Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: FMA Philosophy
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > Fullmetal Alchemist Discussions > Fullmetal Alchemist Anime (FMA-1)
Ookami
If any of you have read the original Frankenstein book, by Mary Shelley... and watched FMA... you may have noticed some odd similarities. At least, I have. Then again, I'm a loser. X3

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the idea behind FMA may have been somehow subtly derived from Frankenstein. Yeah, I know that sounds crazy, but it really makes sense if you compare.

First off, the Philosopher's Stone is mentioned in Frankenstein in one of the earlier chapters. Big hit off right there, since that's the central focus in FMA. Next, Alphonse is the name of Victor's (the mad scientist guy) father. Another thing in common. The whole point of FMA is for Ed and Al to find the Stone and resurrect/recreate their mother... ne? Well, in Frankenstein, Victor tells his tale of using various dead body parts (human sacrifices are also needed in order to perform human alchemy, in FMA! Hah!) to create life. Finally, transmutation and chimeras are mentioned in Frankenstein, as well. For those of you who have watched FMA (or played the game), you know how big both of those are to the storyline.
Big coincidence, or something more? Kind of odd, though, considering that the book, Frankenstein, was published in 1831 in England...

Yeah. So that's my philosophy. It may not make too much sense, but... This is what happens when Ookami is bored and sugar-high. Thank you for reading. @_@;

By the way, I'm a newbie. ^^ If there's something in this post that shouldn't be, then I apologize. o___O;;
Guest
Well, Arakawa-san did make many references and such in the manga... a lot of the characters were named after something: Ed was officially named after 'Edward Sissorhands' Alchemy was a definate research project...and all sorts of stuff. So who knows, she may of read Frankenstein. Personally, I doubt it...a lot of people do a project that may, after all finished, be simular to another piece. For me, I am writting about 4 characters who have to face their Fate...the overall story is close to MacBeth, but I've only read it recently. So maybe it's an accident or maybe something she ment to do.
CursedAnubis
QUOTE
The whole point of FMA is for Ed and Al to find the Stone and resurrect/recreate their mother... ne?

Umm... I thought the reason for their wanting the Philospher's stone was to restore their bodies? unsure.gif
KevLar
QUOTE(CursedAnubis @ Mar 16 2005, 06:31 PM)
QUOTE
The whole point of FMA is for Ed and Al to find the Stone and resurrect/recreate their mother... ne?

Umm... I thought the reason for their wanting the Philospher's stone was to restore their bodies? unsure.gif
[snapback]134440[/snapback]


Yes, they do not want their mother back, only their bodies.
Quistis88
QUOTE(Ookami @ Mar 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
If any of you have read the original Frankenstein book, by Mary Shelley... and watched FMA... you may have noticed some odd similarities. At least, I have. Then again, I'm a loser. X3

Yes, many similarities.

QUOTE(Ookami @ Mar 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the idea behind FMA may have been somehow subtly derived from Frankenstein. Yeah, I know that sounds crazy, but it really makes sense if you compare.

Although Mary Shelley has read some of the research by Paracelsus (aka Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim), her main scientific basis is not alchemy, but the reanimation of dead tissues through electricity.

QUOTE(Ookami @ Mar 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
First off, the Philosopher's Stone is mentioned in Frankenstein in one of the earlier chapters. Big hit off right there, since that's the central focus in FMA. Next, Alphonse is the name of Victor's (the mad scientist guy) father. Another thing in common.

It may or may not be coincidential. Hiromu Arakawa might have been making an allusion to the famous French Kabbalist, Alphonse Louis Constant, who knew of Paracelsus.

QUOTE(Ookami @ Mar 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
The whole point of FMA is for Ed and Al to find the Stone and resurrect/recreate their mother... ne?

Victor Frankenstein's mother died as well, but his objective to create a living being is different from the motives of the Elric brothers. He simply wanted to see if it was possible to create life without biological means (asexually).

QUOTE(Ookami @ Mar 16 2005, 02:59 PM)
Finally, transmutation and chimeras are mentioned in Frankenstein, as well.

Frankenstein's monster himself is a chimera of sorts.

Yes, I have nothing more to say, really. mellow.gif
Kao
*Evil Mumbling* I think i shall pick up Frankenstien the book. Sounds interesting sinces its sorta related to FMA.
Quistis88
Or FMA is related to Frankenstein, since the latter came first.
tempest_Strife
Actually I did recognise the similarities, especially with the entire idea of carring unforgivable sin and delving into God's domain.

The same can be said for Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde and Fight Club. Watch the movie (or read the book) then read Dr. Jeckyl, then rewatch/read Fight Club again. It gives interesting insite to the story.. or allogory... or whatever you'd want to call Fight Club.
Guest
Actally, Frankenstien Monster counts more as a Homoculus.

If you want a chimeric-homoculi such were the Tao's elite Jiangshi from Shaman-King. Unlike the Monster, these corpses were pieced together with animal parts[And somehow, I can't help but think I have inspired a FMA fanfic writer with this].

But I am a bit surprised there was no guy with the name Faust[Or similar] in the FMA anime.
Steel Alchemist
What are you talking about? Frakenstein was made from MANY different body parts right??? I kinda see your point though.
Quistis88
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 07:45 PM)
Actally, Frankenstien Monster counts more as a Homoculus.

If you want a chimeric-homoculi such were the Tao's elite Jiangshi from Shaman-King. Unlike the Monster, these corpses were pieced together with animal parts[And somehow, I can't help but think I have inspired a FMA fanfic writer with this].

But I am a bit surprised there was no guy with the name Faust[Or similar] in the FMA anime.

Frankenstein's monster is not a homunculus.

A homunculus, by its lexical definition, is basically a "little person." Frankenstein's monster is gigantic.

A chimera is, defined by the MSN Encarta Dictionary, "an organism, or part of one, with at least two genetically different tissues resulting from mutation, the grafting of plants, or the insertion of foreign cells into an embryo."

Therefore, Frankenstein's monster is more accurately classified as a chimera, not a homunculus.
Guest
Quistis: Actually, during the term for "homunculus" meant "little person." But culture made it a term for any artifically-created non mechanic being.

Wikipedia shows that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus

But as I said, I classfied Frankenstein's monster as BOTH a chimera & a homunculus.
Quistis88
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 09:18 PM)
Actually, during the term for "homunculus" meant "little person."

Incoherent sentence. Please rephrase.

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 09:18 PM)
But culture made it a term for any artifically-created non mechanic being.

I did not get that impression from reading the link to the Wikipedia page on homunculi, if that's why you posted the link. However I slice it, the page still defines a homunculus as a "little man." In this thread and forum, "homunculus" is, more often than not, used in the alchemical context. Since Frankenstein's monster is not created via alchemy, he is not a homunculus.

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 09:18 PM)
But as I said, I classfied Frankenstein's monster as BOTH a chimera & a homunculus.

But how can one classify him as a homunculus if he isn't one?
Guest
Quistis: For one thing, Alchemy is related to today's science. As the Golem was an Homoculus itself. Plus, I did remember Frankenstien used a bit of alchemy in his work to revive the dead.

The fact Frankstien is an atricially created being with various corpse pieces as the foundation of it's being should count him as one, regardless of what was repsonsible for his birth.
Quistis88
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 10:39 PM)
Quistis: For one thing, Alchemy is related to today's science. As the Golem was an Homoculus itself.

But alchemy is not the exact same as today's science. And what is your definition of "golem"?

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 10:39 PM)
Plus, I did remember Frankenstien used a bit of alchemy in his work to revive the dead.

Please provide textual evidence.

Frankenstein did not try to revive the dead. He sought to create life without resorting to natural means. Which version of Frankenstein did you read? Perhaps the 1818 version I read is different. I will look into the later revision Mary Shelley did when time permits.

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 10:39 PM)
The fact Frankstien is an atricially created being with various corpse pieces as the foundation of it's being should count him as one, regardless of what was repsonsible for his birth.

But only chimeras are created from many genetically different pieces. A homunculus is grown whole, not pieced together.

As well, you still have not clarified what you meant by:
QUOTE
Actually, during the term for "homunculus" meant "little person."
Guest
Quistis: Alcehmy isn't today science, but it was where our science came from.

The Golem is a man-made being made from an special clay & brought to life. It follows its master's command, but goes too far sometimes.
Quistis88
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 21 2005, 07:16 AM)
Quistis: Alcehmy isn't today science, but it was where our science came from.

Yes, I am aware of that, but alchemy is still different from modern science.

QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 21 2005, 07:16 AM)
The Golem is a man-made being made from an special clay & brought to life. It follows its master's command, but goes too far sometimes.

If that is the definition you use for "golem", then please tell me how a golem is also a homunculus.

And you have still not explained what the following sentence means:
QUOTE
Actually, during the term for "homunculus" meant "little person."
LunarMoon
Enjoy.
http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/
Guest
QUOTE(Guest @ Mar 20 2005, 10:39 PM)
Quistis: For one thing, Alchemy is related to today's science. As the Golem was an Homoculus itself. Plus, I did remember Frankenstien used a bit of alchemy in his work to revive the dead.

The fact Frankstien is an atricially created being with various corpse pieces as the foundation of it's being should count him as one, regardless of what was repsonsible for his birth.
[snapback]136928[/snapback]



I agree w/ some other people. Alchemy is not so close to today's science, although the mixing of chemicals is quite close If you must connected it to today, connect it to phycological or human emotional and such change. I have read a few sections on alchemy, and a lot of times, it's connected to the trickster and other figures in each of us and in fiction. here is a quote:

"The Trickster is an Alchemist, The part of you that transforms. We live in a dual reality - opposite polarities - yin /yang - male/female - good/ evil - God/Devil or Trickster.

Our reality is created by electromagnetic energy fields - the poles (North and South) - positive and negative energy.

This is much like a game. In order to win the game you must create balance. You can beat the trickster if you ignore that which he brings as challenges.

The Trickster is not just one soul acting alone. He is part of each of each of us as we are all created from by source. He is our polar opposite - the god and the trickster - who exists in each of us and shows itself from time to time. We see it in the little devious/devilish things we do. He is the child in many of us - the sometimes self centerd aspect that wants immediate gratification at any cost..."
NoseOverTail
If you think about it alchemy will become the science of the future. When we advance to the point were we can use Nano technology we will be able to creat anything just by combining the atoms that comprise an object. Small nano bots will be able to build anything from there simplest componets.
This, at least to me seems more like alchemy than modern day science, or anything previosely attempted by man.
chocolate_eds_everywhere
WHA....?????
u all r confusing me. Alchemy is a medieval form of science aming cheifly at finding a universal solevent and an elixer of life. to put it bluntly, magic or magic appeal.
GO GRAB A DICTIONARY(oh and sorry for the spelling mistakes i can't help that biggrin.gif )

opps i goofed its chemistry not science. soory i was so confused. laugh.gif
Quistis88
Chemistry IS science . . .
adamclark
For those of you who are familiar with alchemy outside of fma, you would be surprised if you read the original Frankenstein. Apparently, the material Victor studies in order to learn how to create life from death was old medeveil alchemy. they even mention some similar terms such as homoculi, chimera and such.

its really quite interesting to see how alchemy has had such an influence in early science.
Carnal Malefactor
...and why is was this in Open Chat?
Joe J
Nice point! The monster in the book is a homunculi of sorts. Frankenstein is one of my all time favorite books. So much pain and angst expressed in such a beautiful way.

Peace,
Joe J.
E-N-V-Y
Great book indeed,better then the movie X)
kenderoth
i have not seen the movie but i read some of the book thought i must have mist the alchemy parts but it sounds intreging.
Hyleaus
When I read the novel, I'm pretty sure that Mery Shelly specifically did not mention the methodology of creating life. I remember being intrigued by Dr. Frankenstein's plight and being utterly dissatisfied when he would not mention how he created his homunculus.

As for the the theme of the novel: I too found it a very romantic piece. Religious themes anyone?

I'd like to tie a relationship between the homunculi in FMA and Frankenstein's monster, as well as a human beings. It seems to me that in FMA, Frankenstein, and life, the creations have all rebelled against their creators. It's less vivid in life (though references to the flood are indeed mention-worthy) than it's specific portrayals in FMA and Frankenstein. Anyone have an idea why? I think it lies in curiosity.

Carthago delenda est!

Hyleaus
FullmetalMagician
And Mery Shelly and Hiromu Arakawa are both girls!
Quistis88
Merged with "FMA and Frankenstein" thread.
Dark Alchemist Sakura
Ironically, I'm cramming right now for a frankenstein book report

laugh.gif the first time I did the rough draft of that thing, I kept thinking about FMA.... in many ways Frankenstein is like FMA. Like, for example, Edward's early obsession with bringing back his mother can be linked to Victor's wanting to create life. Both times, their attempts ended up wreaking havoc rather than helping them, and both of them try to find redemption in killing their creations. I could write alot more for this, but first i have a book report to finish lol lol lol plz don't follow my example when you do book reports.... hi skool sux....
Sin Of Envy
Frankenstein was artifical human [Homunculus] but not created like homunculi in FMA. Even Homunculi in FMA are different then original homunculi.
It's true, it's a very good book...
Quistis88
Do I have to start debating this again? biggrin.gif

Frankenstein's monster (not Frankenstein himself) is NOT a homunculus, if by "homunculus", you mean "artifical human", which is only a part of it. He was pieced together, not grown whole, and therefore, is not a "proper" homunculus.
MonsterEnvy
The similarity with Frankenstein and FMA is, mainly, that they both tried to create humans, and life, and it came around and bit them in the ass, pretty much. Otherwise, they're completely different in almost all respects.
Joe J
"Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it." (Frankenstein Ch. 11)

That's always been my favorite quote from the book. The monster is expressing his misery, and at the same time, he is expressing the pain we all have to face. Even a life of anguish is "dear" and worth "defending." Thinking of that has gotten me through some hard times.

There's nothing like a story about an artificial person to make us examine the meaning of our own existence. It forces us to ask, If we can make a person, then how did we come to exist and why?

Peace,
Joe J.
GREEDisGOOD
The similarties between FMA and Frankenstein are there because they both delve into the same old conflict of science vs. religion. This point can especially be seen when Marco explains the Ishbal war and the Ishbalans civilization compared to our own.
It also relates to our own world. What about cloning? What if they were actually able to make a duplicate of a person? Would they be that person, or would they simply look like them? Isn't that the whole theme of the homunculi? (especially Lust and Sloth)
Tawniey
Oddly enough, I am fairly well versed in both.
Although I've never read the original book of Frankenstein, earlier this year I assistant directed the play Frankenstein 1930.

I believe that you are right that there are some definite similarities and relationships between Frankenstein and FMA, but there are also some key differences.
The first and most obvious similarity is the key theme of the repercussions of playing God in both. However, in Frankenstein, Victor was attempting to create life, not truly resurrect it. That is why he went about his experiment in the way that he did, assembling parts from different people instead of just reviving a dead body. Ed and Al (as children) are specifically trying to bring back the mind, body and soul of someone who was formerly dead.

Drawing upon your comment about the name coincidence, I wouldn't be too sure that there's any correlation. It's possible, but both stories take place in a European setting of English and Germanic influence. Firstly, Frankenstein, being set in Austria, has English and Germanic names from the 19th century, such as Alphonse. Then, Amestris, seemingly based off of England and Germany, and set in the equivalent of the early 20th century, allows for the same names' time period.

Then, the philosophy seems to run far deeper in FMA, seeing as the law of Equivalent Exchange, the part one plays in the world, psychology, human morals, the idea of life and it's significance and death and it's finality and several other themes appear multiple times, where as, Frankenstein focuses mainly on the inability of one to play God in creating life.
Remember, Victor's motives were largely different from Ed and Al's as well. Victor seemed to be after knowledge and notoriety, and the young Ed and Al were testing the limits of the world to try to eliminate loss and the pain associated with it.

Lastly, FMA delves far further into the scientific side of things, drawing upon the Law of Conservation of Energy for the law of Equivalent Exchange, and mythological science such as chimeras, alchemy and the philosopher's stone etc.
Frankenstein is more psychological, talking about what happens as the aftermaths of this experiment and only starts off scientifically.

I do think that they share some common links though, such as the viewpoint of life being energy. Whether it be that life is the energy used to fuel transmutations or that energy and electricity is what fuels life, along with more obvious themes.

In conclusion... Do I think that FMA was based off of Frankenstein? No. At least not directly. To say that
great authors of today do not draw upon yesterdays great authors would be false, but that is not to say that their drawing upon of previous authors makes the plots any less original or significant, but the contrary. One cannot say that JK Rowling has never read Jane Eyer, (And if she hasn't, DANG IS THAT A COINCIDENCE) but do the similarities make Harry Potter cliche?

That's my opinion on it. Overall, I think this is a nice discussion topic. ^^
I'm sorry if some of my statements don't make sense because of the differences between the book and the play. I'm only familiar with the one, so I don't know what's the same in both and what differs.
Vinyl Zen
It's funny, I was thinking the same things when I had to write an essay for Frankenstein in one of my college lit courses.

The main difference I saw was that Frankenstein created life out of the urge to act as a God and for scientific achievement. Whereas FMA created (or rather revived in this case) out of love and desperation.

But I think that is why Shou Tucker was introduced in FMA, to show that there are individuals who meddle with life to fulfill their ego, just as Viktor Frankenstein did. Both mediums of course, expose the consequences of doing so
Claudius
Y'know, a major theme of Frankenstein is the lack of responsibility. There has been this miscalculation that the story is about the dangers of 'meddling in God's domain'. Actually, the point is that Viktor Frankenstein's crime wasn't in creating life, but refusing to take responsibility for it. Appalled by his creature's appearance, he abandoned him. And much of the monster's crimes stem over this abandonment. This point is parallel to the FMA anime. Most of the Homunculus were deserted by their creators (Hohenheim left Envy/Scar's bro left Lust/Izumi left Wrath/Ed and Al certainly didn't take care of Sloth; Ed's first sight of Homo-mommy parallels Viktor's reaction), and in Envy's case, their resolve was based on the rejection. True, Dante took responsibility for her creations, and the abandoned ones, but she was a lousy parent: she taught them to hate and kill, tortured them for disobedience, and was probably going to kill them once they served their purpose.
BTW, I did like the anime's 'Homunculus-came-from-transmutation' plotpoint. It's a powerful message on the dangers of Alchemy.
xXdark_angel_nekoXx
ok from what i have read on this post... i garther that fma is simllar or "based" off of Frankenstein. so i guess that i need to read the novel then wacth the anime again and see what you people are talking about. blink.gif blink.gif wacko.gif
Derek
I don't know much about Frankenstein (read a summary), but the only theme in Frankenstein that connects to FMA is the creaton of life and the use of knowledge to create things. The parallel to science and alchemy (as seen in FMA) is that it's able to fix a lot of things, but is not properly able to bring the death back to life. Both science and alchemy are able to do both harm (make weapons) and good (fix things, make life easier).

FMA discusses the use of alchemy (and science) on a larger scale and shows a parralel to the second world war. (The fuhrer: 'Hitler', the manipulation of people, experiments on people, war) The darkside of power. Also a part of human psychology that nobody is a 100% evil and everything has a reason. That a situation creates the man etc. (Scar? anyone even the homunculi aren't acting purely out of simply being evil(or they can be seen as mistakes who are not easily been made right). And it shows the political factor of power. How people blindly follow a leader, a religion etc. And how that can lead to terrible conclusions.

There might be a 'correlation' to FMA and Frankenstein, but playing god trough superior knowledge and the abuse of power is discussed or used in many story's.
trinu
QUOTE (MonsterEnvy @ Apr 13 2006, 04:28 PM) *
The similarity with Frankenstein and FMA is, mainly, that they both tried to create humans, and life, and it came around and bit them in the [All hail lord Xenu], pretty much. Otherwise, they're completely different in almost all respects.

They also both became obsessed with creating life only after their mother's died.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.