Frankenstein

[Mikari]

I don't really keep track that far back but the SF elements were what kept me listening... sadly I was left waiting for more... waiting for the "it's alive!" that never came. Oh well, it did inspire the eventual creation of that scene so I can thank it for that.

[SnowRayjah]

Hmm, maybe not the first ever Sci-Fi novel, but there were definitely some very interesting points. I think what it really lacks is the explanation of what would truly be "scientific." From what I've noticed Sci-Fi relies a lot heavier on the explanation of how and why things work. Technically, it is the lightning that gives the Creature life. Why? That's not addressed in the story. As far as we know the outside element, something else (something supernatural?) intervened. Of course, in context at the time people were concerned with what science could do. So on that note, yes it is more sci-fi because sci-fi always touches up on current events with medical or scientific breakthroughs. as Mikari said there were sci-fi elements; it's easy to put traces of other genres into stories though.

I really classify it as Horror more than science fiction. It brings fear and atrocities and makes them real, which for me is key component of horror more than science fiction. I also believe that Shelley made more a point of the horror than the explanation of it (ie. The creature chases after Victor and torments him. Victor never knows where it's going to be. It drives him insanity). Perhaps even a dark fantasy, but I have a hard time agreeing with the term "science fiction" to classify. Maybe that's just me though. I recognize more elements from what it means to be "horror" than science fiction.

[Mikari]

I agree with the horror. It's not the super gory kind of horror, but a lot of it does tell the story of Victor's fears and also the Zombies fears and the fears of those who deal with it in some way.

[Shiori]

Hmm, maybe not the first ever Sci-Fi novel, but there were definitely some very interesting points. I think what it really lacks is the explanation of what would truly be "scientific." From what I've noticed Sci-Fi relies a lot heavier on the explanation of how and why things work. Technically, it is the lightning that gives the Creature life. Why? That's not addressed in the story. As far as we know the outside element, something else (something supernatural?) intervened. Of course, in context at the time people were concerned with what science could do. So on that note, yes it is more sci-fi because sci-fi always touches up on current events with medical or scientific breakthroughs. as Mikari said there were sci-fi elements; it's easy to put traces of other genres into stories though.

I really classify it as Horror more than science fiction. It brings fear and atrocities and makes them real, which for me is key component of horror more than science fiction. I also believe that Shelley made more a point of the horror than the explanation of it (ie. The creature chases after Victor and torments him. Victor never knows where it's going to be. It drives him insanity). Perhaps even a dark fantasy, but I have a hard time agreeing with the term "science fiction" to classify. Maybe that's just me though. I recognize more elements from what it means to be "horror" than science fiction.

Frankenstein is more a novel of terror than of horror as it is still heavily bound to the Gothic and romantic movements of the time. Although Shelley started out with the goal of writing a great horror story, the focus on Victor's torment and pursuit links far more heavily to terror than it does horror. Yeah, some "horrific" things happen, but the emotional ruin and perpetual sense of unease borrow more from earlier titles of terror. Many of the texts that followed Frankenstein, however, upped the horror factor considerably (so it is still linked to the the eventual trend of Gothic horror). Not everyone divides the two though, so academic feels vary on this subject.

The book is indeed considered a cornerstone of the science fiction genre by many scholars (though it isn't really omgthefirstevah -- it's often cited this way because Victor consciously turns to science but blahblahblah that's a story for another day). Scientific explanation for the experiment's success, beyond Victor's channeling of the lightning isn't necessarily required for the whole set up to be considered science fiction. There are differing elements within science fiction and hard explanations of devices or methods aren't required to link a book to the genre. (Hard sci-fi, well, that's a different kettle of fish entirely.) Victor employs his medical and scientific knowledge to do what he does, the fact that we're not privy to the nitty-gritty behind the whole thing doesn't negate the employment of a fictitious scientific experiment to birth the creature. All the genre asks is that the imaginary concepts contained in a text be ostensibly plausible (in the right context). There's no magic in the way Victor creates the creature (unless you count the strike intervening and even then, that's a stretch), it is a labour of intellect and fortitude. Sure, it might seem a little silly in retrospect that all it took was a lightning strike to bring the creature to life, but only a few decades before Shelley wrote her novel, Luigi Galvani was conducting experiments in which he ran electrical currents through dead animals. It was certainly a primitive examination of bioelectricity, but given the going theory during Shelley's time was that there was electrical fluid in our nerves, Victor's experiment doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched in context.

[SnowRayjah]

Shiroi, certainly! I wasn't discounting it as a science fiction novel. More that I define it as horror (in genre, not defining between horror and terror, obviously). I used the catch all of "horror." For clarification I view horror as being something that plays into the primal fears of the audience, while I define terror as being the feelings leading up to horror. In this case creating something "unnatural" is a primal fear because people fear what they do not understand. In this way Shelley takes a key point (Galvani's experiments for instance) and makes them real. As we both mentioned, in context the case of Victor Frankenstein is both frightening and based in science.

We spend much of the novel, as you mention in a state of "Terror" rather than horror. But then when we get that shock or surprise, by my definition would be more horror. Yes Victor spends a laborious amount of time piecing the creature together from corpses (terror) then when lightning strikes and the creature lives we are almost as appalled as he is (horror). I very much agree with you that the novel has many more terrifying moments than horrifying but I still classify it as horror based on a sort of catch all of understanding. Gothic Horror might be more specific.

I believe that the terror and horror of it stems from the plausibility of the experiment. I believe that writing tries to explain the fears and insecurities of people. Whether it is based in science or horror doesn't matter as much as they can easily be joined together.

[Shiori]

Shiroi, certainly! I wasn't discounting it as a science fiction novel. More that I define it as horror (in genre, not defining between horror and terror, obviously). I used the catch all of "horror." For clarification I view horror as being something that plays into the primal fears of the audience, while I define terror as being the feelings leading up to horror. In this case creating something "unnatural" is a primal fear because people fear what they do not understand. In this way Shelley takes a key point (Galvani's experiments for instance) and makes them real. As we both mentioned, in context the case of Victor Frankenstein is both frightening and based in science.

We spend much of the novel, as you mention in a state of "Terror" rather than horror. But then when we get that shock or surprise, by my definition would be more horror. Yes Victor spends a laborious amount of time piecing the creature together from corpses (terror) then when lightning strikes and the creature lives we are almost as appalled as he is (horror). I very much agree with you that the novel has many more terrifying moments than horrifying but I still classify it as horror based on a sort of catch all of understanding. Gothic Horror might be more specific.

I believe that the terror and horror of it stems from the plausibility of the experiment. I believe that writing tries to explain the fears and insecurities of people. Whether it is based in science or horror doesn't matter as much as they can easily be joined together.

The novel fits into multiple genres and that generally includes horror and science fiction. Genre isn't a strict business (especially given constantly shifting conventions) so it's perfectly acceptable to consider the novel both a story of horror and early science fiction (in addition to, y'know, others of course).

Yeah, terror is generally defined as the anticipatory elements preceding an horrific experience. Horror is, of course, a combination of shock and revulsion. The majority of Frankenstein attempts to keep the audience in a state of terror. It is a novel of considerable anticipatory nuance. The birth of the creature is arguably a moment of horror. Yet the pursuit that eventuates returns us to terror, to that feeling of dread rather than to the sort of splatter moments we get in later film adaptations. I would argue, given the period, that the birth of the creature is a moment of the early sublime. At once the creature is both a revolting abomination and a work of art. It is the clumsy approximation of a man and yet it is so much more. This inhuman contrast, this sublimity, serves to add to Victor's later feelings of revulsion.

Gothic horror is indeed more specific and links heavily to earlier novels of terror and period novels of the Gothic sublime. In this sense, it's less strict in its adherence to later horror conventions and more a blend of terror/horror. You get that a lot in the early days of sub-genres, a real blurring of lines and blending of old and new ideas.

Nowadays horror is more closely associated with base violence and gore, but earlier works like Frankenstein focused on a different sort of horror. Beyond the "gag reflex" and into a pay off more closely linked to psychological and spiritual terror. So in that sense I think horror is an appropriate genre to link to the text, definitely, but elements of terror and the sublime also play key roles in the successful execution of the book's plot points. Oh and sci-fi but, err, that's enough of that lol.

[SnowRayjah]

Shiori, I think that's one reason I enjoyed it so much. It wasn't so cookie cutter. One could easily connect the dots to other genres, as we have been doing. I think I have much bias concerning science fiction as a whole, I expect to much more because current science fiction can be very lengthy and expository to the point of downright boredom for me. On the other hand, horror tends to be more gruesome (these days). But, for me, Frankenstein had many more romanticism elements in it. (You brought up the romance a couple of times before, I'm just echoing and agreement.) There was so much more to feel, which I appreciate more. Again, back to my bias the science fiction tends to be dull for me, so, I don't appreciate it as much as I could.

And not to change topics, but I have nothing but agreement to shower upon you at this point. Which, you know, doesn't promote discussion in the slightest.

Koontz wrote a five book sequel to Shelley's Frankenstein that merges the science fiction and the Gothic Horror into a modern day. It has a few more supernatural elements than its predecessor. Have you read those? He had a pretty go base with the science that Shelley left in her novel and I must say that to truly enjoy Koontz's subtle remarks one must read Shelley's.