Tag Archive: science


Victor Frankenstein is a very intelligent human being who is derived by his obsession to create life through science. He and his beautiful wife, Elizabeth, live together in a nice home not so far out of town. They live a very happy life as a marriage and both attend prestigious colleges near the area. In the same way, both of them are financially stable and come from very wealthy families. However, months into their marriage, Victor finds out one of Elizabeth’s darkest secrets. That is, Elizabeth cannot have children of her own due to serious health purposes.They exhaustingly start to use all their resources to remediate this issue, but was of no help. No amount of money was able to solve their problem. Be that as it may, having children has always been one of Victor’s biggest dreams. For years, he wished of having a perfect family of his own given that he was denied that opportunity by his selfish parents. He grew up without a mother and a dad who was never really around. So, he thought of solutions non stop until one day, his interest in science and his obsession to have kids with elizabeth came in to relation.

As a result, Victor Frankenstein begins working on a science experiment to create life in a lab. He becomes dedicated to the idea of birthing a child of whom he and his wife can raise together as a happy family. For this reason he lasts months working on this experiment behind his wife’s back. In like manner, after 1 year of hard work and dedication Victor Frankenstein brought to life his experiment. At first, Victor noticed how disfigure and different  the creature looked given that he was build from different beings body parts. He was afraid his wife would reject the creature as their children due to his abnormal physical looks. But, Victor took a different approach when the first thing the creature did was grab his finger and call him “Dad”. From that point on, Victor grew a connection with his creation and learned to love him in every possible way. Similarly, Elizabeth took the same approach upon meeting the creature and took huge interest in teaching him all he needed to know to survive. Victor Frankenstein could not be any happier.

Correspondingly, Victor and Elizabeth raised the creation by educating and loving it as their own. In the same way, Society viewed the creature as a different abled being, but accepted and respected it like any other person. The creation was referred to as Frankenstein and lived a normal life.  He wandered around the world experiencing life and living day to day. He caused no harm to anyone instead he was always showing affection to those around him. He was immensely grateful to his creator and Elizabeth for always surrounding him with love and affection because that was all he knew. He had the purest heart anyone could ever come across. His heart did not know the word hate. Love was the only thing he received, experienced, knew, and felt in one.



I titled this short piece, Love. It is a Frankenstein myth based of Mary Shelley’s novel that only introduces love, passion, and acceptance all throughout. In the real novel, Mary Shelley tends to relate the creation to continuous negativity such as death, hate, and violence from the moment it is brought to life all the way to the end of the novel. One major twist to my story and Mary Shelley’s novel is the relationship between the creation and his creator. In my story, not only is the creature accepted by his creator but is also introduced to elizabeth and society. He is born into a loving, accepting and welcoming home unlike Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein from 1832 where all he knows of is rejection. I make a different approach because I want my audience to acknowledge how different the creature reacts upon receiving hate versus receiving love. When one gives love, they receive love back but when one gives hate then hate will be the only thing given back. Victor Frankenstein is blind for not seeing what his creature needs.

In like manner, I decided to incorporate Elizabeth in the story, and change her story up into a more positive one too. In the novel Frankenstein, women don’t play a big role in society and are portrayed as weak, and innocent. Meanwhile, In Love, I introduce her as a student and loving wife. Most of Victor’s actions are influenced by his love to Elizabeth and the idea of having a family with her. Victor, too, is more affectionate and caring in terms of his relationship with Elizabeth, and his creation.

In essence, my biggest objective in this creative writing was turning a sad story full of hatred into a loving and learning one. All throughout Mary Shelley’s novel, the creature experienced rejection from everyone and as a result killed many innocent people. I figured that allowing the creature to receive love instead of hate would cause a different reaction in the creature. And Indeed, in my story there was a happy ending.


By Jade Graham


-Located in the Saville Family Archives-
From the desk of Margaret Saville
Date: December 4, 1799

Robert and I were close, especially when we were younger. He was always wandering off to the nearby forest where we lived as kids, while I always had my nose in a book. Eventually, he would come back and tell me his findings. Usually, it involved woodland creatures and his attempts to interact with them. I always believed them to be silly tales he told to amuse me. After he was finished telling me his stories, I would tell him the book I had read that day. Reading was my way of experiencing adventure, and Robert quite often enjoyed my retelling of the interesting novels I read.

As we got older and we both were dedicated to our studies, we kept in touch through letters. I was focused in England and Robert was continuously changing school to another school. One day, I got a letter out of the blue from him saying he was planning an expedition to the North Pole and leaving his studies behind. I inquired as to why he would make a decision so drastically. It made me think back to when we were younger and his forest journeys.

He used to say he wanted to change the world with a great adventure one day. In his letter, he reasoned that this expedition was a fine idea and how he was fully capable of seeing it through. Robert desired the knowledge that others did not possess in universities. I did not believe when my brother informed me of going through with this expedition that it would go well. The North Pole is dangerous and not like the woods he used to explore as a child.

I wondered if mother and father knew of Robert’s intentions. However, there is very little they could have done to stop him. Once Robert set his mind on something, he was driven by ambition to get the task done. If only they knew what I knew now. I haven’t heard from Robert in a few months, the letters have stopped. I’m terrified that something else has occurred since his last letter where he revealed the last part of Victor Frankenstein’s story with his creation. Even the word, “creation” is still appalling to read in his letters. What a story!

If this is to be truthful, then science has forever been altered. The events that have taken place the past few years, if real are fascinatingly terrifying. But a question lingers in my mind most nights, preventing sleep. Is it better for the world to know of the creature and his creator’s tale or let the world continue? With this knowledge my brother, as well as myself, now have… what are we to do with it? There is no proof, no evidence to be given. When Robert comes home as he is supposed to in four months time, I will ask what he believes should take place next. I do hope he is alright. Robert does not always think first with his actions, especially if he can attain something out of the risk. He and Victor Frankenstein appear to have this idea in common. I just hope for his sake that he does not end up in a fate such as Victor Frankenstein did.



Published in The New York Times
May 13, 2019

It has been over two hundred years since this letter (and others mentioned) have been written. Recently found in the deceased Mary Saville’s household, skeptics believe there is a possibility of truth to this story. Other sources have discovered journal entries from their family ancestry describing strange events involving a “creature” like the one mentioned in Ms. Margaret Saville’s letter. This one, however, is the only letter recovered, the other ones have yet (or never will be) found.

Why were these letters between Ms. Saville and her brother written? It appears to be a sibling bond nonetheless, however, the wild tale implications seem to add a shock appeal. Ms. Saville’s handwriting in this letter is quick as if the thoughts were about to leave her as she wrote them. As if she needed to get them out. Yet, there is still secrecy what the full story is. Without the other letters, the world does not know the full tale. I do believe skeptics will find the letter funny and discard it. Cast the idea off aside, when in reality one never does know the full truth. What happened with the person Victor Frankenstein? What fate did he have? Why did Ms. Saville want to stop her brother?

Too many questions with very little answers to show for an actual story. That is what my editor told me. But here, now before the deadline, I believe there is more to Ms. Saville and her brother’s letters. I believe they could change the world as her brother wanted to when he was alive.

Christopher Martinez


Once, there was an ambitious scientist whose name was Darwin Frankenstein. Darwin was a very ambitious person and always sought to explore the unknown. His intentions as a scientist was to find out the truth of everything that had a life. In other words, he wanted to recreate life itself. Some would say Darwin Frankenstein is the modern Prometheus, while others may call him idiotic for trying to challenge the creator of his existence – god.  Darwin attended a very prestigious university that focused on the sciences, however, Darwin also learned about the philosophical thoughts created about humans itself. Darwin would hate any other class that had nothing to do with his passion. Using his brilliant mindset, he wanted to create a ‘thing’ with life and emotion. Darwin wanted a companion with consciousness.

When Darwin graduated from his university he had a goal that had to be fulfilled before the day of his death. Darwin wanted the power of life in his hand. One stormy night while walking back home from a small distraction break, Darwin saw something crying its soul out through the corner of his eye. Darwin saw the shadow of death take away the soul of a tender young black dog. As soon as Darwin saw this, he grabbed the dog and rushed straight to his house. Darwin ran with excitement, his dopamine levels were out of control. It was as if Darwin entered a state of euphoria as he finally knew what he was going to experiment on. When Darwin got home he placed the dog on his table and began the procedure. He took out the dogs brain and replaced it with a humans brain that he stole from a nearby hospital. He shaved the dog’s hair and switched it to something very odd. Darwin then stitched up the young dog as he was getting mentally ready for the moment. As the lighting reflected Darwin’s face, he flipped the electric switch that would change the meaning of life. “IT ALIVE!” said Darwin.

Image result for it's alive frankenstein

Darwin looked at the dog with happiness all written all over him. “ Those blue eyes, the white fur, the perfect paws. What a beautiful dog.” Darwin looked at the dog as something to praise. He felt the power of the highest power on his hands. The dog began to run around like a lost person in the wilderness, but once the dog stopped he looked at Darwin and growled. Darwin ran away into his other room, however, when he came back to take a peek into his home laboratory, the dog disappeared.

Related image


Darwin had looked everywhere and the fear spread through his veins. Darwin was starting to go insane. He didn’t even take a glance to reflect what he had done. If only he knew that the dog died from abuse and the dogs wish was to go into his paradise. The dog was rather happy dying. On the other hand, the human brain that Darwin had captured was a brain that would’ve saved a human’s life. The person who needed the brain had been waiting for years and years. If only Darwin took the time to realize what he was doing.



Dear Christopher Martinez,

I want to start off by saying that I really enjoyed your replication of Frankenstein and adapting it to the 21st century. I think that the story really showed Darwin real side in the original Frankenstein. Everything felt right and the sense of originality and creativity is shown. Throughout the story, Darwin is shown as a person who is very ambitious and wants to make something that has never been made before. He wants to have the hands of god and use it to his own benefit. Throughout this short replication of Frankenstein, Darwin is shown as a person who is fully dedicated to his mission. He goes to college for his own benefit and doesn’t really care about anything else that he learns. He ignores the real world just to have the same power as a creator! I also see a connection between the definition of beauty in the original Frankenstein and your story. Frankenstein’s ideology in beauty is that the European looks (white, blue eyes, and clear skin) are better looking than others. The use of the dog’s fur shows how Darwin wants only “beautiful and perfect” looks for his creation

Originality is shown in the story in a very unique way. The way the story is formatted gave me the chills. For example, you used similes to give any reader an image of what they are exactly reading. In your version of the story, I learned about Darwin obtaining a dog and getting a human’s brain. I read a bit of context on these two subjects, however, at the end of your story you come back to these and explain the meaning of these two important parts of the story. I found out how the dog actually died and what the brain was being used for. I am interpreting that you wanted readers to feel like Darwin. Darwin is shown a person who doesn’t give much thought to his actions and likewise, I felt that way as well. I read about these two things with little to no context and I didn’t pause to think what these two objects in the story truly signified about Darwin’s personality.


A Bobcat


War Against Human Caused Climate!

Image result for climate change


Christopher Martinez

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, there are multiple pieces of evidence that tell the world about climate change. The whole novel is taken place in a heavy cold environment. During Mary Shelley’s time, there was an unusual winter. Every day was cold and people were getting tired of it. This influenced the novel, Frankenstein. Through Mary Shelley’s experiences, she tried to give a message of action whenever the climate seems to be in trouble. In other words, we can say that the novel is an activism for recognition of climate change. Although climate change during the novels time was naturally caused, today the environment is dying and asking for help! As we can see in the news fire’s are occurring during the fall and with the basic evidence, we can see what the cause is – humans! In the ecocritical person eyes, the need for change is clear. Even the people who literally wanted war against ice during Mary Shelley’s time would agree!

The Fire Within

Written by Cathryn Flores

Jessica Rae Fisher, a trans woman writer, explains through her blog post the influence that Susan Stryker’s essay had on her as a queer, trans woman. Stryker’s essay expresses the similarities between the transsexual body and the body of the creature in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. In the novel, while reading Frankenstein’s journal, the creature learns the particulars of his creation and expresses that “the increase of knowledge only discovered to me what a wretched outcast I was”, (Shelly 125). This statement is crucial to understanding the struggles faced by transgenders and the way society views them as “abnormal species”. Susan Stryker states that “the transsexual body is a product of medical science. It is a technological construction. It is flesh torn apart and sewn together again in a shape other than that in which it was born”, (Stryker 338). Understanding the fundamental, physical differences between the bodies of transgenders can lead to the realization that there are positive aspects to being different from the rest of society.

After reading Stryker’s essay, Fisher comes to understand that trans people may never be perceived as “normal beings of society”, and comes to terms with this idea. Fisher says, “I think that if the villagers want to see us an unnatural, that we should embrace that. I do not shy away from the scientific realities that make me a modern human”, (Fisher). It is evident that the feelings of rage and disappointment felt by the creature in Frankenstein are also the same emotions felt by transgenders. Knowing this, Fisher comes to the conclusion that trans people can use this idea to empower themselves and live a life free of being self-conscious about other’s opinions. Rather than internalizing this rage and hate for other people that do not understand the constant struggles the transgender community goes through, the writer suggests that they use this rage to make a change in the world by expressing their right for an equal pursuit of happiness.

Jessica’s reflection on the difference between a “naturally-birthed” human body and the body of a trans person leads to insight on the mind-set that trans people need to have in order to combat those who discriminate against them in society. The first step needed to be able to use this information to empower the trans community is accepting that a trans body is a creation of science, one that was a product of medical procedures. Fisher continues to say that although society may be alarmed by the differences between trans bodies, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Instead, this is something to be proud and aware of. Knowing that similarities exist between the feelings felt by the “monster” in Frankenstein and transgender people, individuals within the trans community can use this insight to come to a conclusion on how to react when faced with adversity within society.

By Maya Carranza

In  Susan Stryker’s essay and in Jessica Rae Fisher’s response, Frankenstein’s monster is connected to transexual people. As Stryker states, “The transexual body is an unnatural body. It is the product of medical science. It is a technological construction. It is flesh torn apart and sewn together again in a shape other than that in which it was born” (p. 238). Nowadays, many technological advances have been invented in order for individuals to transition from one sex to another. This is connected to Frankenstein’s monster as it was created using different body parts using science.

Both the monster and transgenders are not something society is accustomed to. Frankenstein’s creature was identified as a monster due to is “hideous” physical appearance. Similarly, transgenders are viewed as “odd” and “unnatural”. Stryker even compares the words “fag” and “queer” to the word “monster”. Filisa Vistima, a transexual  woman, was seen as a monster and just like Frankenstein’s monster they were both seen as outcasts. Filisia was treated by her community as badly as Frankenstein’s creature was treated in Mary Shelley’s novel that it led her to take her own life and even she viewed herself differently  as she wrote in her journal, “I’m a mutant, Frankenstein’s monster”

When people transition, are in the process of transitioning, or even question their gender identity, they sometimes prefer being identified as the apposite sex they were assigned or born with. Even in today’s society many people assume other’s gender especially based on physical appearance. For example, an individual who was once a male may now identify as a woman but if she still had male characteristics people would automatically assume that she’s a male rather than a female. This links to Frankenstein’s monster as it was never established whether it was male or female. The only thing indicating that it was male are the pronouns used throughout the novel but perhaps the monster was created with a female genitalia but was assumed to be male based on it’s physical characteristics.

Furthermore, the way one identifies themselves shouldn’t define who they are. “For me, it is time to dull the impact these words have when used against us.” (Fisher). With that being said, it shouldn’t matter whether you are male, female, transgender, a “faggot” or a “monster” because at the end of the day those are just words and they should NOT define a person. We are all beautiful in our own unique way.

Science gone too far?

In Anne Mellor’s essay, “A Feminist Critique of Science”, Anne Mellor draws some comparisons between scientists who attempt to manipulate nature and Victor Frankenstein who pretty much does the same in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. Anne Mellor mentions that nature should never be manipulated in science, and should always be respected and constantly accounted for when conducting experiments. However, these rules are broken when Victor’s obsession of giving birth becomes reality. He unconsciously oppresses sexual politics by “giving birth” without a woman in the natural process of sexual reproduction, and instead does it through science, which “reverses the evolutionary ladder described by Darwin” (Mellor, 6).  Victor’s belief in its power to control nature and give birth break the limits of nature in science. Through the quote “penetrate the secrets of nature” (46), we can view this as an indicator of his view of nature in comparison to his view for humans, specifically men. Evidently, he does not care to use others, even dead people, for his advantage. Never did he seem sorry or regretful for borrowing from the dead, which again shows his indifference towards the less powerful aspects of nature. Ann Mellor states that the acts Victor commits are, “The embodiment of hubris…. [and his] blasphemous attempts to fear asunder the sacred mysteries of nature,” are asked against femininity and the sexuality itself thus questioning Victors’ whole sexual spectrum.” His obsession of giving birth can even be interpreted as Victor’s secret sexual preferences. Some readers can also see this as Victor unconsciously wanting to be a female, rather than male.  His actions give the reader many assumptions, but one for sure was a sense of desperation of some sort. In essence, Victor manipulates nature in a way he shouldn’t have, only to prove his engagement in oppressive sexual politic beliefs.

The article “A Feminist Critique of Science”, written by Anne Mellor, explores the rights and wrongs of unnatural science from the telescope view of a devote feminist. Mellor notes that nature cannot be controlled by science and shouldn’t ever be tried to. In Frankenstein, however, our main character Victor does not heed this advice, and decides to make life and death his personal plaything.

Victor is using nature, and life, unnaturally, and therefore is being unfair towards nature as a whole. To create a creature out of science is an insult to nature, and does not follow Mellor’s ideas whatsoever. In fact, it is the complete opposite, making Victor the antagonist of the natural course of human life and human death.

-Jody Omlin

Anne Mellor discusses in her essay, A Feminist Critique of Science, how the different motives of male scientists directly correlates to their oppressive sexual politics. Scientists who strive towards controlling and manipulating nature see women as submissive and inferior to men. Because nature is seen as a woman/mother, men in the sciences are attempting to assert their power and intelligence on “mother nature” to create and explore completely new ideas and distort the original functioning of nature and its offerings.

In Mellor’s essay, she explains that, “rather than letting organic life-forms evolve slowly over thousands of years according to natural processes of sexual selection, Victor Frankenstein wants to originate a new life-form quickly, by chemical means”, (Mellor 7). The author states that in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein chooses to produce a brand new species of life without contemplating the effects that this may have on nature and society. Frankenstein chooses to disrupt the natural life-cycle of human beings by taking human flesh and bones from graveyards. This act completely contradicts the theories of evolution from scientist Erasmus Darwin, who suggests that organic matter and human remains should be used to nourish soil and act as fertilizer for plants. Instead, Frankenstein chooses to build and bring to life a new creature, and enjoys the idea of becoming the “master” of these new life forms (Shelley 41). Mellor’s argument regarding scientist’s intentions to oppress women in relation to their experiments and studies is evident through Frankenstein’s creation of his “monster”, which is seen as a solution to fill the void of his deceased mother. This creation is a symbol of his longing for the ability to give birth and have a sexual relationship with his mother.

Written by Cathryn Flores


Victor’s preoccupation with science is immediately obvious at the beginning of the story. We all know that he is intent on accomplishing the impossible because he feels like he is the one person who can achieve it. Victor’s ego aside however, the idea that science can and will conquer the natural, is one shared by many Enlightenment thinkers of the time. Enlightenment era thinkers saw science as a study that should not be grounded in emotion but instead logic and an almost clinical detachment. This generally has been and is regarded as “good” science , not “bad” science,  even by today’s standards. Anne K. Mellor however exposes this separation as perhaps not so “good” after all because Victor is the prime example of where seemingly “good” science has instead revealed itself to be the opposite. Mellor explains that Mary Shelley “substituted for Davy’s complacent image of the happy scientist living in harmony with both his community and himself the frightening image of the alienated scientist working in feverish isolation, cut off both physically and emotionally from his family, friends, and society” and in doing so Victor serves as an example of where this practice of detachment in science is in fact negatively affecting not only the scientist himself but also all those around them. This science effectively becomes negative as “detached from a respect for nature and from a strong sense of moral responsibility for the products of one’s research, purely objective thought and scientific experimentation can and do produce monsters” so Victor’s actions could have only ended in a creation that was by all rights monstrous. Not only does this suggest that Victor personally was doomed from the start to create something that could only be destructive and inherently “bad” but it also implies that the purposeful decision to separate oneself from science is the wrong approach. If scientists separate themselves from everything in their pursuit of knowledge then everything they are likely to produce as a result of this pursuit will be tainted by the very objectivity they felt was necessary to discover it in the first place.

The isolation creates monsters essentially and in Victor’s case that is entirely true. Furthermore, not only does the isolation contribute to the monstrous qualities of the creation but Victor’s desire to circumvent Nature’s course also participates in the making of the monstrous. Victor “has further increased the monstrousness of his creation by making a form that is both larger and more simple than a normal human being” and this serves as one of the many examples in Victor is going against the natural order of things. This is another way in which monsters can only be created and is a type of science that “manipulate[s] and control[s] rather than describ[ing], understand[ing], and rever[ing] nature.” So Victor in trying to circumvent nature has proven that science is used in a manipulative manner that it shouldn’t be. Science should not be a tool used to get around Nature and her order of things but that is how it is used. Every time that it is used in this way the results is monstrous.

The female is not what creates monster but the male.

By Diana Lara.