English 334 9/24/08 and 10/1/08 discussion notes
1. What is a “Frankenstein Story”?
Playing God, over-exuberant on knowledge, desire for experience, acceptance, companionship, feeling outcast, good vs. evil, revenge, missed opportunities.
Creation of a rational thinking life form that’s not human and isn’t accepted fully into human society, being evolves outside control of the creator.
Flawed creator—lacks foresight and is on shaky moral ground; creator’s knowledge is incomplete and is driven by not-knowing.  Act of creation is described or implied in story, gives reader a sense of agency.  Reader takes over the work of the creator.  Monster demonstrates high degree of self-knowledge and sentience.  Tries to fit in and interact with the world, but fails.  Is without peers—unique and solitary.
Science and ethics (more focused on ethics); creator’s relationship with creation; teenage angst by the created being; taboos.
About a scientist giving humanity to something that’s not “human.”  (this is the archetype)  goal to scare us into recognizing our own flaws, denaturalizes “humanity”
2. Is Sirus a “Frankenstein Story”?  (why/why not?)
Creators meant well but ultimately selfish; depression by the “monster,” become misanthropes; 
Yes—S. is artificially constructed and has the clarity for a human level of intelligence.  Balance between life and self-destruction. Everything else is in common with the genre.  
S. is a variation—an evolved and more versatile and more scientific and ethical version.
3. What characteristics in Sirius go against type?  i.e, how is it not a “Frankenstein Story”?
Sirius has a small group that are accepting.  Can move more freely in society because can “pass” as a dog.  Is rejected by humans; rejects dogs.  Sirius isn’t exactly a monster.  Creator takes responsibility for him.  
Sirius has a relational and social context.  His creator acknowledges some of the ethical responsibilities.  Lacks the extreme xenophobia of Frankenstein.  
Overbearing science, science that doesn’t even make sense.
In most F. stories there’s a big mistake, but in S. that doesn’t happen.  i.e, Thomas is very responsible; recognizes consequences and steps up to plan for S’s future.  In S. there’s less guilt/ethical preoccupation and more focus on relationships.  S. could have a place in the world; there’s no real reprimand against Thomas for what he did. If someone did make a dog as smart as a human being, this story seems realistic and believable—the ordinary life of a super dog.  (not abnormal.)  
4. Is “His Vegetable Wife” a Frankenstein story?  Is Blade Runner?  Why/why not?
They nod towards Frankenstein but aren’t full-fledged.  They’re stories about created lives, and the creator missed something important about their creations (that the replicants are alive, that the wife has feelings).  The creations are independent, have lives of their own.
They are.  They end in destruction.  
Blade Runner may not be, because of the multiple creatures.  Roy may be the most creature-ish.  Tyrell is playing God, his creations get out of control and wreak vengeance, and are harassed by society.  No moral dilemma.  Vegetable Wife isn’t because Flynn isn’t a scientist and is more of an enabler; the wife doesn’t seem to understand language and may not be sentient or have moral conflicts.  Flynn does have a flawed intent and dies at the hands of his creation.  We do witness the creation of the creature.  
They’re similar but aren’t.  In both the creatures are mass produced, aren’t taboo.  In Veggie Wife, it’s mostly his fault that he dies; there’s no impending doom for humanity, it’s just a story about two people.  In Blade Runner it’s the story of the creatures, not of the creator.  It’s only the rebels who are the monsters.  The public doesn’t see the creators as bad.  
5. What characteristics in Veggie Wife and Blade Runner works go against type?  i.e, how are they not “Frankenstein Stories”?
Blade runner is looking towards Christian/Biblical influences.  Roy is more ambitious than the creature, isn’t hideous or pathetic.  Roy looks and acts like human but is more conniving.  Veggie Wife could be weird erotic fiction if it weren’t a “tragedy.”  She’s just a tree that this guy rapes, doesn’t have sentient thought.
Tyrell has foresight, plans ahead for the possibility of what could go wrong.  More than one monster (5 at least).  The replicants don’t want more of themselves; they just want to live.  We don’t see the androids being made—they just are, which makes them seem more human.  The Veggie Wife isn’t created just to create; she is just there to meet a need.  
With Veggie Wife and Blade Runner, neither of the creatures are sentient necessarily.  It’s possible they are just operating on programming.  Tyrell is killed because he has foresight, and his action of limiting their abilities is what kills him.