Abstract:That the history of science and the genre of science fiction are complexly interwoven is illustrated by Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a novel that primarily reflected contemporaneous scientific interest in the reanimation of corpses by galvanism. The science/science fiction relationship is further extended by analyzing the visual differences in two film adaptations of Shelley’s novel. The first, directed by James Whale, presents Shelley’s Creature as a robotic figure, suggesting automation as an influencing theme and electricity as a source of life. Contrastingly, the Creature of Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 adaptation is corporeal and abject. While neither version takes account of obvious medical implausibilities, each reveals how discourses of science and medical history have shifted since Shelley wrote her novel. This essay argues that the visual disparity between the two film adaptations in comparison to the source text not only discloses a visual chronicle of science but also a history of technological progress.

中文翻译：

---

科学和医学在两个弗兰肯斯坦改编中的反思：弗兰肯斯坦（鲸 1931）和玛丽雪莱的弗兰肯斯坦（布拉纳 1994）

摘要：玛丽雪莱的《弗兰肯斯坦》说明了科学史和科幻小说类型复杂地交织在一起，这部小说主要反映了同时代的科学兴趣，即通过电流法使尸体复活。通过分析雪莱小说的两部改编电影的视觉差异，进一步扩展了科幻小说之间的关系。第一个由詹姆斯·鲸 (James Whale) 执导，将雪莱的生物呈现为一个机器人形象，暗示自动化是一个有影响力的主题，而电力则是生命之源。相比之下，肯尼思·布拉纳 (Kenneth Branagh) 1994 年改编的生物是有形的和卑鄙的。虽然这两个版本都没有考虑到明显的医学不可信性，但每个版本都揭示了自从雪莱写她的小说以来科学和医学史的话语是如何发生变化的。