Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus

Kindle books was giving away a Frankenstein novel for free and since I did not know if my debit card was exhausted or not, I opted to download and read it rather than various recommended best sellers.  Especially for free, it was worth the purchase.  And never before have I been more wrong about what I thought I knew about a book.

I thought I had read it before, but when I read it this time, since I did not recognize it all, maybe I never did.  I was relying on snippets of a dozen bad movies for my recollection of the book.

Did you know there is no Igor?    And Dr. Frankenstein is not an evil genius doctor at all, but a young college student who became over enthusiastic about his studies.  And the scene is set in cheery Geneva, Switzerland, not in some Eastern European castle.  And Victor Frankenstein does not flip a switch to turn on his creation, because he is still lighting up his studies with candles.  Nor were there batteries that could hold the lightning for animating the creature.  And Victor's Creation proves to be very intelligent.  He educates himself so he can persuade others about his point of view.

The book is published in 1818.  Mary Shelley had run away to Geneva with her then boyfriend, Percy Shelley, because if the creditors caught him in England, they would throw him in a debtor's prison.  They  had already scandalized society because Mary was pregnant and Percy was married to Harriet.  Harriet later conveniently drown herself so Mary and Percy could marry.  Mary became pregnant when she was 16 and Percy was 20.  If this had happened today in Texas, Percy would probably be prosecuted for Rape of a Child.

At any rate, Mary and her stepsister Claire Clairmont and Percy and Lord Byron and John William Polidori all stayed for a while at Lord Byron's house on Lake Geneva.  They were all telling ghost stories and out of that came Mary's Frankenstein.  Polidori wrote the first vampire story to be published in English.  Mary was 20 years old.

The title actually refers to the young student, Victor, and not his creation.  Victor is The Modern Prometheus.  That is, he steals fire from the gods, gives it to men and ends up being punished for eternity by having his liver eaten by an eagle, only to have it grow back and eaten again the next day.  Victor creates life out of dead material.  He has an understanding of watching the frog's leg jump and throw off a spark when it is touched with a scalpel.  By giving man this fire, he has to watch as the run away creation kills everyone he loves.

Mary grew up and hung around with the best poets and philosophers of the time, so it is not surprising she used Luigi Galvani's experiments as the basis for bring the creature to life.  Galvani thought animals were the source of the electricity.

Mary includes in her story, a false confession, a religious persecution of a muslim and the unintended consequences of the well-meaning scientist.  This all seems up to date.  Victor's creation wants a wife.  Victor won't create one because he fears the offspring will be so much superior to people, they will soon replace people. 

I suppose the genetic engineers are far enough along they could produce a creature bigger, stronger and smarter than people by tinkering with certain human genes.  Maybe this should be required reading. 

One thing I think Mary misjudged is that any creation could be so grotesque, no one would ever be able to look at it.  But Mary was just 20 and hadn't learned yet that we can get used to about anything.

More Blake; the Abomination of the Law

Kathy says my posts are too long and boring. I will only say I take my model from GOAB; he went on and on and on, but when I read him, I always stay with him. But then, I'm not GOAB (no one since, readers true, has been GOAB) and I in the reading of an essay, I have been called "Relentless." (Not just in reading an essay, but I fear it is something of a character defect, something like that of our fat English Bulldog, Daisy, who will sit and bark at a dead bug for hours). So this could well have been part of yesterday's post, because I was not yet ready to turn loose of William Blake, but out of a sense of mercy, I have divided it in two or three...or four.

All Penal Laws court Transgression & therefore are cruelty & Murder.

The laws...were what Christ pronounced them, The Abomination that maketh desolate, i.e. State Religion, which is the source of all Cruelty.

Who among us can read those words without thinking of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual (affectionately called the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by those of us the trade). Or Kafka's little story, In the Penal Colony. Somehow, to think of it, those two pieces of modern literature seem to whirl and blend together. Do you remember the image in 1984 in which the fingers being held out swirled between two and three (or was it three and four), but the pain caused Winston's mind to blur the image to get the result the interrogator desired? This whirling and blending and swirling from pain comes to me with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and if me, how much more my clients who are on the bloody end of the stick.

To be fair, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not all bad, if we must regulate society using executions, prison camps, fear, chains, threats and violence as motivators.

For instance, by contrast, sentencing by the State of Texas, allows little predictability that can be offered to a client preparing for trial. The accused may be looking at anywhere between five years probation to life imprisonment, depending on the makeup of the jury. My friend Phillip argues the uncertainty in the state system that he would be more willing to brave the harsh sentences of the guidelines than subject a client to the whim of a jury or judge in state court.

In the State of Texas, there is little certainty to come from a trial. The accused may be looking at anywhere between five years probation to life imprisonment, depending on the makeup of the jury. My friend Phillip Cowen argues the uncertainty there is so great that the predictability that comes with a guideline are worth the generally higher sentences.

Maybe, but the Texas Sentencing is a topic for another day.

Today, I want to entertain and amaze you by simply describing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines with its breathtakingly weird values.

At some point I will brave the subject of how cruel these guidelines can been. For today, I can only face the issue of how odd they are. Also, for those of you who are breathlessly awaiting the day, I want at some point to describe how all of this strangeness was adopted.

(Here's a hint: It was cosponsored by Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond. It is as if Dr. Moreau and Dr. Mengele got together to recreate Dr. Frankinstein's manufactured human being. Kennedy wanted the newly created invention to do social work and Thurmond wanted him to be a jailer. Instead, the monster had a mind of his own and has decided to plant colonies all over the country, but particularly in Willacy County.)

Anyway, the good doctors forgot to give the monster a frontal lobe, so the poor creature cannot feel emotions. This, then, is how he responds to your suggestions on how to punish the newly convicted felon.


"This kid is 18 years old, so maybe we should give him a break."

Sorry. The guideline says age (including youth) "is not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

"Well, OK, but now I have a Nobel Prize winning cancer researcher with a Phd. Wouldn't it be a shame to see all of that education go to waste?"

Sorry, again. Education is "not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

Beginning to see a pattern?

"OK,then, this young woman is suffering severe post-partum depression and psychotic episodes, that should be considered shouldn't it?"

Are you not paying attention? "Mental and emotional conditions are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

"This guy is dying of AIDS and will only be on this earth a few more months."

Well, no, physical condition is "not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

"This one has held a steady job for thirty years and is near getting his pension."

No, employment record is "not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

"No one raised him, he grew up in the streets all alone after both parents were murdered."

Sorry.

"She is taking care of her five kids and five more from her sisters who have gone into hiding."

No, family ties and responsibilities, are "not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted."

"She's a war hero just back from Iraq."

Nope.

"She is set up a foundation for crippled children."

Naw.

"She has worked full-time as a candy striper since she retired ten years ago."

Sorry, again.

In other words, most everything people (and yes, this includes judges and prosecutors) think is important is ruled out by this being cobbled together by Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond.

I understand, readers true, you are not facing federal charges, so who cares. Permit me a couple of hints of the magnitude of this problem. How about this quote:

The number of people behind bars in the "land of the free" is grown as large as the combined populations of Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Pittsburgh.

That's the shocking fact in a Pew Center on the States report showing that one in 100 adults in the U.S. are in prison or jail--more than 2.3 million people. -- For a link to this quote, click on the title.

Blake brings us back to the first issue we should look at. Do we have a right to be punishing people at all?

Jesus was sitting in Moses' Chair;
They Brought the trembling Woman There
Moses commands she be stoned to death;
What was the sound of Jesus' breath?

"Good & Evil are no more!
Sinai's trumpets cease to roar!
Cease, finger of God, to write!
The Heavens are not clean in thy Sight!

Thou art Good & thou Alone,
Nor may the sinner cast one stone."