Open Court Press’ “Pop Culture and Philosophy” series has
been holding up various films, books, TV shows, and video games up to
philosophical scrutiny since the publication of its inaugural volume on
“Seinfeld” back in 2000. It’s surprising the series has taken so long to swing
around to Frankenstein since Mary
Shelley’s tale is so philosophically pointed. Or perhaps it has taken so long because
Shelley makes her point so clearly that it doesn’t lend itself to multiple
interpretations that well. We are reminded of this time and again Frankenstein and Philosophy: The Shocking
Truth, because a lot of the book’s 27 essays hit the same conclusion:
neither the Monster nor science is inherently evil; it is Doctor Frankenstein’s
lack of love for his creation that drives the Monster to destroy, and
therefore, science must always go hand-in-hand with love, care, and humanity.
Although the writers behind these essays may frame them within themes of
theology, eugenics, or Marxism, the fact that Shelley’s essential conclusion is
so often repeated can make for repetitious reading. So I often appreciated
the essays with which I don’t necessarily agree (such as Keith Hess’s
examination of whether or not the Monster has a soul), were inconclusive (such
as Jonathan Lopez’s attempt to figure out who a man is that has been created
from multiple parts), or didn’t focus as keenly on the topic (such as Skyler
King’s primer course on moral relativism vs. moral absolutism that merely uses
the monster as illustration) simply because they mixed up the perspective.
Several of the more divergent essays stand up on their own
merits completely. I liked Elena Caseta and Luca Tambolo’s rejection of the
flippant and erroneous buzzword “Frankenfood” for its originality, its
soundness, and my own pet peeve about flippant and erroneous buzzwords. I found
Caroline Mossler’s piece on the Monster as a pioneering revolutionary against a
human-centered society provocative and particularly relevant. John V. Karavitis
daringly blasts past Shelley completely to examine the morality of biomedical
enhancements under the microscope of Dean Koontz’s reinterpretation of the Frankenstein story.
Some writers managed to illuminate otherwise unobserved
angles of Shelley’s central theme or find particularly clever ways of
approaching it. Jesse Dern clarifies the theme by explaining how Frankenstein has
superficially written off his creation as a monster from first glance. Mirko D.
Garasic inverts the theme by using Frankenweenie
as an example of how a creator’s love can redeem a monster. Nevertheless, we
should not accuse the multiple philosophers behind Frankenstein and Philosophy of unoriginal thought but applaud Mary
Shelley. How many 18-year olds can construct a philosophical fiction so lucidly
that the philosophy remains both unmistakable and valid 200 years later?
