Peter Moore: Students aren't snowflakes, they're just well read

The headline in the Sun was clear.

“Snowflake students claim Frankenstein’s monster was misunderstood, and in fact he was a VICTIM”. (their capitals, not mine). According to The Sun, one professor claimed that the murdering monster could have been protected by human rights law today, although I’m not sure whether he was truly human.

Professor Green from Exeter University has said that today’s students are reluctant to condemn him.

My only conclusion is that the journalists from The Sun have not read the book, while the students have.

Written in 1818 by Mary Shelley when she was 20, it is a book which still has the power to make the reader think. He is never called a monster; that came later with the Boris Karloff horror films. The “being” was put together by the scientist Dr Frankenstein from bits of human bodies and parts from a slaughterhouse and brought to life by electricity. This is years before the modern defibrillators.

He is a tragic character, intelligent and wanting a mate but unique and lonely. He is rejected by his “maker”, Dr Frankenstein, and was left wondering who he is. He did carry out murders, but he was created as an adult with no idea of the basic rules of society. Anyone reading this book would have sympathy with this tragic character, not just “snowflake students”.

The book is far more complex than the image of a monster. It asks the question, ‘How should we deal with a being which is sentient but different?’ It was written after the abolition of the slave trade but when there was still slavery in the British Empire. In the early nineteenth century, the British were asking the same questions about African slaves. They are different, but were they sentient, although today this question would be offensive.

Should we ask the same questions about animal welfare? Are animals conscious, and how should we treat them? William Wilberforce, who fought against slavery, also founded the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA).

In some ways the original Michael Crichton book Jurassic Park has a similar message. These dinosaurs are suddenly created in the wrong millennium. They would have been frightened and lost. Is it not surprising that, when they escaped, they were aggressive, or am I being a snowflake for suggesting that we should have sympathy for a rampaging Tyrannosaurus rex?

The other important question is one all scientists ask: just because we can do something, does that mean we should? Can the development of ever more horrific weapons be justified? Has the development of nuclear weapons prevented war or made the world more dangerous? Would Russia have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had not given up their nuclear arsenal?

Genetically modified foods could potentially help people around the world by developing plants which can withstand parasites, but will it lead to other dangers? The anti-GM protestors have called these plants “Frankenstein foods”. This label leads people to assume they are a monster ready to take over the world and damage nature. This is an easy argument for western societies when our supermarkets are full, but how would we feel in a developing country if GM foods could prevent a crop failure and starvation?

A very different book often quoted alongside Frankenstein but written eighty years later is Dracula. This book is truly horrific. I made the mistake of reading it at night before turning the lights off. You do not need to be a psychologist to see elements of Victorian sexual frustration. Unlike Frankenstein, it does not ask important questions except to be careful when booking an Airbnb in Romania. The only scientific message is for the NHS blood transfusion service.

Far from the students being snowflakes, I would worry if they read Frankenstein and did not have sympathy for the creature. Still, it made a good headline for anyone who has not read the book and thinks all younger people are snowflakes.