Are you still considered a Frankenstein if all the body parts come from the same body?

If someone's body gets chopped up into a bunch of pieces and then reassembled and stitched back together, then reanimated, are they still considered a Frankenstein? Or is the patchwork quality required in order to be a Frankenstein?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago
    Favourite answer

    So yeah, everyone knows Frankenstein was the name of the doctor.  Nobody so far remembers the name the doctor gave the monster.  He named it Adam.  There's a trivia for ya!

    But today we use the word to mean a mixture, a monstrous 'chimera', made of parts of other things.  If you took all the parts of one person and put them together and brought them back to life, you would have brought THAT person back to life.  So his name would be Pete or Ed or whatever his name was before.  But if someone takes the front half of one car and welds it to the back half of another car, that's a 'frankenstein'.

    You know those mythical beasts that have the body of a snake, the wings of an eagle and the head of a golden retriever?  Those are called chimera 'ky-MEER-a', made up of different things (same word for singular and plural).  A person who's had a bone marrow transplant is called a 'chimera' because the bone marrow makes blood cells, so the DNA in his blood is different than other parts of his body.  That's what a frankenstein is.

    Besides, to bring a person back to life, you shouldn't have to reassemble him!  How did his parts get separated in the first place?

  • JOHN B
    Lv 6
    4 weeks ago

    Could be a Finkelstein or a Frankenstude or a Rothstein, depending on the name of the doctor.

  • 4 weeks ago

    People mistakenly believe the MONSTERS name was Frankenstein. 

    The Monster  was created by Dr. Frankenstein. 

    In fact, the monster is most frequently referred to, as simply  "Monster". 

  • 4 weeks ago

      Dr. Victor Frankenstein of Ingolstadt, Bavaria was the creator/builder of what he called "the monster" or "the creature.  

      Frankenstein means "Stone of the Franks".  The Franks were a pagan tribe who's name was adopted by the Romans from a short spear they used as their main combat weapon.  They originally occupied what Germans sometimes call "Nieder Bayern" (Lower Bavaria) but is better known as Franconia.  

      It used to be customary for a tribe/group to base the political leadership on the highest navigable terrain in their area.  This was called the "stone".  Mary Shelley took the name from Burg Frankenstein, the ruin of a "burg" (defensive castle) built at the top of a hill that's northeast of the small city of Pfungstadt, a few Km. south of Frankfurt-am-Main.  This, & a more westerly locale were built as the Franks gradually migrated west to inhabit much of the area now known as France.  Ms. Shelley & Percy visited the area not long before she came up with the story, which she wrote into the book in c. 1818.      

    Wow!  The witless T.D. buffoon strikes again!

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Marli
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Interesting. What do people consider to be a "Frankenstein's monster" type?

    A) the "patchwork" appearance?

    B) a dead person reanimated or the parts of more than one corpse connected and animated?

    C) the creature is made of parts of various humans, animals and prosthetic devices?

    D) the creature has no soul?  Franenstein's creature did have a mind and feelings, so was it human? A human being with a developing character and personality?

  • Cogito
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    There's no such thing as "a Frankenstein".  Dr Frankenstein was the man who created the creature.  And in fiction, you can make up any scenario you like - but frankly, the notion of a body being chopped up and reassembled is quite ridiculous.

  • Zac Z
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    First off, what Elaine M said.

    Victor Frankenstein is the creator of what is commonly called Frankenstein's monster. (I'd argue that it's debatable whether he's actually a monster but that's an aside.)

    This is a very common mistake, probably propagated by various movie adaptations, but since this is the book section I think it's fair to point this out.

    Anyway, about your question.

    There's no rule about this. If you read the book you'll notice that the focus is on different things; it's about the ethics, responsibility, that sort of thing. "Frankenstein" isn't even really a horror novel if you ask me.

    So, Shelley's book doesn't give a definition of "a Frankenstein" or rather "a Frankenstein-type monster". You'll have to decide that for yourself. However, I would argue that a key part of the popular notion of Frankenstein['s monster] is its patchwork nature as you've put it.

    Cutting up a person, stitching them back together and reanimating them (assuming that this is a medical possibility which I am convinced it's not) would not be a Frankenstein-type "monster" in my book.

    But other people might feel differently about that.

  • Lomax
    Lv 4
    4 weeks ago

    That would put everyone who's had a transplant in a bit of a bind...

    But the point about Frankenstein's monster (NOT Frankenstein - that was the chap who created him) is that he's fictional. The scenario you envisage is also fictional, so you can decide for yourself how to label it.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Frankenstein was the name of the scientist,  not the monster. 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.