I write the following blog at a certain time when the extent of my knowledge about the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is based solely on the first volume of the text as well as the occasional passing reference in everyday wanderings and pop culture. Whenever I hear about Frankenstein, the phrase “playing god,” is not far behind. Mostly in the form of “playing god” being a terrible idea. A hint of this idea is presented or can be said to have been presented in the following phrase from chapter 3 of volume 1: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” If you cannot tell from the vernacular used in the proceeding sentence I am about to critique this notion of “playing god.” I think it is more appropriate to say “playing science.”
The phrase used from the book talks about the dangerous of becoming greater than nature will allow and while this seems to fit squarely within the context of “playing god,” I believe it to be different, in fact the complete opposite. When Shelley says “how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world,” I believe she is talking about the acquirement of knowledge being dangerous to those inclined to believe in god. The acquirement of knowledge, or science, is then dangerous because they allow for a greater understanding of how the world operates, one where man does not “believe his native town to be the world.” She also seems to be offering a critique of religion in Victor’s early leanings about Albertus Magnus and Paracelsu. His teachers explain that those are old and tired ways of viewing the world.
