I don't really understand this novel, although I'm only about half way through

I don't really understand this novel, although I'm only about half way through.

Firstly why does the author dwell so much on Victor's dabbling with alchemy in his youth? Is it just meant to explain his fascination with discovering an elixir of life or is it meant to imply that he uses some magical necromancy in his method?

Secondly is it meant to be anti-materialist or anti-vitalist? My understanding is that Shelley rejected vitalism, but Frankenstein's method is obviously vitalist in nature by imparting a 'spark of life'.

Dont read women. Their inferior

Do these issues implie that the novel is disappointing ? I haven't read it already but I heard it was a little boring.

You're attributing rather heavy concepts to a rather straight-forward book.

>boring
>filled with pointless shit that the pseuds will claim is interesting 150 years later
>everyone suspects it's paid by the world
>was basically pulp in its day but is now treated as it's a philosophical tome written by a 200 IQer

Yep, it's Classic Victorian Literature

Because it's fun, man. She was just being herself.

m8, people did weird shit back then to pass the time. they didn't have the 24/7 news porn cycle quite down yet. wait til you get to the monster's method of learning languages and you'll see how times have changed, friend.

>Their inferior
Trigg'd

You're overthinking it. It's just a straightforward nurture vs. nature theme. And Shelley was wrong because she had the simplistic womanly view that people are molded by their surroundings and by default good, when they are, in fact, inherently evil and are only good by constant discipline by the soul and mind.

did you mistake the scientist for the monster?

>People are by default good
I just can't understand how some people are this stupid. The level of blindness that idea implies is fucking mindblowing.

Not everyone's a c*tholic, user

Blind to what, exactly, user?

Isn't that idea of virtue Greek in origin? It's basically straight from Plato/Aristotle. Either way it predates Catholicism

Low quality prose, boring story, dumb characters. This book has no redeeming qualities, one of the few cases the movies were actually superior in every fathomable way.

That's just stupid. Inherent compassion/empathy is not a "simplistic womanly" view, it's ingrained into different religions and cultures throughout time.

Buddhism, Catholicism, Greeks, etc.

And if you want to view it from a scientific perspective, mirror neurons are biological features that show that humans are wired for forms of empathy. Mirror neurons are only observed in primates and higher order species, as well.

Don't overthink the novel. It's far more important for what it inspired, not for any kind of nonexistent subtext.

There is some, but it's more in the vein of literary reference (especially considering her husband, Percy Shelley, edited the novel quite heavily).

Long story short, it's a horror story written by an 18 year old.

Goethe complained about the 24-hour global news cycle.

this triggers the augustinian

Humans are able to cause the greatest harm thanks to their intelligence, what you call neurons.
Think it like this, all animals are equally evil but humans can cause greater harm thanks to their intelligence.
If for example, alligators were as smart as us, they would have done the same.
Telling that we are wired for empathy shows that you are a cuck apologist of abrahamic religions and their heresies.

>Animals are evil
This is like "women are superficial".

lol no, most women are superficial and mean and prosper like crabs do in a bucket however the few good friendships i have had with women were extremely genuine and worth it but it's slim pickings these days when you've got winged eyeliner daddy choker professional pseud the bachelor liberal as the trend

"Women are not deep. They're not even shallow" -Nietzsche.
is what I meant.
"Animals are good" and "Animals are evil" are absurd, because animals can't understand morality and choose freely.