DON'T BUILD MONSTERS IN THE ATTIC!
(Oh, yeah and like Mr. E Coli said, "never trust a hunchback to bring the good brain"... also very good advice.....)
2007-01-22 09:28:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Subliminally, there may have been a moral. Though it was intended purely as an opium driven competition between authors at the time it was written. Though, if you HAVE to have a moral it is that we all make our own monsters thinking we can control them, when in fact they will take a life of their own and leave a path of destruction and that there are different sides to every thing, including our monsters. It's all perpective.
2007-01-20 02:45:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by ttfiend2003 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We are responsible for all the wrong we see in world. If we choose to take the fruit from the tree of knowledge then we must accept that we will be cast from Eden. Most of the romantics based their works on biblical analogies. As has been said, the time of writing was one of conflict between the desire to progress science and the fear of its consequences. This is a world which we inherited and, as another answer mentioned, the message of the novel, intentional or otherwise, is perhaps more relevant now than ever.
2007-01-20 03:34:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Paul H 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
She was writing at a time when electricity was just starting to change people's lives and people were scared of it. She admitted she was too at the time. Her story was to try to get people not to use something she saw as ungodly and a device of the devil. The moral isn't really what she was trying to establish, but she was trying for a good against evil story, and what was good and what was evil.
2007-01-20 02:17:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by redhotboxsoxfan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think Mary Shelley was, in fact, the first science fiction writer. The moral issues of the Frankenstein story can be summed up as: Humans have no right delving into matters they can never understand
One must be ethical in the matters of science and medicine. Playing with life is a serious thing.
There can be horrible ramifications in producing something which can become out of control
I think that story is relevant today in our own areas of science and medicine, especially when it comes to the splicing of DNA, and gene alteration, donated organs and stem cell research. Perhaps it should be required reading in a medical ethics course.
2007-01-20 02:49:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
It explores the terrifying nature of scientific advancement, a theme still very relevant to our own time. There are so many other things going on in this novel as well, though--the tendencies of human nature, the role of selfishness, etc. Check out the link below for more info on all of that.
2016-05-24 00:33:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Shelley herself stated that the moral was to "show how dangerous is the acquisition of knowledge..."
However, there are many different views of the "moral" of the story. My own is....taking responsibility for the choices you make.
2007-01-20 02:22:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by aidan402 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is one of my favorite romantic novels. As a epigonon of Romanticism, which was born as a reaction against Enlightenment, it applies to some of its literary topics:
1. the obscurity and shadowy atmosphere against the light of the Enlightenment,
2. the defense of Nature, against artificiality and human techniques, as they are always subjected to nature and can never escape from it (you can see this apology of nature also in pictures by romantic authors like William Turner) Also seen in Rousseau political thoughts, where the human being is born good but society corrupts them.
3. Mary Shelley stands out of other romantic authors because she stresses the value of emotion versus rationalism, which is other topic of romanticism, but particularly emphasized in Frankenstein
4. Contemporary,it can be read as a defense of difference against discrimination for reason of appearance, as Frankenstein was seen as something different and discriminated for that even though he had, at the very beginning, a gold innocent heart. He was closer to nature than to society and still, he could be the best that a human being can be: emotional, good. However, the contact with society turned him bad, as Rousseau would say.
2007-01-20 02:40:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Never trust a hunchback to bring the good brain.
2007-01-20 02:14:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Don't bring things to life expecting them to walk normally.
2007-01-20 02:09:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋