Victor's motivations. We'll also look a little bit at the moral limitations of science, if there are any.
Consider supporting local bookstores by purchasing your books through our Bookshop affiliate link bookshop.org/s... or at your local bookseller.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@michaelhaas9002]

I don't think that the experiment actually fails. It all comes down to nature vs. nurture. While Frankenstein's monster inevitably becomes a monster, I think given love from Victor and others(the people in the cabin) Frankenstein's monster could have actually succeeded in being a human being. If one goes past the physical amalgamation of dead parts that made up the monster, there was nothing from an emotional standpoint that separated him from humanity. He had dreams, desires, anger, and all of the emotions that the Romantics held dear. When one is viewed as a monster from the beginning of their lives, it is very easy to assume the role.

[@mertgunes9854]

Couldn't have said it better, perfect.

[@lisakealhofer7907]

I absolutely agree. Victor made the monster out to be a scientific miracle before, ya know, abandoning him. If he was this amazing advancement, wouldn't he be proud it worked? If he had stayed with him and taught him how a human should act, like a father (if you want to call him that) should, he would have been praised for his existence.

[@zammmerjammer]

Frankenstein reminds me of the story of Genie the wild child (which sounds like a horrible comparison but hang on...) When they found this little girl who had been kept in a dark room for basically all of her life by her pitiful excuses for parents, all these scientists were clamouring to get access to her because they wanted to know if she could aquire language or be socialized and she was an opportunity to test all these ideas about nature vs. nurture, what have you. And so for a few years Genie was surrounded by these great minds who did all they could to understand her needs and deficiencies and nurture her. But no one wanted to take on the job and responsibility of being her PARENT, of seeing her as an actual human child, and one with enormous special needs due to the massive trauma and abuse she had suffered. The scientists may have had affection for Genie but none of them was willing to put her needs as a vulnerable child ahead of their opportunity for career advancement/scientific discovery. So there was no happy ending for Genie. Once funding started to run out, no one knew what to do with her. She was given back to her mother for a time, which was a disaster, not the least of which because her mother fighting to get custody of her for years meant that she couldn't be adopted by anyone else, and then when her mother faced the reality that she was not equipped to look after a special needs adolescent/adult for the rest of her life, she dumped her on social services, who were utterly ill equipped to deal with such a unique case and Genie ended up being abused again which probably undid any and all progress she had made with the scientists. So maybe the lesson is that parental love and scientific ambition cannot coexist -- one has to choose one or the other. And the results of choosing the latter over the former creates monsters (scientists who take no responsibility for their actions and the harm they do if it was in pursuit of some high-minded ideal).

[@andrealong4948]

As I watched this, the boyfriend and I had just had a discussion about female morality and the relationship to Carol Gilligans’ Ethics of Care. Mostly that women can be seen as nurturers. I wonder if Mary had inserted herself into the novel as Frankenstein if her monster would’ve turned out much differently. Thank you for this insightful comment.

[@samuelisner4710]

So like in young Frankenstein??? Serious response in spite of the joke.

[@zoeirons6617]

I wish the Frankenstein videos were a little more focused on the monster's descent into evil, because I do think (and John Green mentioned this) that the monster began as basically moral and good, but was just rejected from society solely based on his external appearance (as evidenced by the fact that the only one to ever give him a chance was a blind man), and then truly became evil. I also wish John Green had talked more about the relative humanity of Frankenstein versus his monster, because who has more in the end is up for serious debate.

[@JamieRobles1]

That would have been cool, but it might have been because of time restraints. Green only did the main themes but he only brought up the nature vs nurture of evil. The monster wasn't born evil he was provoked into becoming evil (nurture by environment.)

[@hamsterboy56]

The idea that Frankenstein's monster was born with morals and ideals is interesting, especially if you compare that to the ideas in Escape from Camp 14, a story about a boy who started without those qualities but obtained them through the book. I guess, if anything, that makes Frankenstein's monster seem less human to me.

[@JamieRobles1]

hamsterboy56 Born with morals? No, he learned that as well. When The Monster was abandoned to his own devices what did he do? Did he look for people to kill, destroy property, etc- in a mindless rampage? No, what he did was not only survive but learn about the environment around him. Now, the biography you just mentioned- Escape From Camp 14, I looked it up but have yet to read this work of nonfiction that you are comparing it to a Romantic/Horror Fiction. Other than the nature vs. nurture, I don't have much to go on other than the intro that is freely accessible. Which only makes me curious why you would compare the two to begin with. By all means, enlighten.

[@chillbaloo5346]

He mentioned both of those things.

[@bellesadique8395]

That would have been an interesting discussion.

[@Mr.Praetor]

"Get sick" and force friends to care for you for a few years -Victor's reponce to pretty much every major conflict in the story.

[@veronicas8270]

Connor Hamilton wow I just realized this. He got sick after the death of William so Clerval took care of him. Then after the death of Clerval he got sick and his father took care of him. Then after the death of Elizabeth and his father, he eventually got sick and Walton took care of him. What a guy. 😂

[@caroline456]

That and the occasional hike

[@IceMetalPunk]

I'd say it's a mix of the last two options you gave. The creature could have easily turned out to be a lovely, if deformed, person; but from the moment he opened his eyes, the only person who could possibly understand him took off in sheer horror. Think about the number of people even in modern day who have "broken" and committed unspeakable acts after being emotionally tortured by their peers and/or loved ones. Now imagine they literally have no peers, no one like them, and the person who created them immediately abandoned them in fear of their appearance and potential. It's not hard to imagine that the creature was just a broken as the modern murderers, if not more, as soon as he realized he would be doomed to be unloved for eternity. The scene with the creature in the woods, with the little girl (I think it was?), just captures this idea beautifully. But it also has a lot to do with his ego. He performed the experiment with the express goal of being worshiped. He actually convinced himself that whatever he created would love him and worship him no matter what he did, simply because he created it. It can be argued that one of the reasons Frankenstein was so terrified was that he suddenly realized, "Wait, maybe this thing WON'T worship me. Maybe it WON'T love me. Maybe I've just created something that I can't control!" Of course, any parent knows you don't control your children, you simply guide them with love. But Victor, not being a parent, didn't want to teach anyone anything; he just wanted the attention. So his egotism is what ultimately led to his horror, and that horror (and his actions to assuage it by disappearing) led to the creature's breaking point. That's my interpretation, at least. Feel free to disagree and think Victor is a wonderful person (you'd be wrong :P ).

[@jennyspeakman6592]

Aaron Oates I think rejection motivated the creation to become monstrous. Rejection first by Frankenstein, then by man in the village, then by the blind man's family. The creature gained knowledge through reading and observing the family in the woods but failed to have a steady mentor that fathered and taught him morality. The lack of morality and lack of connection to society's social code allowed the creation to commit the monstrous crimes. But I think it is unfair to hold the creation accountable for the murder because he isn't human and he isn't tied the same moral code that we force onto him. (at least in my opinion, I just feel sorry for the guy. Not Frankenstein, the creation. Frankenstein is a horrible human being).

[@Quixotic1018]

Victor fails to grasp that the whole of a person (in terms of Romanticism) is much greater than the sum their parts. In this case, that can also be taken literally. He got the mechanics of a human, understood so well and deeply that he successfully reanimated a corpse. But he forgot to instill that undefinable soul, maybe even refused to acknowledge it existed. But the monster still tries to "grow" a soul despite being rejected what with all the reading and longing and.... well just feeling. Victor failed because he knew the mechanics and the science but failed to distinguish between reanimating a corpse and bringing life to something. His definition of life was much to rigid and contained.

[@satya4234]

Wow, I think that you expressed what the book felt like to me but I never could find the words to say it.

[@Siansonea]

I only read Frankenstein recently, growing up I only knew the story from movies, etc. The novel was a revelation-I realized I had no idea what the story was really about. If you watch any movie about Frankenstein, it's about the creation of the monster (a subject mentioned only briefly in the novel), and Victor Frankenstein is painted as a hapless victim of his own misguided genius. Well, novel Victor is a complete narcissist and a thoroughly unsympathetic character-while the Creature is quite the opposite. There is a reason that people often call Frankenstein's monster "Frankenstein", because the real monster was the egomaniacal and obtuse Victor Frankenstein. If he had ever taken responsibility for his actions, there'd be no story, because the monster would never have been created, or it wouldn't have eventually run amok if it had been created. All of Victor's tribulations can be laid at his own feet-he was the author of every misdeed, with a handy assist by society in general, of course. I was quite amazed when I read this book by the Creature's tale, it was something I had never seen dramatized in film the way it happened in the novel. The Creature essentially observes humans for months, remaining hidden out of sheer terror and awe of humanity, and quickly becomes an erudite scholar, one could argue even more so than Victor himself. The Creature certainly is more observant of the human condition than Victor, since Victor can't see past his own nose. I found myself wanting to smack Victor during many points of the novel, whenever he played the victim even though he should have known better, and whenever he blamed the Creature for his woes. He was a vain, preening, arrogant jerk, who people "loved" because of superficial charm and his appearance, I suppose. There was no real integrity or substance to Victor. Honestly, I wondered if Mary Shelley had made made her "protagonist" and "antagonist" switch places to be intentionally subversive. Then I wondered if she truly thought Victor Frankenstein was a heroic character and the Creature truly a monster. I think I might be glad that I don't have a definitive opinion about that yet.

[@thequeenundisputed]

You bring up some good points but I got a slightly different impression of Victor Frankenstein from my read through of the book. He was unsympathetic - at least when compared to the creature - but not so much so to call him "thoroughly unsympathetic". I think his case is a sort of "curiosity killed the cat" kind of case to put it very simply. He was lured into creating this creature by the hopes of glory and affection but in the end he was unprepared for what that meant. Despite creating the creature he was unprepared to see it animated. In short he was scared. I don't know what he expected to be greeted with when he successfully animated his creature, but it's evident from his actions in the book that he didn't think his actions through. He's sympathetic in that he deals with the human emotions of fear, curiosity, unfulfilled expectations, irrationality and also in his want for glory and affection. All of those traits in him are very human and that's what, in my opinion, make him a sympathetic character. I also believe that Mary Shelley may have left him as somewhat of an antagonist because she wanted to deal with the question of humanity. By the end of the book, you're left wondering "who was the monster and who was the man?". In a normal story you'd say "obviously Victor" but in a story like Frankenstein where the "monster" is more sympathetic than the man, you're left wondering. You say that Victor goes from protagonist to antagonist, but I'd argue that the story has no real antagonist, at least in the way one would normally think of an antagonist. While Victor is clearly opposed to his creation, I think the greater struggle depicted in the story, rather than being between Victor and his creation is between the two of them and their struggle with the adverse human emotions inherent within us all and the way in which those emotions prevent them from attaining their ultimate goal - that being to love and be loved. This is depicted in Victor's struggle to attain glory and affection through his creation of the monster leading to his disappointment and fear in his own creation and also through the monster's struggle between good and evil and also the fear of being rejected which came about after he was rejected first by his creator and then by the rest of humanity. When it came down to it, both Victor and his creature wanted the same thing; to love and be loved. I think an interesting theme of the novel is their failure to attain that love as a result of their own short comings; Victor's being his fear of his own creation and the creature's being his own appearance and inability to deal with the complex emotions he feels resulting in his own violence. Depending on how you're viewing the story, either Victor of the creature had the ability to solve their own problems, but let their own short comings get in the way of it. Or perhaps the point was that overcoming their shortcomings was out of their reach from the beginning and attempting to change fate or mess with the natural order of things can only read to tragedy. Then again, it's been a long time since I've read Frankenstein so maybe I'm completely off here.

[@Siansonea]

thequeenundisputed I think the thing that stands out to me is the great disparity in circumstances between Victor and the Creature. Victor has a family, education, friends, wealth, and privilege. The Creature has NONE of these things. Victor had been given pretty much all of his advantages except his intellect, whereas the Creature's sole advantage is his intellect. If anything, the story might be a meditation on the vast inequality inherent in society, and how one's character might be affected by society. Victor is almost a caricature of weak-willed privilege, with all his swooning, fainting and fever dreams, as well as his obliviousness with regard to the Creature's very clear threats. At the point in Victor's inner monologue, wherein he posits that his suffering is greater than that of Justine, the nanny who is to be hanged for the murder of Victor's brother, I felt it was a particular low point in Victor's characterization. What a narcissistic douchebag! His pangs of guilt are worse than Justine's impending DEATH? Give me a break, Victor! On the other side of the coin we have the Creature, who against all odds manages to create himself from nothing, to become an intelligent and literate person with virtually no help. And in spite of his intelligence and sensitivity, he's summarily rejected by all and sundry, simply because of his appearance, that is, his station in society. Society shuns and embraces people based on the most superficial traits, it was true then and it's still true now. Maybe that was Mary Shelley's point? As an educated woman with writing ambition, she would be all too familiar with the syndrome.

[@thequeenundisputed]

Siansonea Orande That's a very interesting thought. I could definitely see the story of Frankenstein being a social critique - Frankenstein being someone born into privilege and the Creature being one that starts with nothing, fights tooth and nail to build up a name for himself and yet is still at a loss and considered less than Victor because of this beyond his control. I've really got to re-read this book. I haven't read it since I was about 10 years old and it made a big impact on me at that time. It's such a good book and still very much so relevant to this day.

[@crashcourse]

In which John Green continues to teach you about Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. You'll learn about romantic vs Romantic, the latter of which is a literary movement. John will also look at a few different critical readings of Frankenstein, and you'll learn about Victor's motivations. We'll also look a little bit at the moral limitations of science, if there are any. Frankenstein Part II: Crash Course Literature 206

[@oscarheath5507]

Why's this one got no summary title? (i.e.Fate, Family and Oedipus Rex: Cr....)

[@SlenderManSCARESMC]

I'm in 6th and just finished!

[@Elfos64]

Wait, you said Hulk is like Frankenstein's monster? I very much disagree, it's much more comparable to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

[@beef_haus]

Elfos64 The story of the hulk is bound by the same basic premise of dr. jekyll and mr. hyde, but the comparison that john draws is between the psychological landscape of the hulk's torment and that of frankenstein's monster. to have been cast from humanity for being so monstrous, and to react by becoming so much more monstrous in anger and despair.

[@Elfos64]

Nicholas Lorenson That's just as true of Mr. Hyde. No one liked him, he caused a lot of trouble. For that matter, the same can be said about the hunchback of Notre Dame, and orcs from Lord of the Rings, and the Boggans from that CG movie "Epic" from last year, and really any oppressed minority.

[@armaniandgucci]

Victor thought the monster was ratchet and he was so mean about it. My favorite part is when the monster comes back and he's like, "I'm so smart now so, love me!"

[@janeyrevanescence12]

Thank you Mr. Green and Crash Course for bringing up that point about intentional fallacy. I'm a writer myself and while I won't lie that life experiences do find their way (such as my giving a character an interest one of my friends had) into some of my works, I'm more interested in telling a good story than doing therapy or hammering home a message.

[@jarduino8908]

The experiment only fails insomuch as Victor fails to bring it to completion. The creation of life comes with a responsibility to nurture that life, because failure to do so leads to disaster.

[@evanms17]

We watch your videos in our global history class and we love them!!! Thanks for making crash course!!!!!!

[@sheepwshotguns]

omg, the diablo 1 reference was brilliant!

[@OlleLindestad]

"... because back then poetry was a totally reasonable way to share scientific ideas." It's been done since! It was done in 1971 by these guys. They managed to get it published in the Journal of Organic Chemistry, too: pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo00800a036

[@soulmaam622]

"sometimes we forget we're still in the middle of history" gave me chills, I don't know why.

[@lairaklock8475]

Somehow crash course is making we want to read classics :) perhaps I should do exactly that.

[@ghuegel]

I'm definitely on the side of the Monster. If he had been cared for by Victor, or if people hadn't reacted to him with horror, he would have been a good guy. This is made clear by his early actions - he helps a family by bringing them firewood throughout the winter, and when he finally gets the courage to meet the people he helped, he's initially treated well by a blind man... but when a man who can see sees the Monster, he assaults the monster... and the monster responds with some over-the-top violence. Later, the Monster rescues a girl from drowning... for this, he is again assaulted just because he looks monstrous. If the people in the story could have gotten past the Monster's appearance, all would have gone well. I take the novel as an indictment of people's unfair negative reaction to technology/science/unnaturalness. For example, GMOs have a lot of good potential, but people's gut negative reaction to them hamper their ability to do good; the only villain here is the opposition of science and progress.

[@Petulant_Petrichor]

Gmos are iffy due to lack of proper oversight, our lack of understanding of delicate bodily functions, (causing things like increasing gluten intolerance in the population due to modified wheat), & lack of comprehension of environmental impact.

[@ghuegel]

Petulant Petrichor There are risks in GMO, and it needs to be done carefully and with as much scientific rigor as possible. But the benefits are undeniable. The simplistic rejection of everything GMO is the same terrible error made by Victor Frankenstein and other characters in the novel.

[@jennyspeakman6592]

I think society's aversion to change (whether it be technology or something else) is certainly a lesson that can be taken from Frankenstein. However, I think that people's fear of the unknown is not the "only villain" because Frankenstein, a man obsessed with technology, is largely at fault for the entire destruction that occurs in the novel. His selfish nature and cocky ambition caused him to create a huge, horrifying monster. He could have started reanimating something small, and taken time to craft a being that didn't stand out in society as much as the creation did. It was Frankenstein's lack of the ability to foresee problems with his creation that caused so much aversion and destruction. So maybe the real villain in the novel (and life) is the human trait of extreme obsession and need for power and fame that leads to unforseen disasters.

[@OtakuBakaNeko]

When I first read it, and even now, I feel like the reactions and treatment made the monster. You raise a human child in an atmosphere of pure hatred and disgust, you'll as surely get a monster as in Frankenstein.

[@abbygus1]

Hey John, I wrote about this novel on the AP exam and just found out I got a 4! I can't talk about the prompt, but I did channel these two videos the whole time. Thanks so much!

[@2plus2isfive]

9:25 That diablo inspired loot run killed me! Nice work!

[@ibvlik3637]

Complete with "I am overburdened"

[@hardBoss]

The idea of the Hulk came about by combining the story of Frankenstein's monster and Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. So instead of Frankenstein creating the monster he becomes it. The Hulk even used to be grey before they changed him to green.

[@lupin2361]

You know, Frankenstein’s Monster was one of the two literary characters that inspired Stan Lee to create the Hulk. The other literary character was Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde.

[@OctoberEmbers]

Hey John, maybe not up your alley, but there's a excellent graphic novelization of Frankenstein drawn by Junji Ito available online. The drawings are viscerally chilling, but I think you'll be pleased with how well the dialogue and themes are preserved. Cheers to you!

[@tcironbear21]

I love Me-From-The-Past! Well actually I love how you hate him and insult him. I think he is ultimately your original addition to narratives. Normally when someone meets with their past self there is respect and nostaglia. You express an epic level of fustration and anger at him. It is like you have realized that your past self is not you and you eagerly anticipate his death in order for you to emerge. I hope he comes back. Also he is a great tool to show others that they change and they don't have to be who they were forever, and that their ignorant understanding of the world is understandable, but ultimately wrong.

[@dinadina2000]

Did you get the joke? Me from the past is so sick of john correcting him he skipped school

[@garysanders6091]

Really? I thought it was common to look at your past self as a sort of self loathing.. Kind of like when you wake up from a night of partying, you immediately regret the stupid things you did. I most definitely loathe the past me, although I never made any 'terrible' decisions.. I simply was so naive and ideological that I couldn't see the outcomes of my ideology, it's just that the idea seemed so good.

[@dinadina2000]

of course but they deciced to humanize me from the past,because it fit the theme

[@tcironbear21]

Dina Rubina I more worried that it is sign that they are removing him from the series, not just one time.

[@dinadina2000]

of course not he'll come back, I HOPE

[@caroline456]

The lesson: JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD (as Henry also does point out in the musical)

[@call_me_cade]

Loved the Shaun Of The Dead reference!

[@AnneH1021]

9:36 just love this UI from minecraft 19th century

[@epsereth]

The Loot Run was spectacular.

[@kineticstar]

Yes it was! Diablo references are always appreciated!!

[@BiPaganMan]

I'd say the message isn't don't pursue knowledge, it's more along the line of taking responsibility for what you do. Victor ends up taking responsibility, but at that point it costs him his life. In that I'd say "Frankenstein" has a lot in common with many of the Greek tragedies.

[@ShaunMcMillan]

Zombie stories are so pervasive these days. It makes me wonder if the whole zombie theme is not analogous to the way we mindlessly consume media and feed on the personal dramas of famous people? Just as zombies can only be stopped by attacking the head, the only way to wake people up is to make them think intentionally about their entertainment.

[@MatthewBannock]

I always enjoy the zombie as an allegory of consumerism, but I wouldn't say that the Frankenstein's monster isn't a zombie per-se. www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2002/harper.htm

[@DeanKisling]

I think the popular infatuation with zombies reflects our fear of ourselves as mindless, heartless creatures. And the infatuation with vampires reflects the seductive appeal of being able to do anything we like with our enhanced powers and lack of a social morality. Faust anyone?

[@MrSanemon]

I like to persue this style of writing with "what if" questions to discern meaning. What if Frankenstein loved his creation as a child or benevolent divinity? Then the monster would not have really been a monster. So the monster wasn't really a monster, was he? So my take away is that the real monster was Dr,Frankenstein. He was a narcisist and very self involved. Knowledge and science are neutral, even when you create something it is neutral. It is the use, and the view point that has a spin to it. Frankenstein made his creation a monster, not in making it but in perceiving it.

[@benjifricker-muller6104]

The experiment definitely worked! The method he devised to reanimate dead tissue completely worked. He didn't responsibly deal with the consequences of that technology, he should've either destroyed the monster right at the start or parented it. Technology is moral, it's the uses that push it one way or the other.

[@nathanoliver9237]

Hulk is more hyde and jekyll.

[@TheKersey475]

Stan Lee himself said that the Incredible Hulk was inspired by "Frankenstein" and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"

[@EmirPasanovic]

I never thought of it like this before but Hulk is the way he is because his creator, Banner, rejects him. Hulk appears when Banner needs him obviously, but Banner never really wants him. There's actually a really great storyline where Hulk takes over completely with higher intellect functions and heroic deeds on another planet, and when the constant state of danger is over and Hulk is plummetted back to Earth, Banner re-emerges... and wants to surgically-magically remove Hulk from himself forever, not caring who helps him (Dr. Doom) and what he has to do in return. This removal of the creator from the monster is then followed by a Dr. Moreau like hunt to recreate the experiment that made Hulk in the first place because not until he loses the Hulk does Banner really understand what he had in the first place.

[@tjb642]

Emir Pasanovic I have never read Hulk that way but wow is my mind blown now. Seriously, thank you for a really cool and really insightful analysis!

[@dhivaansalig6398]

@@EmirPasanovic Wow, I haven't really thought the Hulk was so complex as a character. That's really amazing. His cousin Jennifer isn't as complex though, but I still like her because of how she embraces her monster form rather than rejects it like Bruce. Maybe the complexity for Jennifer is that She-Hulk is an outlet for her to be free and more confident in herself whereas as Jennifer, she's another face in the big city. Superheroes are so much more than just *POW* *BAM* *WHACK*.

[@James-sk4db]

I always thought that the monster was good and Frankenstein was the real monster

[@chillbaloo5346]

That is exactly what John said.

[@AllenGrimm1145]

Frustrated and rejected outcast who KILLS EVERYONE FRANKENSTEIN CARED ABOUT AND TORMENTS HIM TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.

[@sixpomegranateseeds6893]

The Monster is not good. He kills with the full awareness he is doing an awful thing.

[@TheRedViper100]

Anyone notice the Shaun of the Dead reference ? Very fitting.

[@Puzzler363]

Frankenstein's fatal flaw is in his psychology rather than in his scientific abilities. I don't think that Shelley intends to say that what he achieves is wrong. Rather, it is the inability of man/society to accept the other that causes all the problems. Or at least, that's how I like to think of it.

[@KevinLanigan]

The Shaun of the Dead reference in here made my day!

[@reasonnottheneed]

Frankenstein was the first book to completely emotionally capture me in reading it. When I read the captain's narrative, when I read Victor's, and then when I read the monster's, I really felt connected and deeply cared about the characters for the first time. Being a socially isolated nerd when I was little (less of the socially isolated, but still the nerd now), reading [lowercase-r] romance novels or mystery novels or whatever else had a really limited emotional impact on me. I remember that I read Gatsby and Frankenstein in the same year (different semesters) in 8th and 9th grades, respectively (for class). At the time, I could not appreciate Gatsby at all, and it felt like a long series of excessive words meaning nothing, but when I read Frankenstein, I couldn't put it down and I finished it in one setting (with a few meals interrupting me). Walter's obsession with getting to the North Pole, Victor's obsession with science, and the monster's struggles with his own creation--each part was so... good at evoking empathy? Is there a word for that?... The ending of the book, even though the Monster and Victor both die, felt so beautiful and poetic to me that I almost want to go out into graveyards and try to re-animate a corpse just to live that experience. At any rate, it wasn't until this school year (11th grade) when I had to reread Gatsby did I finally begin to appreciate that work too, but it still doesn't appeal to me quite as much as Frankenstein. Out of all the dozens of books public school forced me to read, Frankenstein was one of only two that I couldn't put down and read ahead of the class and to the end. (The other was Canterbury Tales, but that's for an entirely different reason). I guess this didn't really answer your question at the end, but this is just what this book meant to me.

[@Disthron]

I think Frankenstein's problem, other than being a jerkass, was that he created a creature that he didn't know what to do with. He created a life form but never took responsibility for what it's life might be like. He never took a moment to think, hay this guy is going to be incredibly hideous when it's finished.... I wonder if that's going to be a problem?

[@featheredskyblue]

One of my favorite moments in the novel is actually when he's describing the creation and basically says "I gave him white teeth!"

[@Disthron]

MrKingpenguin123 Well that might have been a theme back when it was written but I wouldn't make much seance to audiences today. Today he just kind of comes off as an inconsiderate jerk.

[@raz3905]

I got your electricty joke

[@greencamixx]

+Ruthie “WitherQueen” Hyry-Weintraub what is it?

[@huskinater]

honestly love how the thought bubble always references video games, like the pokeballs and the diable inventory system

[@CreightonMiller]

Open letters seem to have become less and less poignant as we go on.

[@jesjesreece1252]

YOU JUST SAVED MY LIFE FOR THE HSC LOVE YOU JOHN GREEN XOXO

[@CapriUni]

My reading is that Victor's crime is not his over-reaching Rationalist ambition, but his failure to be Romantic enough. Pursuing knowledge IS noble. But asking questions and then rejecting the answers you don't like is a betrayal of both the endeavor and the discovery. Life is big and messy -- and if that terrifies you so much that your only response is to run away (or tho tear life to shreds), then you're going to have to keep running to the ends of the Earth. I was born with cerebral palsy, btw. I've felt the discomfort, disgust, and pity some people have spat at me for daring to be "Different at them..." The people carrying torches and pitchforks scare me a whole lot more than the ones they tell me are "monsters." And on the modern science front: This past January, I heard a report that scientists have figured out that many cases of C.P. arise when babies are born at least 8 weeks premature, because the myelin sheaths are still forming in the cerebrum around then (ftr, I was 9 weeks premie)... and they are close to a cure, using genetics . . . at least, in mice. That report made my stomach hurt. ...I don't want my messy, different experience of being Human to be erased from the future of the Human Experience. If that makes me a monster, then okay. I speak for the monsters: "Booga! Booga!"

[@GiftedFiasco]

Beautiful RPG reference, Thought Bubble.

[@TheRiskyBrothers]

damn, thought cafe did an AWESOME job with the animation this episode

[@Mr_TheHan]

Shaun of the Dead reference at 9:50!

[@ThisThingEaten]

To be fair, the monster wasn't really evil to begin with, he just chose that path after Victor told him he was. Remember, this was after he taught himself how to read and first tried to be social... an effort which was rewarded with a shotgun blast, but my point is: the world already hated him - especially the man who brought him into this world - before he even had a chance to prove himself. No wonder he turned out the way he did. The feeling of not being safe in your own skin on top of daddy issues... I'm sure there are enough of us out there that have experienced this at very young ages, all coming to a boiling point during high school. Outcasts, misfits, freaks. And don't get me started on Universal's "Abnormal Brain." Such a broad term that can mean any inconsistency in the brain; disability, disorder, or otherwise. If there's one field where Frankenstein failed, it was Psychology. This version's monster was born with the mind of a newborn baby inside a body with the strength of an army. At first, things are fine, he obeys the doctor's orders to walk, BUT THEN, Fritz flails a lit torch at this creature, and he flinches! NOW, he feels threatened, and relies on his natural instincts. Instead of try to calm him down, they immediately bring the monster into a dungeon and start whipping him... literally. How did that turn out for ya, Fritz? Oh, yeah...

[@T4ko8Yaki]

I just listened to the audio book of the 1818 version and then came across this video and here are my impressions: Interestingly when "reading" this I was struck by how much I actually identified with the monster and found Victor Frankenstein unlikable. I was really thrown during the scene when his monster becomes alive, he just freaks out with no provocation, the monster hasn't even committed a single action, malicious or benign, in its existence yet but Frankenstein just explodes with remorse, flees and becomes ill for 2 months. Contrast to a scene later with the monster after he's rejected by the Delacie family. He initially gets angry and wants to kill them and laugh at their screams of horror but calms down and then thinks rationally about why they reacted the way they did and what he can do to fix it. I couldn't help but think that since Frankenstein's emotional state is often irrational and violent, whereas the monster at least starts out very rational and empathetic, that the implication was that it was Frankenstein who was actually the monster. I further support this conclusion by the use of the Paradise Lost motif. The monster says that he identifies heavily with Satan in the story, but in the end it was Victor who was attempting to put himself equal with god and ended up falling from grace. There's several direct references to the monster as Frankenstein's "Adam" including, most obviously, when the monster requests a mate(an "Eve" the monster directly states.) But Frankenstein falls prey to his irrationality again and refuses his duty to his Adam to make an Eve, further reinforcing that *he* is the monster, the fallen angel with ambitions of godhood that fails. Victor has his quote about renewing life where death had devoted the body to corruption, but because he's such a bad father/god he ultimately corrupts the once affectionate and moral monster until it both murders and wishes for its own death. This also has the effect of reversing the biblical narrative where Adam corrupts himself by pursuing forbidden knowledge. In this version god/Frankenstein is the one who corrupts Adam/the monster, not by the pursuit of forbidden knowledge but by the creator not accepting responsibility for the fruition of that pursuit, whereas Adam/the monster only improves in moral character the more knowledge he attains because he does so earnestly.

[@benjaminball6886]

Okay...the Diablo 2 reference made my day.

[@micahball5513]

How do you post a video?

[@MrIammii]

My question to you is: What dictates what is monstrous and what isn't? Who decides the morality of the situation and do the ends really justify the means?

[@joncalvert4690]

I love how thought bubble makes the collection scene, look like Diablo.

[@LordMarcus]

Love the Diablo reference :)

[@JanCRefsgaard]

isn't it more of a diablo 2 reference? - it looks a lot like Tristram

[@AntiArmedWierdo]

Quick fun fact! I actually live in the town where Erasmus Darwin was born! I've visited his house and got to write poems about science and death.

[@Axolotine]

That Diablo reference is actually somewhat appropriate, given Diablo's themes and artstyle. That is to say, the first two game's themes. The third game is a catastrophe. I mean, I wouldn't put it on the same level as Frankenstein: Diablo's obviously a little more basic than that, but you understand what I'm getting at right? Especially if you're playing as a Necromancer.

[@MikkyMcdrunk]

Baisic???? Lets talk about the thorn paladin if we want to go basic.

[@Axolotine]

I'm talking in terms of plot.

[@MikkyMcdrunk]

Plot, all the classes in Diablo had the same plot.

[@MikkyMcdrunk]

Oh you mean character ark, well yes that is true. Their was a very basic story but what was to be expected.

[@SerpentStare]

Thank you. Yes, I loved seeing that visual and auditory reference. Even the "I am overburdened." Made me wonder whether the raven caws and background music was from the opening cutscene. I played Diablo probably more than any other game growing up. I knew it well. =3

[@dudamundo]

The novel also dwells on the power of names. We assign names to people and objects to understand the world and our place in it. My name is John, a sort of badge verifying I am a male and part of an English-speaking society, at the very least, and so "John" helps me and people around me understand aspects of my identity. It's no surprise that when the creature is learning the concepts of language and names from the cottagers, he only then starts to question his identity and purpose, because he has no name. We as humans like to organize and categorize things with names, so people over time started calling the creature "Frankenstein" because he had no name. Also, think about people that find a pet, and are only able to buy it or take it in once they've named it, or know its name. Knowing other people's names helps us empathize with them as human beings. When Victor never named the creature, he forbade himself from sympathizing with him on a human level and imagining him complexly.

[@brandonbuchner1771]

9:34 Is that a Diablo 2 reference? I love the Thought Café animations.

[@charliewhite9956]

There are several problems in John's videos on Frankenstein. First, Frankenstein wasn't betrothed to his cousin, he was betrothed to his adopted sister whom he addressed with the pronoun cousin, which is better... and worse. Second, the monster wasn't this disgusting, stitched up, rotting, animated quilt corpse. Shelly never described him as such, and her vague descriptions of Frankenstein's techniques seemed more sophisticated than zipping together some flesh and giving it a jolt. She, at least implied that Frankenstein bound the corpses together with rather advanced chemistry. The reason people are horrified by the monster is that he is very, very off - with pale, watery eyes, black lips, and cracked yellow skin stretched thin over bulging veins and muscles, that juxtapose terribly with his thick, lustrous black hair, and pearly white teeth. Not to mention that he was 8 feet tall, in a time where the average was 5' 6''. Also, the question of who is more human is easy. Frankenstein is a Homo Sapiens Sapiens, thus he is human. The monster represents a new bio-genesis, so he is not. Simple.

[@l.j.7203]

Originally Frankenstein was betrothed to his cousin, but in later productions of the novel the character was changed to be his adopted sister. It depends on which version you have read as to what relation you see between Frankenstein and Elizabeth. You are correct in your description of the monster. John when describing him definitly took more of the movie route, but either way people found the monster disgusting. Also, as technology and medicine continue to advance we must begin to ask ourselves what the definition of human is, along with the defintions of other species. In very simplified terms if one were to clone a human would that clone also be human? (and I don't mean clone in the sense of sifi movie cloning) Meaning would the clone have full rights? We have to wonder is being human simply being Homo Sapien Sapien or is it more? For me, the monster is undeniably human because of his ability to feel and his want of knowledge and acceptance. I think those are very human emotions. Whether one character is more human I don't know and I don't know if there is an answer to that question, and the inability to answer it is what makes it such a great question in my opinion.

[@edmondesa]

Charlie White What he means by 'Who is the most human?' is not who is literally more human, but who is more human in terms of humanistic traits/qualities/emotions The monster is physically more of a monster, but on the inside, the monster in some ways has more human/positive traits than Victor does. He is actually very self-aware, intelligent, articulate, emotionally intelligent, compassionate, kind, giving, feels a need for companionship, respects nature, respects God etc. Victor makes himself very abhuman in the way he alienates and isolates himself from society, rejects/tries to overcome God, rejects his family, becomes literally a slave to ambition, selfish and egotistic etc. (although you could say that these are human traits, just negative ones) One common reading is that the two of them are actually alter-egos (doppelganger) which is an interesting one to look into as well

[@aleksfastovich2013]

Thank you mr. green, my senior class, by sheer luck, read these books in the same order as the books in the the show. I actually had to turn off Frankenstein part 1 video half way in because of the spoilers.

[@ashtrayheartedgirl]

I didn't read it as Mary Shelley condemning scientific exploration, but as a warning that you should always take responsibility for the choices that you make. Victor's mistake is not his creation, but his rejection of it.

[@andrewv1357]

Got to love the drinking of laudinum for a substitute for what I presume was whiskey.

[@capitalistraven]

Thanks for this class. Of all the "classics" Frankenstein is the only one I can say I truly love and come back to again and again. I see something new in it each time I read it which in my mind is what makes a book truly great. I believe fundamentally the novel is about obsession which plays out several times, each disastrously. Victor pursues everything he does to the neglect of everything else and constantly hurts those who love him and depend on him. Throughout the novel he swing s dramatically between absolute pride and absolute self-loathing, both of which make him blind to the suffering caused by his actions. The worst mistakes he makes however are in failure to act, to take responsibility.

[@Drellistenstomusic]

I just got done reading it today and I didn't see any of what you were talking about. Victor destroyed the monster's mate because he didn't want the bring about more destruction than his original creation already had. If you have a fish hook in your hand, why try and get it out with another fish hook? I don't believe referring to nature as a "her" was intended to have any significance either. Victor calls Destiny a "her" too but that doesn't seem to have any significance either. The term Mother Nature had been thrown around a bit in the Enlightenment period, so it's at least possible that Shelley was halfway familiar with the idea of nature as feminine. And when he leaves for a long time to go to england he's not only leaving Elizabeth, he's leaving what remains of his family. He leaves his father behind as well, he does this to go deal with the monster situation, not because he doesn't love her. I'd say it's quite clear that her loves her, He even intends to tell her about the monster after their wedding. She isn't even his real cousin, his parents adopted her while they were on vacation When he leaves Elizabeth alone on their wedding night, it's only to search out the place where they're staying to see if there's any way the monster could enter in, and at the time he believes the monster will attack HIM. In the chapters preceding this one, he fully believes that he's gonna fight the monster and only one of them will come out alive. He's worried about Elizabeth seeing what's about to go down so he entreats her to go to sleep so she won't see. It doesn't occur to him that the monster is going after his new wife until he hears the screams. I'm not opposed to feminism and I suppose it's all up to individual reader interpretation but a lot of the things you were talking about seem a little forced.

[@jaxblonk5127]

Nice play on the philosophy (albeit, its title eludes me) "If it can go wrong it will." Or even, on occasion, I've seen said quoted from "...will." To "...must." I like that.

[@DJ7223]

I personally believe that the creature is responsible for those he kills, but it is also unfair that he spends his life as an outcast just because of his face.

[@Illier1]

He was not meant for that world in the first place. He was an abomination, and Frankenstein doomed him from the very idea of creating him.

[@DJ7223]

Illier1 But he was created. And any living thing who is created deserves to live, has the Right to live. I don't even believe God himself would hate the creature. The creature was an abomination, but only because he made himself that way. No one was born to a fate of good or evil. It is what you do with the choice to be good or evil that defines you.

[@OrUptotheStars]

I agree that the creature is responsible for those he kills, but I think Victor shares some of that responsibility. If he had taken better care of the creature (shown affection, provided companionship of himself or another creature, protected him from the torch carrying mobs), the creature would have turned out differently. He is initially very gentle and if he hadn't been rejected and injured by everyone he encountered, I think he would have made different choices.

[@Illier1]

DJ7223 This creature was created not out of love or for the sake of creation, but out of pride and hubris. The creature was never supposed to exist in this world, and thus it had no place. This is similar to Shakespearean Tragedy. Men go against god and the universe and the universe will correct itself, often by killing all those involved.

[@DJ7223]

OrUptotheStars That is also something I have always thought. You put it perfectly

[@samanthaledesma604]

I am beyond disappointed, but not surprised, that the comparison between Percy and Frankenstein weren't drawn. I mean... come on?!?!

[@MrLuizeu87]

I would love an episode on Poe's tales and Emerson's Nature.

[@JoeyPsych]

I would play that game.

[@WaxChin]

Personally I think the pursuit of knowledge is one of the most noble goals a human can dedicate his life to. Relentlessly searching, not for monetary gain, but to answer an old, old question. Why? Why is there water falling from the sky? Why are green things growing from the ground? Why does eating this green thing make me sick? The questions that we deal with today are a consequence of answering earlier questions. In time, we'll answer the questions of our day as well. And there will be more questions to answer. And we'll keep answering them because that is who we are.

[@mdhookey]

9:50 Love the "Shaun of the Dead" reference there :P

[@slipstreamxr3763]

Dr. Frankenstein was so preoccupied with whether or not he could, that he didn't stop to think if he should.

[@Zerepzerreitug]

I can also see a modern relevance between the Frankenstein story and current fears about the influence of Internet/TV/Whatever on childhood. There are many media and technology today which act as surrogate parents for many hours a day during our early years, and so many people have this eerie feeling that some technologies and media are "creating" little monsters of which we have no control. So perhaps in this time and age the "big mistake" we see in the Frankenstein story is Victor's neglect to rear the creature. It exploits our fears that we too neglect our _little creatures_ to strange devices powered by electricity and thunder.

[@ririkolyana]

"Take carriage. Go to Switzerland. Kill the monster - " Not sorry." - grab Liz, go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over. How's that for a slice of fried gold?" - Victor Frankenstein, probably.

[@Taytaylala12]

Why didn't these videos exist when i was studying Frankenstein in Advanced English last year?

[@joshbray5036]

When Mary Shelly was conveying this story, I believe that she was talking about her experiences, but conveyed them 'to life' as a way to cope with what she was feeling. While influenced by Dr. Darwin and Lord Byron of Geneva, I personally do believe that Shelly intended this to be a ghost story, never heard again for centuries to come. What's so great about this horror story is that "knowledge is not knowing that Frankenstein is the monster", when she was however conveying the true fact that "wisdom is knowing that Frankenstein is the monster,". Victor definitely influenced the monster, as he was 'the Creator' and the monster was the 'Fallen Angel' from John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'. It's no wonder that Shelly conveniently mentioned the monster reading this book, as it shows the monster had an understanding of good vs. evil, though the monster believe what it was doing was actually 'good' for itself, but not good for the whole of society.

[@underyourbreath331]

I actually never thought the relationship of Frankenstein and his monster and the role science had to play was a main focus of the book. More like a backdrop to ponder over. I always viewed the relations of the monster's relationship to society as the real plot to discuss. How people fail and reject those who they consider 'other' and how people can perpetuate and/or cause the problems they profess to hate.

[@MaxFrisch84]

Victor Frankenstein loved the idea but hated the outcome. This is how one night stans (pun intended) go.

[@TheZarkoc]

Diablo reference FTW!

[@Chemir486]

completely blown away. thank you so much for the great content

[@Forceprincess]

I love that you elaborated on the point I made in comments on the part one video. I'm doing my *smarty pants dance*! :)

[@eiskwean2867]

7:25 Murph's law: Whatever can happen will happen

[@LaWonsie]

When we talked about Frankenstein at uni, the question that caused the probably most heated discussion was for whom we felt more sympathy in the end: Frankenstein or the creature. And while I must say that Victor's constant egocentric whining and drowning in self-pity was exhausting, I don't think that he alone is to blame for the creature's monstrous behavior. Yes, he shouldn't have abandoned it. Yes, I get why the creature became a monster. But the thing is - I get the reasons it might have to kill the villagers that rejected it, or the French people in the forest who chased it away. The guy who attacked it even though it had saved his girl. Even Victor. However, what reason did the creature have to kill Victor's younger brother? In that moment, the creature doesn't know he's related to Victor. It does not know how hard Justine's false conviction will hit Victor. The creature just kills a little boy and sets an innocent girl up for the murder. Knowing that this was wrong. And that's the point where I can't sympathize with the creature as much anymore. Well that comment got a little long. Whatever. ;)

[@TheConnorBennett]

Can't wait for Slaughter-House Five

[@ItzhakEthanEskimo]

9:48 shawn of the dead reference

[@WindexmanIII]

Oh man, was that a Diablo inventory screen I just saw?? That takes me way back.

[@killagilla88]

I saw the thumb nail for the Jane Eyre video and I got all excited and was just about to click on it but then I saw I have to wait a week. I don't know if I can cope with that.

[@UltraBrot]

I think the motivation of frankenstein is really important. If he conducts his experiment to be seen as father or creator, he seeks power more than knowledge. It is not couriosity but a personal goal that drives him. Real science is not about an isolated scientist, its about sharing findings. This resembles the metaphors of the "light" of reason and science, which oncovers and shares former secrets and the one of the dark and occult, which is about keeping them hidden. I think this contrast can be found in the comparison between the polar explorer and frankenstein, too.

[@KassanatorLucy]

I vote that we get an episode(s) on the Divine Comedy!

[@TristanPEJ]

Well, that was the last place I expected a Diablo reference.

[@alex.stramelli1588]

Gotta love the Diablo 3 reference!

[@1973Washu]

Frankenstein's experiment was such a failure because he did not care for the creature he made and instead labeled it a monster and a monster it became.

[@HilBG]

UGH Elizabeth is NOT HIS COUSIN I am a giant squid of anger that's the same mistake two weeks in a row! But other than that, lovely analysis on a great novel. I look forward to next week!

[@chloenewnham1121]

God, I wish you were one of my lecturers, John Green!

[@AbhyudaySharda]

Today's episode was awesome :)

[@jeni35]

It would be great to have an intelligent response to this, and I'm sure I could come up with one, but instead - OMG it's the Robot Devil! Liked.

[@itswherethecomedycomesin8864]

how have we ignored "you always win with Darwin"

[@kinsellalol]

just out of interest, what is 'teen mum'?

[@Limbomber]

you are better off not knowing

[@linnetthemidnightblogger1351]

There's an interesting point in the nature vs. nurture debate there. If the creature wasn't born evil, then it was its experiences after birth (or re-birth) that caused its behaviour, and its descent into a monstrosity. Also, when we studied this in Lit someone raised an interesting point; if Frankenstein took the brain from a cadaver, why didn't the creature retain the memories of its past life? We blamed artistic license at the time, I think, but it's still an interesting point.

[@FuckItSnoopy]

It was a failed experiment because Victor was a bad father. Really that simple in the beginning. Later, I suppose you could blame society as a whole for the failure. Those who did not accept him as a child and labeled him a monster because of their own ignorance. This wasn't a failure of science. It was a massive success. It was a failure of man. Ignorance is ultimately the child's (not monster's) undoing. imo

[@timpitiumable]

Absolutely marvelous view I couldn't agree more with your view

[@davidbrakman1578]

Despite the novel's warnings against violating nature, I want to agree. This was a triumph. The prospect of bestowing life is powerful and, if presumptuous, not inherently bad. Victor was just an irresponsible jerk. (I'm not just fording a reference. One could draw several parallels with Portal about the overreach of science unconstrained by morality, the destructive pursuit of personal gain, and the callous disregard for life.)

[@DarkArt888]

I don't think Victor's experiment was a failure. The dead lived again, and as you mentioned could even love and was moral, it was Victor who failed. I don't think Frankenstein really makes a good case for why science and the pursuit of knowledge may have negative outcomes when the science itself resulted in a desirable and positive outcome, and would have continued to do so if Victor would have nurtured his creation. Even when the monster does evil, it's worth noting that the monster is mostly only imitating the wrong that's been done to him, though sometimes to a more extreme level. To me, that indicates more that the story is more about what happens when humanity abuses new-found knowledge, not that knowledge (Or the pursuit of knowledge) is ever immoral or should be feared. In fact, that kind of mind set is ultimately what caused everything bad that happens. The monster was only a monster because people saw him as a monster.

[@skilledwarman]

sweet Sean of the Dead reference there thought bubble! xD