It's always confused me as to why, not just with this but with Frankenstein lore in general.
I've not read the book but if he just wants to 're-animate the dead, can't he just do it with a normal dead body.
Why's he got to attach all different bodies together?
Well just the pure horrific value of a stitched together corpse is enough...
But
You have to go back to the time the book was written, corpses especially those of the younger variety arrived that way either through illness which made them useless or more often as heavy industrialization spread and labour became more manual injury through machinery ( coal mining by hand, steel working with dangerous equiptment etc etc) Accidents often resulted in crushed limbs/bodies or severe injury to those parts, so a body may have crushed legs while another had crushed arms or a torso or a head etc so the idea of replacing the limbs with those from another corpse to make a whole body came about, this coupled with the turning away from religion and a growing interest in surgery and the introduction of electricity combined into Shelleys Frankenstein.
Well just the pure horrific value of a stitched together corpse is enough...
But
You have to go back to the time the book was written, corpses especially those of the younger variety arrived that way either through illness which made them useless or more often as heavy industrialization spread and labour became more manual injury through machinery ( coal mining by hand, steel working with dangerous equiptment etc etc) Accidents often resulted in crushed limbs/bodies or severe injury to those parts, so a body may have crushed legs while another had crushed arms or a torso or a head etc so the idea of replacing the limbs with those from another corpse to make a whole body came about, this coupled with the turning away from religion and a growing interest in surgery and the introduction of electricity combined into Shelleys Frankenstein.
If you have never read the novel please don't assume. You make it blatantly clear you are guessing based on films you have seen rather than the content of the actual book. And now you spread misinformation and for that you should be ashamed of yourself. Did you think no one who actually read the novel would see this?Wow. Well, um, happy new year to you, too. Look, the series is not supposed to be an adaptation of the book, and Scousethief's observations are valid and welcome, as would yours be if you dropped the condescension. share
Re-read the first post.
It's always confused me as to why, not just with this but with Frankenstein lore in general.
I've not read the book
Ive read the book many times its an enjoyable read much like Dracula although not so much that i's commit to being an *beep* of a foum about it but ,please continue to explain the 8 foot creature that Frankenstein built without factoring in multiple body parts, the average male height of that time was approx 5foot 8,from memory the book never clearly defines how the creature was "made", but i could be wrong, but then i wouldnt be an *beep* about it like you were. If the book CLEARLY defines the process of Frankenstein creating his monster , please , post the links to the paragraphs and/or quotes that detail this act and i will happily re-read them.
His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.
This passage though, with the skin not fitting quite clearly hints that parts were used, otherwise the skin would fit , correct ?
The OP asks WHY the creature is usually created from parts rather than a whole, i gave an answer based on a historical time that included body snatching, the anatomy act and the horrific accidents and maiming's of the Industrialization of England all of which Shelley knew about and would have in some way registered in her brain, that combined with other "inspired" tales she encountered lead her to imagine Frankenstein as she did.
But i could of course be completely wrong , i could also have a dildo stuffed too far up my arse but im guessing thats your issue rather than mine.
Enjoy the new year.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense in the context of the mini series (and the historical context).
When Marlott is reanimated he is shown his hand and told that he's cured. He's not prettier, but his body doesn't show the signs of syphilis any more.
So unlike Victor Frankenstein Sir Daniel Hervey is not going for beauty but performance.
(And yes, I also read the book several times.)
In the original Frankenstein novel it was never about raising the dead or reanimating a corpse- an immortal man. The Creature was meant to be a whole new lifeform. The idea was Victor was picking and choosing ideal parts. He even considered The Creature beautiful before it came to life.
In the novel The Creature had long black hair, yellow eyes, and perfect white teeth. Parts specifically selected and compiled together for their quality. Victor didn't consider him hideous until he came to life, he was trying for beauty. The Creature was also very intelligent in the book and learned to speak and read in three languages in a matter of months and was soon more articulate and well spoken than Victor himself.
Also The Creature in the novel was not pure science. There was alchemy and sorcery involved too. Victor found the secret of life while studying the works of Agrippa and Paracelsus, a self-proclaimed sorcerer and an alchemist.
As I recall from the book, Frankenstein is doing more than just sewing together limbs... 'arm bone connected to the shoulder bone'... he's building his creature up from scratch. Knitting together new muscles and bones from raw materials he harvests from corpses. The creature is huge because Frankenstein cannot do the work on a smaller, finer scale.
Like you say, he pursues alchemy and sorcery, but seems to abandon them as a dead end at one point... turning to some new, un-named process that is generally assumed to be galvanism/electricity but is not so specifically named.
Too bad Frankenstein was completely unprepared for his own success and rather than taking responsibility for his creation he runs off into the night and abandons the thing... and all the horrors that follow rest on his shoulders, moreso than the creature'. He really is the 'monster' of the story... which the British seem to have always understood, while Hollywood tends to depict the Dr. as merely overreaching and 'accidentally' creating a dangerous creature.
As has been said, his goal is not to resurrect a man... it's to create life anew... to dethrone God as the singular source of life on Earth.
I like versions that are sympathetic to both The Creature and Victor. Victor abandoned his creature in what could have been a metaphor for Mary Shelley's own post partum depression (before they had a name for it) and her own insecurities about Percy and family (her parents weren't speaking to her at the time and Percy would disappear for weeks, and left her alone with a premature baby who died two weeks later).
The Creature and Victor each do terrible things. The creature murders several of Victor's loved ones out of revenge and he does not learn until later that revenge would bring no peace but only more pain. Victor also goes on a quest of revenge and repeatedly does not take accountability for his actions. Both are flawed and both are sympathetic.
The 2004 mini-series version by Hallmark with Alec Newman as Victor and Luke Goss as The Creature is very faithful to the book.
Oh! I hadn't heard of that mini-series. I'll have to track it down.
You're right that the creature in the book does terrible things... but its basically left to raise itself and whatever 'moral compass' it has did not come from its parents or normal socialization... more likely it learned from books and observation. Observation of how people actually treat each other vs. the ideals expressed elsewhere.
I lost any sympathy for Victor when he allowed the maid to be executed rather than fessing up to his own responsibility in the murder of the boy. He's pretty much a coward throughout the tale... an absentee father who lets his own interests compound the tragedy he set in motion.
I feel sorry for Victor because I do acknowledge that he as just a boy when he brought his creation to life. He was only a student at Ingolstadt after all, not the seasoned mad scientist we often see in movies. A boy with the noble ambition of wanting to free the world of the fear of death.
He and his creature both made terrible mistakes in the course of the story. Yes, he was an absentee father and yes The Creature realized a bit too late that revenge would bring him no peace.
There's little Victor could have done to save Justine. No one would have believed his story anyway. I believe in one edition (Mary Shelley revised it twice) he did try to defend her and failed.
I still yearn for a version where the two reconcile with each other. The closest thing to it is the finale of the 2010 Off-Broadway Frankenstein musical.
Simple. Superglue hadn't been invented yet!
shareIt makes sense in the lore because Dr. Frankenstein was trying create the "ideal man", so he put found the best parts and stitched them all together. I think show it makes absolutely no sense, especially since Mr. big bad wasn't even a surgeon and said he didn't use their methods. There was also no reason to cut up Marlott, as they intended to bring him back as himself.
Honestly, I think the ending was shoehorned in at the last minue and they didn't think of all the other plot threads the would undoubtedly mess up if they left it in.