What an experience! CU students take on Viktor and the monster

By Franklin Crawford and Linda Myers

At 3:30 p.m. on Aug. 26, thousands of Cornell freshman and transfer students gathered at sites across campus in more than 250 small groups to discuss Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, as part of this year's New Student Reading Project. The active groups were led by Cornell faculty, staff and graduate students from every college and discipline at the university.

From left, Josh Keegan '06 of Rochester, N.Y.; co-facilitator Jennifer Rothchild '04, facilitator Amy Villarejo, assistant professor of film and women's studies; Tabari Alexander '06 of Vallejo, Calif., and Paul Youn '06 of Corvallis, Ore., take part in a Frankenstein small group discussion on the lawn behind the A.D. White House, Aug. 26. Peter Cohl/University Photography

In one of those sessions, under an enormous tent pitched on the thirsty lawn outside Court Hall on North Campus, Professor Carl Batt, co-director of Cornell's Nanobiotechnology Center (NBTC) and Anna Waldron, NBTC education director, led a two-hour, freewheeling discussion of the book and its scientific, ethical and literary themes. Batt and Waldron were assisted by Alexis Mazur, a post-doc in general studies, and Krishna Raghavan, a post-grad in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Four focus questions were presented. When first asked for their thoughts on the book, one student whispered "boring." However, the ensuing discussion was anything but dull for the 30 students involved.

Freshman Ben Aldren established himself as a potential recruit for the Cornell Forensics debating team, skillfully arguing for and against points raised -- often to the point of exasperating his less aggressive peers.

But it was all in the spirit of a stimulating intellectual debate, and Batt and Waldron smoothed any ruffled feathers and made sure that everyone who wished to be heard was given a chance to speak.

When asked what was most interesting about the book from a scientific or technological perspective, David Chang, a Hotel School student, said he "didn't see the book from a scientific point of view at all."

"It isn't very scientific -- Viktor Frankenstein doesn't even explain his secret -- I got that from a much more recent Frankenstein movie."

There were small important points made, as well. Students agreed that they were surprised to find Frankenstein was the name of the scientist, not his creation. A simple and profound question was raised by Melissa McKenzie, a student in biochemistry: Mary Shelley doesn't mention anywhere that the monster ... well, stinks.

"He's made from dead body parts. Shelley describes how ugly he is, but don't you think he would also smell a little ripe? There's no mention of a bad smell."

It was a good, if queasy, point to ponder.

Other comments from students included:

• "Viktor Frankenstein was a coward who didn't take responsibility for his creation. If he had taken responsibility, maybe his creature would have turned out differently. Frankenstein's irresponsibility is what caused his misery. It's not so much about how he created the monster but how he handled his creation."

• "I didn't relate the book to science; my first thought was of the monster being ostracized and isolated from society. The book was more about social values."

• "Viktor Frankenstein lacked any sort of divine guidance. He had no sense of good and evil. It brings up ethical questions: If a child dies and we have the technology to recreate the child, should we be allowed to do it? It that okay?

• "I think the book ended with a negative message about science and exploration: It sort of says, 'Don't try this.' When you go against the norm, you should stop, or society will stop you."

• "Science is about pushing the limits. What if NASA had decided that landing on the moon was too dangerous? In science you can't do things halfway or just chicken out because of real or imagined dangers."

• "Viktor Frankenstein didn't create the monster for the good of life, he did it to fill a void: the death of his mother."

Left: Ayele Bekerie, assistant professor of Africana studies, listens to a comment in his group discussion in the Court Hall main lounge. Right: Elizabeth Jordan '06 of Mystic, Conn., makes a point in her group, which was facilitated by Provost Biddy Martin, in the small dining room of Balch Hall. Robert Barker/University Photography

Batt said the discussion was a success and demonstrated the wisdom of the reading project's mission to stimulate critical thinking skills, while building a sense of intellectual and social community. While Batt had hoped to explore his favorite topic, nanobiotechnology, he said the group will meet for two follow-up sessions in October and November, and then he intends to introduce some of those basic concepts as they relate to Frankenstein.

"We'll get back to the nano-stuff," he said. "For now, I am very pleased and to be honest a little surprised by the outcome. We had a group of highly intelligent, engaged Cornell freshman, who were well spoken and presented their ideas in a thoughtful manner."

Associate Professor of English James Adams and Professor Michele Moody-Adams, director of Cornell's ethics and public life program, led another discussion group Thursday, in 350 Goldwin Smith Hall, during which other intriguing points were raised.

Moody-Adams, a moral philosopher, asked: "Is the message, then, that we should stay away from knowledge, from places like Cornell?"

Devan Musser, a freshman in arts and sciences, responded: "It's not the pursuit of knowledge. It's his desire to be God that's the tragic flaw that leads to disaster."

But another student cautioned: "Education is circumscribed by the limitations of its teachers."

Adams, who studied science as an undergraduate at MIT before making the shift to English, suggested: "Doesn't Frankenstein in the book resemble a romantic poet on a mountaintop dreaming up worlds, rather than our modern model of a scientist who is part of a team? Is artistic creation yet another aspect of the book -- along with scientific creation and sexual procreation? We don't think of art as having a personal life, but suppose an artist like Eminem today makes a tape with words that offend some people. He says: 'I'm just putting it out there. I don't care if it offends.'"

Eli Rosenberg, a freshman in the College of Agriculture and life science, countered: "But the people who produce Eminem bear some responsibility."

To Moody-Adams' question, "What makes it possible for us to sympathize more with the monster than his creator?"Claire Cutting, a freshman in hotel administration, answered: "The reason he's considered a monster is other people's fears of him, of what he looks like." She also noted: "It's hard to sympathize with Viktor Frankenstein. There's so much he could do that he doesn't do. He doesn't warn; he could fix others' situations but chooses not to."

"But by the end, he's become wiser," observed Rosenberg. "I don't think Mary Shelley was completely critical of science."