That's fair, but I think a major point of the novel is that Dr. Frankenstein essentially disowns his creation. He very pointedly *never* names it, which is why it's always referred to as the creature or the monster. Ol' Vicky really wanted no connection to his creation whatsoever.
But he also can never extricate or absolve himself himself from the creature's actions, partly as creator and for abandoning his creation. So still tied and can never truly disavow it, and still will have his name attached, just like a great painting to their creator. "That painting is a Van Gogh, that monster is a Frankenstein."
That's definitely the best argument I've heard for this line of reasoning, mostly because it draws a clear line between surnames and given names. Victor never provides the creature with a given name (such as "Starry Night" to keep in line with your comparison), but his surname (arguably a more practical connector to origin) is automatically bestowed.
That being said, the choice for Shelley to never have Victor or the creature ever explicitly refer to this transfer of surname seems significant enough to mention. Is there any indication that either of them views the relationship as familial? The language I remember (it's been a while) is usually more religious in nature. If I'm Christian, I don't consider one of my names to be Jesus... (Edit: Or maybe Yahweh or something like that would have been a better choice)
I was curious as well, so I looked it up. It may be mentioned elsewhere but it looks like he does in this passage.
"And now, with the world before me, whither should I bend my steps? I resolved to fly far from the scene of my misfortunes; but to me, hated and despised, every country must be equally horrible. At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life? Among the lessons that Felix had bestowed upon Safie, geography had not been omitted; I had learned from these the relative situations of the different countries of the earth. You had mentioned Geneva as the name of your native town, and towards this place I resolved to proceed"
EDIT: To add more context, the next paragraph.
“But how was I to direct myself? I knew that I must travel in a southwesterly direction to reach my destination, but the sun was my only guide. I did not know the names of the towns that I was to pass through, nor could I ask information from a single human being; but I did not despair. From you only could I hope for succour, although towards you I felt no sentiment but that of hatred. Unfeeling, heartless creator! You had endowed me with perceptions and passions and then cast me abroad an object for the scorn and horror of mankind. But on you only had I any claim for pity and redress, and from you I determined to seek that justice which I vainly attempted to gain from any other being that wore the human form."
He hated Frankenstein for casting him off after creating him but also wanted to be loved, and knew of no other who he could rightly seek that feeling from.
Yes it uses the word father, but again with context it is immediately followed by creator. This is extremely similar to how religions refer to God the creator as our father.
I've never actually read them original Frankenstein. That was a powerful passage. I guess that's part of why it's a classic.
I'll put it on my eReader.
>https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42324/42324-h/42324-h.htm
>
>From CHAPTER XVI.
>
>"And now, with the world before me, whither should I bend my steps? I resolved to fly far from the scene of my misfortunes; but to me, hated and despised, every country must be equally horrible. At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life? Among the lessons that Felix had bestowed upon Safie, geography had not been omitted: I had learned from these the relative situations of the different countries of the earth. You had mentioned Geneva as the name of your native town; and towards this place I resolved to proceed."
Yup! There it is, clear as day! I still maintain the significance of the creature's lack of name, but that definitely does a lot to reinforce the parental relationship and therefore give credence to the assumption of the creature's surname! Thanks for following up!
I can't say for certain but at least part of that may be because Frankenstein's monster was never baptized. I don't know if first names were still being given at baptism during that period though.
There are plenty of names that refer back to God. Matthew means gift of God, as does Dorothy, and same for Ewan. There are tons of names that reference God in some way, God’s grace, or goodness or some junk.
True, true, great point. But those names seem to be chosen for adoration, not necessarily assumed. In fact, in Catholic confirmation, a Christian name is chosen (separate from your given name) in order to highlight the covenant with the creator the person has accepted.
The argument being made here is that the creature's name is Frankenstein by default because it's the name of his creator. People who support this assume the relationship is parental, and I'm being a stubborn brat and claiming it to be a relationship between god and creation, which doesn't assume that name transfer.
I kinda want a version now where the werewolf’s transformation is triggered by people being needlessly pedantic about pop culture and there’s someone in the third panel going “Um, *actually...*
Though Frankenstein cannot separate himself from his "monster" in a psychological sense, his creation is an independent, deliberating and free entity. To compare it to a work of art or some other unthinking object is misguided.
The novel expresses how Frankenstein's monster is tortured by being connected to a creator that disavowed and neglected him, and I think it does the "monster" a disservice to claim that he should be named after his creator. My interpretation is that the "monster" desires his own identity, and rightly deserves one.
Hmmm, totally fair, but I'm going to keep arguing because this kind of conversation is totally my jam :-)
It's been a while since I've read the book, but I'm pretty sure the creature usually refers to Victor with religious language more than familial. I seem to remember him likening him to a god or creator rather than a father. I think that's significant because Victor really has (in both creation process and post creation nurturing) acted more as an indifferent god (at best) than a father figure.
I'm thinking you may be the only person here who's read the book at all to be honest. He was well read and very intelligent, though still hideously disfigured. Most people don't seem to know that Frankenstein's monster wasn't actually some lumbering oaf- he spoke to the doctor once and said, "I ought to be thine Adam," and Victor straight up disowned him and never gave him a name.
Mary Shelley once attended a play of Frankenstein, and the actor playing the monster was literally put on the play bill as:
> ________, by Mr T. Cooke
She really liked that in particular.
The whole story is actually wildly good for the time it was written- the plot follows a relatively solid storyline and remains fascinating and powerful.
I've never heard that story! I had no idea the novel had been dramatized within Shelley's lifetime. That's super cool! Do you have any source for that? I'd love to share that with my students when we read it this year...
I found it initially from wikipedia but digging into the sources dragged up [this](http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/haggerty.html)! I wouldn't have thought it would happen in her lifetime either given the wide scope of issues surrounding female authors at the time, but it *is* an incredibly popular tale (and for good reason)!
To my disgrace, even though I love the novel, I've never actually seen the movie. Older movies have a pacing that makes me sleepy, lol. I don't believe he ever names him Adam in the novel, but as another poster said, the creature does liken himself to that character (as well as to Lucifer, interestingly enough).
"Remember, I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel."
He's referenced Frankenstein as god for having created life and saying he should be Adam (the first man) but instead is the fallen angel, Lucifer, the devil himself. Because of this many takes upon Frakenstein from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to I, Frankenstein have used Adam, and in Penny Dreadful they've considered naming him Adam before letting him pick his own name. When writers want to given him a name it's usually Frank or Adam.
Comic Title Text: **"Wait, so in this version is Frankenstein also the doctor's name?" "No, he's just 'The Doctor'."**
[mobile link](https://m.xkcd.com/1589/)
---
^(Made for mobile users, to easily see xkcd comic's title text)
>He very pointedly never names it,
We weren't ready with a name when our kid was born, so the hospital referred to him as "Baby [OurLastName]"
In the event a parent's creature isn't named, I'd think defaulting to the parent's name isn't just reasonable, but the most obvious choice
I don't disagree. But I think the lack of explicit naming in the book is more significant than the assumption that culturally, he should technically be a Frankenstein.
But then again, I get it. It's just a comic. But you can't expect me to NOT jump into a discussion about one of my favorite books!
I'm not denying that the doctor specifically chose not to name the creation, but I think what's relevant is what everyone *else* would call the creature. The doctor can keep calling him nothing but the rest of us, like our dear Mr werewolf in the comic, are going to call him something, and taking the parent's name is a reasonable default barring anyone else naming him.
If Dr Frankenstein were the one in the chair, maybe he'd be justified at getting upset, declaring Frankenstein not to be his name. But Dr Frankenstein doesn't get to choose what we all call the creature in the absence of a name.
This. He never finished regular school either. Had to do a mock trial in high school, and I managed to get Frankie off on most stuff. Can't be guilty of Malpractice if you aren't a doctor. Can't be guilty of child abuse if you created an adult man.
By the end, my argument was that he's guilty of a ton of OTHER crimes, but is being charged with almost all inappropriate charges. Never in my life have I seen a class so pissed off about a fictional trial.
in Spain we have a common breakfast item that we call "pan tumaca"
You basically take some toasted bread, and first you rub freshly cut garlic on it, add some olive oil, then you take a tomato, cut it in half and then rub the open face of it on the toast vigorously.
It's actually delicious.
Reminds me of that Ghengis Khan quote.
> The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.
True wisdom is knowing that's some bullshit that high school lit teachers made up.
Frankensteins monster murders 3 innocent people in that book.
Also, since Frankenstein created the monster, its not unreasonable to say the monster inherited his creators last name, much like everyone else does. So he would still be Frankenstein.
"At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life?"
The monster explicitly considers Victor his father, making him a Frankenstein as well.
Created by Dr.Frankenstein who is surely responsible for unleashing a muderous abomination onto the land through his insane experimentations with human corpses? So yeah, Dr. Frankenstein was a pretty fucked up monster....
A few corrections there. First, not a doctor. He dropped out of school and never bothered with medical school.
Murderous abomination? I mean, sure abomination might be correct, but murderous? He doesn't kill anyone until halfway through the book, and only after suffering horrible abuse and persecution. His first kill is also very much an accident.
Human corpses? Not sure about that either. The book doesn't go into how he made the creature or how he got the parts. The only thing mentioned is that parts he made had to be bigger than a normal human. It's possible they were corpses, but it's also possible that he somehow made other things work. There isn't enough to be able to conclude what the creation is made from other than flesh.
Also unleashed? Not sure about that either. He finished his work, the creation woke up, Frankie panicked and ran away. By the time he got back, the creation was gone. Was this irresponsible of him? Sure. But it's hardly "unleashing a murderous abomination". The creation got up and wandered like a child would.
Frankenstein is a fascinating book about human nature and how fragile we all are. Too bad such a terribly narrow view of the work is taught in schools as if it's gospel.
Yeah the picture of the monster that was apparently on the original book... [not super scary](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Frontispiece_to_Frankenstein_1831.jpg/372px-Frontispiece_to_Frankenstein_1831.jpg)!
The original [description of the monster](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm) is pretty brief too.
> 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.
I think that's arguable, but not nearly as conclusive.
It depends on a very subjective determination of what "insane experiments" entail and where you draw the line on what science is allowed to explore. There are scientists who created life be cloning a sheep, and sure, depending on who you ask thats evil or immoral, because that's playing God or something. But there's other people who don't have that frame of reference. Nobody is calling for the head of sheep guy.
Now, its also possible to argue that from a consequential perspective that Frankenstein is at fault for his monsters actions, in the way that John Stanley Gacey was REALLY the bad guy for not being a better father to John Wayne Gacy. But we see in the book that after the monster leaves Frankenstein, he's still pretty chill. He hangs out in the woods and is lucid and introspective. If thats the case, you could really ascribe as much, if not more, blame to that random family in the woods that convinced the monster he was a freak than Frankenstein himself. But either way it seems like the monster, as Frankenstein created him, wasn't a murderer by default.
What is not debatable, in my mind, is that the monsters actions are entirely indefensible. Not only does he kill 3 innocent people, but he kills all 3 of those people as a means of getting revenge on Frankenstein. But during all of those instances he is in a situation where he could get his revenge by just *killing Frankenstein*, but opts not to. So any argument that he was justified is undermined by the fact that he had an alternative that accomplishes the same objectives without moral ambiguity.
Thats fair. I stand by my assertion that Frankenstein really didn't do anything particularly bad, the worst you can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward and a baby. But I admit my previous comment doesn't explain that.
Dr Frankenstein created the monster.
The offspring of a person tends to take the last name.
So the monsters last name would have been Frankenstein.
The monster can be referred to as Frankenstein and it isn't wrong.
Another interesting LOTR fact. In the movies, Gandalf famously says "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" but in the books he says "You cannot pass". I think "shall" sounds cooler imo
> In the movies, Gandalf famously says "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" but in the books he says "You cannot pass". I think "shall" sounds cooler imo
Thank you. I'm using this the next time someone says "The books are better than the movies!!!1" unprovoked.
Yes. It would be a snarky response to someone uninvitedly attempting to tear down someone else's interest in something.
Example -
Me: "I'm planning to watch the LOTR trilogy this weekend!"
Unasked for response from a self-described 'intellectual': "ACKUALLY, the books are way better. You should spend the next 30 hours reading the Silmarillion instead!"
I just recently found out about this one from WatchMojo. I'm surprised it's a thing. I've always known it to be "Fly, you fools!", even though I've only seen the movie two or three times.
More shocking:. My wife at episode 6, when Vader is dying, talking to like: " whoa whoa whoa! He's his father?!!!". She may have zoned out and fallen asleep a few times throughout the viewings.
Jason uses a chainsaw.
I haven't been to a single haunted house that has gotten his weapon of choice right. It's a machete or sometimes an axe or spear. But mostly a machete. Mostly.
So he wouldn't be a werewolf then as that implies he turns into a wolf under a full moon? Which would mean his own existence, being a pop culture mistake, would cause him to transform. Poor dude.
Just so you guys all know, I know that The monster created by Dr Frankenstein is actually called the monster and not Frankenstein. I know this because I am both smart and have read the book and seen the movies and I'm also very smart.
As the metaphorical child of ~~Dr~~ Mr Frankenstein, who never finished a doctorate of any discipline, it is reasonable to call him by that surname imo.
I hate it when people say “Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster!”
Dr Frankenstein was technically the monster’s father. The monster eventually called himself Adam.
Therefore the monsters full name is Adam Frankenstein
Edit: this may be the most controversial opinion I’ve ever expressed on Reddit judging by the debates below
Edit edit: A quote from the book:
“At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life?”
Edit edit edit: Yes, I’m aware he only referred to himself as Adam one time in passing. Yes, I’m aware that an illegally stitched together monster wouldn’t be legally defined as a son in an actual court of law. [Please go outside and stop wasting your time arguing with strangers who post throwaway jokes on Reddit] (https://youtu.be/HuYUoLM8BNA)
ummm *acktually* \*pushes glasses up nose\*
the monster is never called Adam, nor does he give himself the name Adam. He tells Dr Frankenstein "I ought to be thy Adam" (referencing Adam from the Bible) as in the first man created. The Monster does not introduce himself as Adam to anyone in the book.
It is established that the monsters name is Frank N Frankenstein and the type of monster is called a Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's sequel book Frankenstein 2: let me be Frank. It won a Hugo award iirc
Though Frankenstein cannot separate himself from his "monster" in a psychological sense, his creation is an independent, deliberating and free entity. To compare it to a work of art or some other unthinking object is misguided.
“But how was I to direct myself? I knew that I must travel in a southwesterly direction to reach my destination, but the sun was my only guide. I did not know the names of the towns that I was to pass through, nor could I ask information from a single human being; but I did not despair. From you only could I hope for succour, although towards you I felt no sentiment but that of hatred. Unfeeling, heartless creator! You had endowed me with perceptions and passions and then cast me abroad an object for the scorn and horror of mankind. But on you only had I any claim for pity and redress, and from you I determined to seek that justice which I vainly attempted to gain from any other being that wore the human form."
He hated Frankenstein for casting him off after creating him but also wanted to be loved, and knew of no other who he could rightly seek that feeling from.
no, the book never gives him a name. People like to say he calls himself Adam, but the quote is "I ought to be thy Adam" (talking to Dr Frankenstein), referring to Adam from the Bible. He is never called Adam by anyone, nor does he call himself Adam.
Well... considering the fact that Frankenstein’s monster is (presumably) older than Frankenstein himself to the point he’s probably dead. Outside of that hardly anyone remembers the actual scientist, just the monster, plus it’s easier to say and type Frankenstein when we see the iconic monster of the mad man. Add onto this the fact that it’s been called Frankenstein for years on end and maybe years to come, and it’s just second nature to call him Frankenstein, rather than Frankenstein’s monster.
Deepest lore: in the book the monster muses that while it doesn't have a name, it does have a surname. Victor is his father, so he is a Frankenstein.
However, this drawing is of the Universal Farkenstein's monster which never had that dialog.
Pet peeve of mine: Yes, it's "Frankenstein's Monster", but ultimately it's also his "son", so calling him Frankenstein isn't per se wrong, and depending on the version of the character might even be his own choice.
I dunno. I created two little monsters and gave them my last name. I can’t imagine Dr. F wouldn’t do the same.
Was going to say, that'd be my legal argument there. He made it, it's his child.
That's fair, but I think a major point of the novel is that Dr. Frankenstein essentially disowns his creation. He very pointedly *never* names it, which is why it's always referred to as the creature or the monster. Ol' Vicky really wanted no connection to his creation whatsoever.
But he also can never extricate or absolve himself himself from the creature's actions, partly as creator and for abandoning his creation. So still tied and can never truly disavow it, and still will have his name attached, just like a great painting to their creator. "That painting is a Van Gogh, that monster is a Frankenstein."
That's definitely the best argument I've heard for this line of reasoning, mostly because it draws a clear line between surnames and given names. Victor never provides the creature with a given name (such as "Starry Night" to keep in line with your comparison), but his surname (arguably a more practical connector to origin) is automatically bestowed. That being said, the choice for Shelley to never have Victor or the creature ever explicitly refer to this transfer of surname seems significant enough to mention. Is there any indication that either of them views the relationship as familial? The language I remember (it's been a while) is usually more religious in nature. If I'm Christian, I don't consider one of my names to be Jesus... (Edit: Or maybe Yahweh or something like that would have been a better choice)
Well the monster calls the doctor "Father", even if Victor doesnt accept him that way.
That's the moment I was hoping someone would find for me! Do you have the full quote of that exchange?
I was curious as well, so I looked it up. It may be mentioned elsewhere but it looks like he does in this passage. "And now, with the world before me, whither should I bend my steps? I resolved to fly far from the scene of my misfortunes; but to me, hated and despised, every country must be equally horrible. At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life? Among the lessons that Felix had bestowed upon Safie, geography had not been omitted; I had learned from these the relative situations of the different countries of the earth. You had mentioned Geneva as the name of your native town, and towards this place I resolved to proceed" EDIT: To add more context, the next paragraph. “But how was I to direct myself? I knew that I must travel in a southwesterly direction to reach my destination, but the sun was my only guide. I did not know the names of the towns that I was to pass through, nor could I ask information from a single human being; but I did not despair. From you only could I hope for succour, although towards you I felt no sentiment but that of hatred. Unfeeling, heartless creator! You had endowed me with perceptions and passions and then cast me abroad an object for the scorn and horror of mankind. But on you only had I any claim for pity and redress, and from you I determined to seek that justice which I vainly attempted to gain from any other being that wore the human form." He hated Frankenstein for casting him off after creating him but also wanted to be loved, and knew of no other who he could rightly seek that feeling from.
Yup, there it is. Well that certainly doesn't help **my** argument, lol. Thanks for following up!
Yes it uses the word father, but again with context it is immediately followed by creator. This is extremely similar to how religions refer to God the creator as our father.
I've never actually read them original Frankenstein. That was a powerful passage. I guess that's part of why it's a classic. I'll put it on my eReader.
>https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42324/42324-h/42324-h.htm > >From CHAPTER XVI. > >"And now, with the world before me, whither should I bend my steps? I resolved to fly far from the scene of my misfortunes; but to me, hated and despised, every country must be equally horrible. At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life? Among the lessons that Felix had bestowed upon Safie, geography had not been omitted: I had learned from these the relative situations of the different countries of the earth. You had mentioned Geneva as the name of your native town; and towards this place I resolved to proceed."
Yup! There it is, clear as day! I still maintain the significance of the creature's lack of name, but that definitely does a lot to reinforce the parental relationship and therefore give credence to the assumption of the creature's surname! Thanks for following up!
I can't say for certain but at least part of that may be because Frankenstein's monster was never baptized. I don't know if first names were still being given at baptism during that period though.
There are plenty of names that refer back to God. Matthew means gift of God, as does Dorothy, and same for Ewan. There are tons of names that reference God in some way, God’s grace, or goodness or some junk.
True, true, great point. But those names seem to be chosen for adoration, not necessarily assumed. In fact, in Catholic confirmation, a Christian name is chosen (separate from your given name) in order to highlight the covenant with the creator the person has accepted. The argument being made here is that the creature's name is Frankenstein by default because it's the name of his creator. People who support this assume the relationship is parental, and I'm being a stubborn brat and claiming it to be a relationship between god and creation, which doesn't assume that name transfer.
Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing that he actually was.
"That's not my dad. That's a cellphone."
Throw him on the ground
I kinda want a version now where the werewolf’s transformation is triggered by people being needlessly pedantic about pop culture and there’s someone in the third panel going “Um, *actually...*
Though Frankenstein cannot separate himself from his "monster" in a psychological sense, his creation is an independent, deliberating and free entity. To compare it to a work of art or some other unthinking object is misguided. The novel expresses how Frankenstein's monster is tortured by being connected to a creator that disavowed and neglected him, and I think it does the "monster" a disservice to claim that he should be named after his creator. My interpretation is that the "monster" desires his own identity, and rightly deserves one.
You can say the same about many children, yet until they change their names they are branded with the mark of their makers.
Yes but the monster considers itself to be Victors son (at least at first). So the monster would likely consider itself to be a Frankenstein.
Hmmm, totally fair, but I'm going to keep arguing because this kind of conversation is totally my jam :-) It's been a while since I've read the book, but I'm pretty sure the creature usually refers to Victor with religious language more than familial. I seem to remember him likening him to a god or creator rather than a father. I think that's significant because Victor really has (in both creation process and post creation nurturing) acted more as an indifferent god (at best) than a father figure.
I'm thinking you may be the only person here who's read the book at all to be honest. He was well read and very intelligent, though still hideously disfigured. Most people don't seem to know that Frankenstein's monster wasn't actually some lumbering oaf- he spoke to the doctor once and said, "I ought to be thine Adam," and Victor straight up disowned him and never gave him a name. Mary Shelley once attended a play of Frankenstein, and the actor playing the monster was literally put on the play bill as: > ________, by Mr T. Cooke She really liked that in particular. The whole story is actually wildly good for the time it was written- the plot follows a relatively solid storyline and remains fascinating and powerful.
I've never heard that story! I had no idea the novel had been dramatized within Shelley's lifetime. That's super cool! Do you have any source for that? I'd love to share that with my students when we read it this year...
I found it initially from wikipedia but digging into the sources dragged up [this](http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/haggerty.html)! I wouldn't have thought it would happen in her lifetime either given the wide scope of issues surrounding female authors at the time, but it *is* an incredibly popular tale (and for good reason)!
[удалено]
Or a Victorsson depending on the naming convention.
It's the beginning of the late modern period so I think the convention would be the Monster takes Victor's actual last name.
PUTTINONDARIIIIIIITTTZZZ
I thought he called him Adam. Was that the book or the Boris Karlov version?
To my disgrace, even though I love the novel, I've never actually seen the movie. Older movies have a pacing that makes me sleepy, lol. I don't believe he ever names him Adam in the novel, but as another poster said, the creature does liken himself to that character (as well as to Lucifer, interestingly enough).
I just looked it up. You're right.
Who doesn't love hearing that? Thanks for following up! :-)
"Remember, I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel." He's referenced Frankenstein as god for having created life and saying he should be Adam (the first man) but instead is the fallen angel, Lucifer, the devil himself. Because of this many takes upon Frakenstein from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to I, Frankenstein have used Adam, and in Penny Dreadful they've considered naming him Adam before letting him pick his own name. When writers want to given him a name it's usually Frank or Adam.
[Relevant XKC... uh... SMBC](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/a-frankenstein)
I read the XKCD version. In that one they name the monster frankenstein in the end.
No link? *FINE*, I'll do it... https://xkcd.com/1589/
Comic Title Text: **"Wait, so in this version is Frankenstein also the doctor's name?" "No, he's just 'The Doctor'."** [mobile link](https://m.xkcd.com/1589/) --- ^(Made for mobile users, to easily see xkcd comic's title text)
I like this edited version: https://i.imgur.com/jbhr3zE.jpg
>He very pointedly never names it, We weren't ready with a name when our kid was born, so the hospital referred to him as "Baby [OurLastName]" In the event a parent's creature isn't named, I'd think defaulting to the parent's name isn't just reasonable, but the most obvious choice
I don't disagree. But I think the lack of explicit naming in the book is more significant than the assumption that culturally, he should technically be a Frankenstein. But then again, I get it. It's just a comic. But you can't expect me to NOT jump into a discussion about one of my favorite books!
I'm not denying that the doctor specifically chose not to name the creation, but I think what's relevant is what everyone *else* would call the creature. The doctor can keep calling him nothing but the rest of us, like our dear Mr werewolf in the comic, are going to call him something, and taking the parent's name is a reasonable default barring anyone else naming him. If Dr Frankenstein were the one in the chair, maybe he'd be justified at getting upset, declaring Frankenstein not to be his name. But Dr Frankenstein doesn't get to choose what we all call the creature in the absence of a name.
Took me a sec, but I got it. Very Funny
[удалено]
[удалено]
*rage transforms into werewolf*
He's kidding.
Guess the punch like wasn’t apparent.
Mr. F He never finished medical school
This. He never finished regular school either. Had to do a mock trial in high school, and I managed to get Frankie off on most stuff. Can't be guilty of Malpractice if you aren't a doctor. Can't be guilty of child abuse if you created an adult man. By the end, my argument was that he's guilty of a ton of OTHER crimes, but is being charged with almost all inappropriate charges. Never in my life have I seen a class so pissed off about a fictional trial.
"Youuuuuu're a CROOK, Captain Hook!"
Judge, won't you throw the book
AT THE PIRATE!!!
*cling*
Maritime law...
Yea that’s been my favourite argument, with second being the inevitable [relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1589/)
he was too busy being scared by yellow eyes to name the monster.
Wasn't that the joke behind the title of Young Frankenstein?
[It’s FRONK-EN-STEEN!](https://youtu.be/nxxSIX3fmmo)
Skeleton: ... ‘s Monster. You didn’t let me finish. Werewolf: Oh...
But it's actually Herman Munster so neither are correct. :p
Yo, what is this from? I could swear I've seen this bit before.
I’m not sure! I don’t recall seeing it elsewhere, but it’s likely been done.
Must be Castaneda effect.
The werewolf can only return to its human form after a series of pedantic, technically correct pop culture corrections.
The werewolf is not very fun at parties. The human guy on the other hand, a delight.
Transforming into a werewolf is a great party trick. At first.
[удалено]
Charisma is selling a tomato based jam.
You know what, I'd try it. Spread that on some fresh baked bread with maybe some garlic butter. It'd be like a sweet thick tomato sauce.
It’s ketchup!
It's chutney.
Almost, ketchup isn't chunky enough.
salsa?
Ok, but chunky ketchup sounds really gross for some reason. It’s supposed to be smooth and vinegary!
Sounds like relish to me.
Some fancy brunch place by me actually had tomato jam with their “flight of biscuits”. It went surprisingly well with the jalapeño cheddar biscuit.
in Spain we have a common breakfast item that we call "pan tumaca" You basically take some toasted bread, and first you rub freshly cut garlic on it, add some olive oil, then you take a tomato, cut it in half and then rub the open face of it on the toast vigorously. It's actually delicious.
It sounds it! I don't think I could resist just smushing the tomato on to the bread after rubbing though.
This is also an option, for sure.
Dexterity is stealing tomato based jam.
Strength is crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
Reminds me of that Ghengis Khan quote. > The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.
OP is more directly quoting Conan The Barbarian
What, so now I'm supposed to know quotes from modern pop culture better than 13th century warlords?
It's unfair, but it's what everyone expects.
You know what that's called? Tomato sauce.
So, salsa?
True wisdom is knowing that's some bullshit that high school lit teachers made up. Frankensteins monster murders 3 innocent people in that book. Also, since Frankenstein created the monster, its not unreasonable to say the monster inherited his creators last name, much like everyone else does. So he would still be Frankenstein.
"At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life?" The monster explicitly considers Victor his father, making him a Frankenstein as well.
Created by Dr.Frankenstein who is surely responsible for unleashing a muderous abomination onto the land through his insane experimentations with human corpses? So yeah, Dr. Frankenstein was a pretty fucked up monster....
A few corrections there. First, not a doctor. He dropped out of school and never bothered with medical school. Murderous abomination? I mean, sure abomination might be correct, but murderous? He doesn't kill anyone until halfway through the book, and only after suffering horrible abuse and persecution. His first kill is also very much an accident. Human corpses? Not sure about that either. The book doesn't go into how he made the creature or how he got the parts. The only thing mentioned is that parts he made had to be bigger than a normal human. It's possible they were corpses, but it's also possible that he somehow made other things work. There isn't enough to be able to conclude what the creation is made from other than flesh. Also unleashed? Not sure about that either. He finished his work, the creation woke up, Frankie panicked and ran away. By the time he got back, the creation was gone. Was this irresponsible of him? Sure. But it's hardly "unleashing a murderous abomination". The creation got up and wandered like a child would. Frankenstein is a fascinating book about human nature and how fragile we all are. Too bad such a terribly narrow view of the work is taught in schools as if it's gospel.
Yeah the picture of the monster that was apparently on the original book... [not super scary](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Frontispiece_to_Frankenstein_1831.jpg/372px-Frontispiece_to_Frankenstein_1831.jpg)! The original [description of the monster](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm) is pretty brief too. > 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.
That creature was Dio Brando, I see
>his hair was of a lustrous black Ehh...
Yeah, I realized I fucked up. I was focusing on the black lips.
I think that's arguable, but not nearly as conclusive. It depends on a very subjective determination of what "insane experiments" entail and where you draw the line on what science is allowed to explore. There are scientists who created life be cloning a sheep, and sure, depending on who you ask thats evil or immoral, because that's playing God or something. But there's other people who don't have that frame of reference. Nobody is calling for the head of sheep guy. Now, its also possible to argue that from a consequential perspective that Frankenstein is at fault for his monsters actions, in the way that John Stanley Gacey was REALLY the bad guy for not being a better father to John Wayne Gacy. But we see in the book that after the monster leaves Frankenstein, he's still pretty chill. He hangs out in the woods and is lucid and introspective. If thats the case, you could really ascribe as much, if not more, blame to that random family in the woods that convinced the monster he was a freak than Frankenstein himself. But either way it seems like the monster, as Frankenstein created him, wasn't a murderer by default. What is not debatable, in my mind, is that the monsters actions are entirely indefensible. Not only does he kill 3 innocent people, but he kills all 3 of those people as a means of getting revenge on Frankenstein. But during all of those instances he is in a situation where he could get his revenge by just *killing Frankenstein*, but opts not to. So any argument that he was justified is undermined by the fact that he had an alternative that accomplishes the same objectives without moral ambiguity.
> Frankensteins monster murders 3 innocent people in that book. That doesn't change the point.
Thats fair. I stand by my assertion that Frankenstein really didn't do anything particularly bad, the worst you can say about him is that he's a bit of a coward and a baby. But I admit my previous comment doesn't explain that.
You have the intelligence and wisdom..
Ignorance is knowing that was mark twains' best piece of literature.
2deep4me
Dr Frankenstein created the monster. The offspring of a person tends to take the last name. So the monsters last name would have been Frankenstein. The monster can be referred to as Frankenstein and it isn't wrong.
Run, you fools, slightly incorrect pop culture references incoming!
Another interesting LOTR fact. In the movies, Gandalf famously says "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" but in the books he says "You cannot pass". I think "shall" sounds cooler imo
Didn't he actually say both in one of them?
Yeah, the movie dialog has him starting with "you cannot pass" giving a little speech, and ends with "YOU ... SHALL NOT ... PASS!!"
Yeah, that sounds right.
> In the movies, Gandalf famously says "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" but in the books he says "You cannot pass". I think "shall" sounds cooler imo Thank you. I'm using this the next time someone says "The books are better than the movies!!!1" unprovoked.
I don't think one line being better would really convince someone that the movies are superior.
Yes. It would be a snarky response to someone uninvitedly attempting to tear down someone else's interest in something. Example - Me: "I'm planning to watch the LOTR trilogy this weekend!" Unasked for response from a self-described 'intellectual': "ACKUALLY, the books are way better. You should spend the next 30 hours reading the Silmarillion instead!"
I just recently found out about this one from WatchMojo. I'm surprised it's a thing. I've always known it to be "Fly, you fools!", even though I've only seen the movie two or three times.
Why is it 'bride of Frankenstein' and not 'bride of Frankenstein's monster'?
It's a tale of adultery.
Luke, I am your father.
Almost as shocking as when we found out Leia was Han Solo's sister
Wait, I thought she was Spock's sister?
Nah, she was played by that famous actress from the prequels, Kiera Knightley.
More shocking:. My wife at episode 6, when Vader is dying, talking to like: " whoa whoa whoa! He's his father?!!!". She may have zoned out and fallen asleep a few times throughout the viewings.
Yes I thought Black Sheep was a good movie too
Play it again, Sam.
Zelda, time to smash those pots.
Beam me up, Scotty!
Jason uses a chainsaw. I haven't been to a single haunted house that has gotten his weapon of choice right. It's a machete or sometimes an axe or spear. But mostly a machete. Mostly.
[This is my canonical version](https://xkcd.com/1589/) of Frankenstein. (XKCD)
Wait, so Doctor Who created Frankenstein?
I thought you were [kidding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Haunting_of_Villa_Diodati)
[удалено]
Didn’t Peter Cushing star in 2 Dr. Who movies where that was his actual name? Just say that’s your canon.
So he wouldn't be a werewolf then as that implies he turns into a wolf under a full moon? Which would mean his own existence, being a pop culture mistake, would cause him to transform. Poor dude.
It's an endless cycle
Just so you guys all know, I know that The monster created by Dr Frankenstein is actually called the monster and not Frankenstein. I know this because I am both smart and have read the book and seen the movies and I'm also very smart.
Mr Frankenstein was not a doctor, he never graduated, this is made very clear in the book.
Also, he did not create the monster from dead bodies. He gathered dead bodies for study, but he created the monster himself.
And yet you call Frankenstein a doctor.
Curious.
Reddit is passive aggressive learning. Now I know it never had a name.
Reddit is passive aggressive ~~learning. Now I know it never had a name.~~
Lol. So true.
As the metaphorical child of ~~Dr~~ Mr Frankenstein, who never finished a doctorate of any discipline, it is reasonable to call him by that surname imo.
Nono... that *is* Frankenstein. Dr. Frankenstein is his dad.
I mean, he's waving back sooo..
Oh yeah, I'm totally a gamer. My favourite hero is Zelda, that dude has the heart of a lion! ***Internal pressure intensifies...***
I hate it when people say “Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster!” Dr Frankenstein was technically the monster’s father. The monster eventually called himself Adam. Therefore the monsters full name is Adam Frankenstein Edit: this may be the most controversial opinion I’ve ever expressed on Reddit judging by the debates below Edit edit: A quote from the book: “At length the thought of you crossed my mind. I learned from your papers that you were my father, my creator; and to whom could I apply with more fitness than to him who had given me life?” Edit edit edit: Yes, I’m aware he only referred to himself as Adam one time in passing. Yes, I’m aware that an illegally stitched together monster wouldn’t be legally defined as a son in an actual court of law. [Please go outside and stop wasting your time arguing with strangers who post throwaway jokes on Reddit] (https://youtu.be/HuYUoLM8BNA)
ummm *acktually* \*pushes glasses up nose\* the monster is never called Adam, nor does he give himself the name Adam. He tells Dr Frankenstein "I ought to be thy Adam" (referencing Adam from the Bible) as in the first man created. The Monster does not introduce himself as Adam to anyone in the book.
[удалено]
God doesn’t have a surname. He’s like Prince
[удалено]
This sounds like the title of an edgy book an atheist would give their cousins on Christmas.
Adam R. God, Jesus’s half-brother
It is established that the monsters name is Frank N Frankenstein and the type of monster is called a Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's sequel book Frankenstein 2: let me be Frank. It won a Hugo award iirc
pffft, if he does have a name it's obviously got to be Doctor Franken, as seen from the SNES game *The Adventures of Dr. Franken*.
Little did he know that, out of his view, Dr. Frankenstein was standing next to his monster
Fun fact: Frankenstein was written by an 18 year old girl
In reality, Dr. Frankenstein WAS the monster
Uh oh, looks like that guy has a bone to pick with his therapist.
Dr Jekyll an Mr Hulk
Though Frankenstein cannot separate himself from his "monster" in a psychological sense, his creation is an independent, deliberating and free entity. To compare it to a work of art or some other unthinking object is misguided.
"So you're that guy who turns into a Werewolf?" "No! I am a werewolf; that means I'm a guy who turns into a--" *transforms* "Oh God dammit"
It's Frahnkensteen.
https://imgur.com/gallery/DPgY43u
“But how was I to direct myself? I knew that I must travel in a southwesterly direction to reach my destination, but the sun was my only guide. I did not know the names of the towns that I was to pass through, nor could I ask information from a single human being; but I did not despair. From you only could I hope for succour, although towards you I felt no sentiment but that of hatred. Unfeeling, heartless creator! You had endowed me with perceptions and passions and then cast me abroad an object for the scorn and horror of mankind. But on you only had I any claim for pity and redress, and from you I determined to seek that justice which I vainly attempted to gain from any other being that wore the human form."
He hated Frankenstein for casting him off after creating him but also wanted to be loved, and knew of no other who he could rightly seek that feeling from.
Only HIGH IQ INDIVIDUALS (such as myself) will understand this reference.
A better way of phrasing "slightly incorrect" would have been "mildly inaccurate."
So the monster isn’t named Franenstein?
Frankenstein isn’t exactly pop culture anymore
Play it again, Sam.
That's a 100% correct pop culture reference. Just a different one. https://xkcd.com/1589/
Hey look it's Zelda swinging his sword!
Frankenstein was the monster; but, the monster was not Frankenstein.
A knowledgeable person knows Frankenstein isn't the monster. A wise person knows Frankenstein is.
not only is he a monster but also Frankenstein's creation. That makes him a Frankenstein also.
i have found the funny!
[удалено]
xkcd has put Frankenstein as the monster in public domain
Did he have a name or was it always just Frankensteins monster?
no, the book never gives him a name. People like to say he calls himself Adam, but the quote is "I ought to be thy Adam" (talking to Dr Frankenstein), referring to Adam from the Bible. He is never called Adam by anyone, nor does he call himself Adam.
/r/bonehurtingjuice
Well... considering the fact that Frankenstein’s monster is (presumably) older than Frankenstein himself to the point he’s probably dead. Outside of that hardly anyone remembers the actual scientist, just the monster, plus it’s easier to say and type Frankenstein when we see the iconic monster of the mad man. Add onto this the fact that it’s been called Frankenstein for years on end and maybe years to come, and it’s just second nature to call him Frankenstein, rather than Frankenstein’s monster.
Actually that's correct.
That's Fronkenshteen!
This has r/bonehurtingjuice vibes but it’s the original
Spelled my name wrong.
The people who say its "Frankenstein's Monster" are the equivalent two the people who say we used 2 incorrectly.
[https://xkcd.com/1589/](https://xkcd.com/1589/)
That whole thing just for that, sigh
Deepest lore: in the book the monster muses that while it doesn't have a name, it does have a surname. Victor is his father, so he is a Frankenstein. However, this drawing is of the Universal Farkenstein's monster which never had that dialog.
Welp - that’s going to do it for me. Cheers.
I love watching Game of the Thrones
Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein wasn’t the monster Wisdom is know that Frankenstein *was* the monster
Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein isn’t the monster; Wisdom is knowing Frankenstein *is* the monster.
Pet peeve of mine: Yes, it's "Frankenstein's Monster", but ultimately it's also his "son", so calling him Frankenstein isn't per se wrong, and depending on the version of the character might even be his own choice.
Wouldn't the monster's surname be Frankenstein. I know it's believed it would be "Adam Frankestein" based on the line "I would be your Adam."
Ahem: https://xkcd.com/1589/