Frankenstein's Delusions of Grandeur; Response Paper #3 (Online)
Boris Karloff as The Creature
Thus
far in your reading, who do you think is the real "monster" of this
tale? Write an argument detailing whether you think Victor or the
Creature deserves the title of "monster," citing specific passages to
back up your argument. Post your brief response online by Sunday,
February 8.
In order to consider who is the real “monster” of this tale, first we have to define what the word monster means, if it means an abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes, than yes. But if we define the word monster as a person who exerts cruelty, than we would have to consider Victor as the real “monster” of this tale. I find Victor as the real monster not only because he created a creature so ugly that would frighten people, but because he was no man to face his creation and left him alone in the world for his own sake. What kind of person would give life to someone but not be brave enough to take care of him? It is the same as comparing him to women who give birth and simply abandon their child anywhere. “But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley, 36). Victor simply regretted his creation and fled from him, leaving the Creature alone in an unknown world. Victor became unknown of his creature whereabouts for nearly two years, until the day he went back because of Williams’ death. In a visit to his brother’s death place, he finally saw his creation again, without any hesitation, Victor judges the Creature responsible for the death of his brother. “Nothing in human shape could have destroyed that fair child. He was the murder!” (Shelley, 50). Even if Victor was right that it was the daemon’s fault, how can we blame someone for something they don’t even have consciousness? It would be the same as putting a 6-year-old child on trial for killing his dad by accident. One other reason that makes me consider Victor as the real “monster” is his position towards Justine’s fate. He’s letting a lovely innocent woman pay for something she’s innocent of. Although I didn’t get to the point where the Creature’s guilty is confirmed, I think Victor should have told everyone about his knowing. Or else, he’s not only going to be “guilty” for his own brother’s death, but also for Justine’s. “But I – I was a wretch, and none ever conceived of the misery that I then endured” (Shelley, 60). He already knows his misery, but his monstrosity prevents him to confess.
Derrick Sibley Throughout history, science has brought great discovery and advancement. Although Victor’s creation was not by our standards a success, to fault him for trying would be to fault mankind. If the outcome of the Creature had been different, would Victor have not then been heroic? His disregard of the Creature is certainly irresponsible, but I do believe that victor is remorseful as he recounts, “No one can conceive the anguish I suffered.” (Shelley, 50). Perhaps it is fair to say that Victor is even embarrassed. He is weary of telling anyone what he has created in fear that he will be conceived as a “madman” (54). Conversely, by physical description, Shelley has described the “wretch” as a monster; however, it is his actions that lead me to see him as monstrous. At this point the Creature has begun his killing spree. The idea of vengeance for abandonment, or killing for any reason makes the Creature a monster.
Let me be quite blunt about it: The Creature is a Monster. Victor Frankenstein is not. Let me also emphasize that this does not mean that I am against or unsympathetic about or towards the monster. Not at all. On the contrary, I affirm that he is indeed a creature who desires internal purity and beauty and who often does attain throughout and in the course of the novel (as we shall see). So why insist that the creation of Frankenstein is actually a/the Monster? Well, firstly we must also distinguish between the terms: the creation is more of a creature than a creation, since the word "creation" often carries with it the more positive connotation(s) of a production profoundly and ideally reflective of the inner metaphysical (non-physical) vision of the artist/creator. A creature can be any random miscellaneous chance occurence within the functioning apparatus and invention in creation which is called nature. In creating the monster, Victor says: "Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?" Essentially, I think that there is a profoundly nuanced lesson to be learned from the novel of Frankenstein, and others which include/involve similar creatures, such as Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831). The metaphysical meaning and lesson is a profound transvaluation of what beauty means and in regards to its external and internal appearances, but it is not so simple as: "Beauty is only skin deep." On the contrary, again, it goes beyond simple evaluations and gives an escape and a way out to simple ways of affirming beauty. It is not that the creature is not a monster and Frankenstein is not, but rather, that yes unfortunately the monster IS a monster, but its alright. Its alright in the end because if only he can reconcile himself with the near impossible to accept fact that he is an abomination, a freak of science and nature, and that it is not proper that he be accepted into the world as a common one, then he can learn to live in peace. And in sincere happiness also, maybe with a blind (or extremely forgiving) hermit and monk in the woods, hidden from the mob of hating mankind. At the end of the day the Monster is a hideous abomination which, although he should be loved. I think that very few movie renditions have done favor to the more hideous descriptions of the monster, which is why I suggest that we keep in mind a more broken image when thinking of the monster. In our more forgiving attitudes, our minds render, with the work of the imagination, an image of the monster more softened. Again, I suggest we maybe think of a monster more akin to those in the video game Amnesia. Those monsters look like they are actually made out of discombobulating flesh. I feel like Frankenstein's monster was very beautiful at the first moment/instant, but then after vigor and motion set in it, and after the flash of a lightning bolt (as the movies display it) the whole contraption fell apart and became like a tattered flesh quilt. Essentially the weight of gravity and force of muscle contractions and flow of disinvigored blood did not fit together. And so slowly it became undone until it came to its near final state, which I call its "Amnesia monster state". This is the monster: "His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath... only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips." Perhaps the question for this blog could be, then: "Who is the real tragic hero? Victor or the Monster?" As an only natural evolution of the initial blog question.
Humans as far as I'm concerned have one purpose, reproduction and because of this one purpose to pass our genes to the next generation, we associate the values of genes that we want our next generation to have as beautiful and the ones we do not want as ugly. The idea of inner beauty does come into play as we do not want our children to be assholes, but mainly it has been proven that beautiful people have an easier go in life than ugly ones. This is why "The Creature" is seen as ugly and as an abomination. First because humans are scared of everything they do not understand which led to the creation of gods and organized religion and secondly because everything we do not understand generally falls into the category of evil. So to me it does not make sense to call "The Creature" beautiful as it must have been as Victor described it "a horrible wretch" but for a first attempt or shall we call it alpha it wasn't a bad effort of behalf of Dr. Frankenstein who I'm sure with practice could make a more beautiful creature who could be accepted into society and live a peaceful life as the former could not.
I think that the real monster is not the creature but Victor. In fact, Victor was so ambitious that he did not quite consider what his creation would cause. He was blinded totally by his desire of success and fame. In chapter III, Victor says, “I made some discoveries in the improvement of some chemical instruments, which procured me great esteem and admiration at the university.” Victor was so proud of himself that he forgot everything else, including his native land, family and friends. However, he wanted to go beyond these achievements. He got so fascinated and engaged with the study of life that he decided to give life to a lifeless matter. He played to be the master of life without realizing the consequences that this will bring upon his world. Victor was clearly the monster in this story. In fact, he created his own demon. He was so obsessed with his work that he did not even realize that he was mirroring himself in this experiment. All of his selfish desires to become the greatest of all led him to create a self-image of himself in this creature. In chapter III, Victor says, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” It shows us clearly how he was playing to be god without measuring the consequences that this will bring. He did not think about how this experiment will turn out or how it will affect the world in which he lived. He just wanted recognition and admiration from others, and to be praised as superior because of his achievements.
Thus far in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein it seems clear that the monster in question is Victors ‘creature considering the fact that he murdered cute little William. In contrast to this obvious remark, I think the person who deserves the title of “Monster” is Victor. He is the real beast. His role as this ambitious creator who I think bit a little more than he could chew is the reason behind this emotionally broken creature. Victor was ashamed of the life that he created depicting it as a “wretch and filthy daemon” (Shelly, 50), but why? The monster was completely innocent. Just like we humans think that animals are dangerous and deadly perhaps, viewpoints are being switched here. Where, the creature thinks of humans as senseless beings that are not acceptant of others unless they fit their definition of humane. I think that Victor is selfish and inconsiderate of creature’s feelings and desire of a father or family. Without Victor there will be no monster therefore, Victor is the monster within the creature (that many assume is the monster). By definition, a monster is a large supernatural being that is unappealing and frightful. Since Victor is a human he does not appear frightful or unappealing, but his imagination is unnatural so is his enthusiasm. He confesses so himself in Volume I chapter III before creating his creature stating that, “it was indeed a passing trance, that only made me feel with renewed acuteness so soon as, the unnatural stimulus ceasing too operate…”(Shelley 34). Out of curiosity, he was able to create a monster from decaying bodies; giving it life. Any parent that does not care for his child or in this case creation is considered a bad parent and therefore is a monster. Children are born innocent, and society depicts whether the child will be good or evil. Victor is solely responsible for his creation which explains the anguish he felt once he discovered who killed William. Not only was he saddened that his brother was murdered, he knew the creature who killed him was his. Guilt tormented him because in truth he was just as responsible for his brother’s death as his creature was, making him a monster. Thus, Victor is the obvious monster of this novel. Children are not toys or objects that you rid of when you do not like them. “The evolution of culture is ultimately determined by the amount of love, understanding and freedom experienced by its children... Every abandonment, every betrayal, every hateful act towards children returns tenfold a few decades later upon the historical stage, while every empathic act that helps a child become what he or she wants to become, every expression of love toward children heals society and moves it in unexpected, wondrous new directions”(Lloyd deMause). In other words, children should be cared for because they are future societies. Victor is responsible for creating his creature and abandoning it. Making him a monster in disguise.
Listening in on class discussions and reading these blog responses, I feel like most people are basing their opinions on the fact that they already know the story of Frankenstein. As someone who haven't read, watched, or heard about this novel, it's strange to me that many people consider Victor as the monster, or even the fact that this question is addressed. If we are considering this question in terms of the chapters we've read as a class thus far, I see no reason to think Victor as anything more than a normal, brilliant, young student aspiring to make his dreams come true. If we are trying to cavil at any aspect of Victor's personality, because for some reason we feel everyone must be as perfect and amiable as the character Clerval, I feel we are being more romantic than the novel itself. As far as I'm concerned the only questionable thing Victor has done so far is work with dead body parts, but he's a scientist. A lot of people bring up the fact that he takes no responsibility for his mistakes. But who at a young age confronts a mistake as large as the one Victor made. I think most people's instincts, especially those that are young would be to run away from their fears. In fact I feel that the fact he ran away from his creature says more about his character than most people think. By initially fleeing from his creature, it shows that he grows and matures as a character as we know that he is seen pursuing the same creature later. He may not have jumped to save Justine in fear of his own death and worse the exposure of his hideous creation to the rest of the world, but I still feel that is a human trait present in most people. He's not a hero but he's not a psychopath incapable of possessing empathetic feelings either. It's clear during the aftermath of Justine's death that he shows great remorse and depression.
"I was tempted to plunge into the silent lake, that the waters might close over me and my calamities for ever. But I was restrained, when I thought of the heroic and suffering Elizabeth, whom I tenderly loved, and whose existence was bound up in mine. I thought also of my father, and surviving brother: should I by my base desertion leave them exposed and unprotected to the malice of the fiend whom I had let loose among them?" (Shelly 62).
Now as far as the "creature" is concerned. If we are defining the word monster, as Demetrius mentioned, an "...abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes." Then yes. He clearly is the monster of this story. But if we are defining the term as someone, once again quoting Demetrius, as one, "...who exerts cruelty." Then we have yet to see any real crime done by the creature to assume that he is monstrous.
I feel I haven't read enough of the story yet to judge who is or isn't a monster. However it's important to realize that this whole story is told in context as a warning from Victor to a stranger. Advising him not to make the same mistakes as he did. Now I may not know what Victor may do as we progress through the novel, but just considering that fact, I will, for now, assume Victor is not monstrous.
The word 'monster' can be defined as "anything unnatural," and, "a creature so ugly as to frighten people" (dictionary.com). If these definitions are held to be true and applied to Mary Shelly's, "Frankenstein," then Victor's creation can be named the monster of this story. This creation was conceived in an unnatural (biological) way; it was made from parts and pieces from once (natural-born) beings. The master mind behind it, Victor, made artificial birth possible, and once he saw his creation he was frightened. The creation was "wretched."
Based on the creation's features he represents the first held definition: "His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips." The creator himself says, "No mortal could support the horror of that countenance," after calling his creation a catastrophe.
Yet, there is another definition of the word "monster", which would not make the labeling of the Victor's creation as the monster as simple. That definition states that a monster is, "a person who excites horror by wickedness and cruelty." If this is the case then Victor himself can be seen as a monster. Victor wanted to play God and create life without thinking of the consequences. He just wanted glory, " A new species would bless me as it's creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me."
He did not consider the possible repercussions that could arise from doing something that went against natural science. Victor just wanted to get rid of the creature, therefore he did not take responsibility of it once it escaped from his room, "all these employments are now at an end and that I am length free." He felt that any responsibility he held in creating the creature was gone once it left, he easily rid himself of his guilt. This excites horror since it shows how careless humans can be.
They do not consider the consequences that arise from decisions they make and they don't care to fix their wrong doings. They let them be and allow someone else to deal with the consequences. Victor was careless and did not care about anyone but himself. As long as he did not have to confront his mistakes he was fine. This I believe is the monstrous aspect of the novel: human's inability to take responsibility. Since Victor was the one representing this qualities he should be the one categorized as the "Monster."
It is difficult to assert who is the monster thus far in the reading as there is not enough information to determine it. By outward appearances the creature may be a monster but by inward complexion we would have to dive into the minds of our subjects. We do not fully understand whether the creature has a theory of mind or not. And though by parts it may be considered a human being, we do not yet know if it can think, question, or communicate as the rest of us do. We cannot see or experience it for ourselves. We more of less see it through the eyes of Frankenstein. And through those lenses the creature is not depicted as dialectically as one would hope to make a conclusion of monsterhood but is nonetheless what we have. And from such eyes we cannot help but think the creature as a monster considering the manner it is portrayed in. Having been depicted as malformed and unnatural since its birth, we guided to believing as such.
How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? … but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room…(Shelley 35)
Frankenstein’s depiction of the creation is avidly grotesque despite the fact that it was his creation. Through Frankenstein, in his reflective story, we would expect that he would know best as to whom the monster was, whether him or his creature. However, thus far in the reading, I am compelled to argue that Frankenstein is the true monster. I cannot yet condemn the creature to be the monster considering that it currently seems to be a victim of his circumstance – a victim of the real monster, the monster that is Victor Frankenstein. A victim of Victor! Though, I may not fully understand the story and mind of the creature I do see the mind and story of Victor, and in today’s world, any parent that abandons their child is considered a bane to society, neglecting the most crucial aspect of their existence. Even if any human being (or any other creature for the matter) does nothing on this earth, raising their young is the single most sufficient accomplishment of their existence. There is almost nothing more important you can do in life than to simply raise your young. We are all aware of the natal innocence that exists in all new life. Frankenstein’s creature was no different. Whether the creature can be considered to be human or not, I do not know. But we must bear in mind that it has all the components of a human being thus I am constrained to feel that it is one and thus requiring a raising process as any other human being – a process that Victor Frankenstein very much nonchalantly neglected. Although this creature was not his flesh and blood, it still is the work of his hands, consequently, a responsibility that is his. Running away from one of the most crucial aspects of one’s existence is the most monstrous and inhumane action in my opinion. It is far more inhumane than the creation itself making Victor Frankenstein the true monster.
Thus far in my reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, I have come to an understanding that the true monster in this novel is not Frankenstein’s creation but rather Frankenstein himself. The creature is extensively depicted as the grotesque looking being but his outward monstrous appearance does not compare to Frankenstein himself. In my opinion Frankenstein is the real monster because of his abandonment of the creature, and his willingness to obtain what he desires disregarding to way to achieve.
Victor worked hard for approximately two years on his project of bringing life back into an inanimate body. And after deprivation of friends, family, rest or health his completes the project. Yet his description of the creature and his actions following the “birth” of the creature are what lead him to be categorized as the real monster in this novel. Victor described the dream he had once as a “breathless horror and disgust…” that filled his heart (36). Later in the novel, when he encounters the creature in the icy cave, ha makes many insults to the creature. Rewinding back to the night in which the monster was conceived; Victor immediately after he sees the monster awaken, regrets having made this creature. Victor “rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my [his] bed-chamber, unable to compose my [his] mind to sleep” (36). Victor abandoned the creature immediately after the creature’s birth. After analyzing this passage again and reflecting upon a remark Jeremiah made in class about this moment in the book, this passage strikes to me as a main point to which Victor’s monstrosity is depicted. Victor leaving the monster is synonymous to a mother leaving her child after birth, or Adam being left by God without any guidance. At the moment the creature most needed him Victor vanished because he was “scared” and in disgust of the creature’s appearance.
Furthermore in the end of Volume II, (I apologize to anyone who hasn’t read up to that point and ask to you please finish reading volume II and then return and finish these next lines) Victor accepts the creature’s request to make another creature who could serve as the creature’s companion. Victor accepts this because he views it as a way to rid himself and his family of the creature, but he would be creating another “monster” as he deemed it. He disregarded the possibilities of all the wrong things that could happen and accepted the proposed offer. This again, to me, labels him as the monster. He was willing to do whatever it took without regard for the possible outcomes. Maybe his family would have been safe and not suffer the same fate as poor William but some other family can end up suffering a similar loss.
Because of his way to obtain what he desires carrying only for the well-being of himself and some around, disregarding what the possible outcome can be in greater picture and his abandonment of the creature which lead to the creature being the way his is, is what leads me to believe Victor is the true monster.
I must begin by reflecting that I would not have formulated such a question to myself. In the first place, I do not think that monsters exist. It's not a matter of belief, but rather, a matter of the common use of the word, and what it is meant to signify. A quick Google search rendered the following definitions: "an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening," and "an inhumanly cruel and wicked person."
From both definitions we can derive that, essentially, a "monster" is everything I am not. So what am I? Everything a monster is not. Or would you concede that you could be, or share the traits of, a monster? That you can be "monstrous?" Psychologically, naturally, humans- and perhaps all beings- polarize the signifiers of identity in order to easily establish one's position in a situation. But we must remember that the archetypes we deal in are not the realities we believe they are.
Thus, monsters do not exist. What does exist, in this tale, is the psychological drama of a creator afraid of his creation, and afraid of his capacity to create.
Fear is the creator of monsters.
In the few chapters we have read, Victor is seen to have many lofty feelings: of love towards his family; of passion towards his studies; of complete abandon towards his work. However, we know nothing of his motivations. Victor himself, as the narrator of this tale, has said next to nothing of them- and let me remind you, that compounded adjectives describing feelings do not demonstrate this kind of introspective, metacognitive understanding. Victor seems oblivious to the reason(s) why he has undertaken the task of creating life in such a reckless manner: "No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards... in the first enthusiasm of success,,, A new species would bless me as its creator and source... Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animations upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time... renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour."
At this point, for me, there is only one question worth asking:
Due to the fact that we have only read a section of the book, I feel it is still very early to conclude and make a solid argument as to who – among the main characters – the real monster is. However, thus far in the reading, I am inclined to believe that the real monster of the tale is the one subtly mentioned, but the one that carries through the novel, - the society. Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the era of Romanticism, where physical beauty and its attributes were emphasized. People bluntly separated objects into two categories: beautiful and atrocious. The reader begins to associate the creature Victor was so passionately creating all these years with the word “monster” when Viktor himself says, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch… I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished …breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 35-36). This quote illustrates two points. First, Victor himself admits that his ardour “far exceeded moderation”, which only proves his selfish, egocentric, and narcissistic nature, and that he has such egoistical ambitions that he goes as far as comparing himself to God saying, “[M]y imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man” (32-33). Second, the moment the creature comes alive, it is being judged (by its own creator) on its appearance even before the reader has the ability to see the creature in action and judge for him or herself. Frankenstein is so repulsed by what he sees that he leaves his apartment in the middle of the night. However, despite its being rejected and abandoned, the creature did not become bitter or wrathful – he was a tabula rasa. The question of nature versus nurture has often entertained psychologists and academics alike, and considering the creature as one of a kind and inhuman (it wasn’t born the natural way), the nature is not applicable here, but nurture could have made a difference. Moreover, people have a moral obligation and responsibility for those who they bring into the world - abandoning a product of his labor was more inhumane of Viktor than the inhuman creature itself. Viktor clearly lacks any compassion and hates the creature the minute it opened its eyes. He does not take responsibility for his actions – he runs away and then for long time does not even care where is the creature as long as it is not within Viktor’s space. And as the newborn creature sets off onto its journey and learns about the world, it is filled with love, kindness, and benevolence. It is its encounter with people that made it hurt and made it change his benevolent disposition. People judged the creature by what they saw and were terrified and abhorred. People, with Victor among them, are the real monsters.
I do not agree that the people are the real monsters I just believe that humans are generally frightful insecure cowards that are scared of everything they do not understand and must come up with ways to explain everything, first logically then illogically. That's why we have religion and demons to explain the bad things that happen and God to explain the good things. People are not monsters they are just ignorant and behave to the best of their abilities but generally are not cruel to each other and show compassion to one another.
Falonne Tsopmegha I have to admit however that there is something strange about him that I myself find it difficult to describe. How can you create something and you don't even have to decency to comfort it. You made it yourself from all the beautiful things you came across so how can it be ugly? His attitude towards his "creature" is so childish that I find it difficult to believe children face their creations with pride though they are not the best of the world. We usually blame our mistakes on God our creator or on our parents who are our main guide on earth. Therefore if the "creature" Victor brought to life is a monster or what ever he can be, Victor is to be blamed because he attempted to take over God's position but failed, and instead of taking accountability of his actions, he chose to run away. "Unable to endure the aspects of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long a long time traversing my bed-chamber, unable to compose my ming to sleep" (Shelley, 36). What about that poor "creature" you gave life to who didn't ask to exist? Do we choose the way we are born? The same as the creature didn't choose his physical appearance. What good can you expect will come from death? Victor did so he is the one to be blamed again. Death appeal to living being as anything Good, so what good will come out of making a living being out of death body parts. I would find it difficult to depict Victor as a monster because his actions may not work in his favor, and all he wanted to put and end to human suffering "If i could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!" (Shelley, 23). I victor to me is childish, selfish, all about himself, irresponsible and impulsive, he only acts on the moment and when face with the problem, he jumps on the first solution he gets at hand even if it brings other problems he will have to deal with later. So I totally agree with Gerry when he said so far there is nothing that displays Victor as a monster.
So far, it is discernible that Victor Frankenstein’s supernatural creation is the monster. By definition, I would categorize the Creature as a paragon of the term monster. Firstly, the Creature is physically monstrous, being that he was created by Frankenstein’s innovative way of composing lifeless limbs to depict a supernatural wretch. Shelley was indeed descriptive in the novel, “His yellow skin […] only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, […] shriveled complexion, and straight black lips,” (Shelley 35). The abnormalities of this wretch would most certainly send anyone racing in the opposite direction. Frankenstein may be culpable for designing the Creature, but fortunately for him, he does not have to “live” with the daunting image that the Creature possesses. Furthermore, Frankenstein’s creation committed a wicked act by murdering the young and blissful, William. As a result, it is much more facile to classify the Creature as a monster. Victor’s father announces, “Stretched on the grass livid and motionless: the print of the murderer’s finger was on his neck” (47). The novel officially states that the wretch is now considered a murderer. What a monstrous act! Wouldn’t you agree? Lastly, Mary Shelley presents Frankenstein as a favorable character. Throughout his university career, Victor has diligently earned the spot at the top, thanks to his well admired projects and academic success. In addition, he is missed at home by his family, including the lovely Elizabeth and his broken-hearted father that only wishes to be helped by Frankenstein, “Enter the house of mourning, my friend, but with kindness and affection for those who love you” (47). Although Frankenstein may be strange and irresponsible, it feels as if he has a purpose for something great. Thus, the most deserving character of being titled “monster” is the Creature. Not only does the wretch appear to be frightening, but he has committed a heinous act by becoming a murderer. Shelley portrays the image of a monster through the Creature’s appearance.
I love how everyone has forgone the idea of actually giving replies to others’ posts and went for just posting their individual opinions. But that aside: It is easy to hand out the label monster, detail some evidence, and be done with the assignment. However, I ask all my fellow classmates to remember that the word ‘monster’ connotes a world that can firmly delineate what is wrong and what is right. Yet, knowing that Frankenstein is a frame-narrative, where the story is shared first by Victor, then retold by Walton, means there are bound to be changes. There are bound to be biases. That ultimately means that the tale they relate is found in a subjective world. One cannot carelessly take sides and say one is the monster and the other is not. If anything, it would be far more fitting to say that both Victor and the Creature are the monsters of the book.
Classic pop-culture movies and references toward the novel have created this idea of associating the physically ugly, deformed, and unnatural to the concept of ‘monster’. Many of you have even defined the word with “an abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes,” which cements this idea. However, this definition is not only a reflection of how society has conditioned its citizens to be wary of what is irregular, but also shows the innate biases some would hold as it indirectly relates to the discrimination against the supposed ‘human’ monsters from everyday life: marginal groups who suffer from prejudice based on their sexuality, their skin, their inabilities (the disabled) and so forth (Gonclaves). Thus, plainly saying the Creature is the monster for its appearance of “[its] yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips” is sort of shallow (Shelley 34). Even the arguments about how it is the Creature’s fault for killing, or being given the blame of killing, William and Justine falls short in the fact that Victor is just as responsible for carrying the guilt.
Which brings me to my next point: Victor is obviously a man who has grown up in a well-to-do family. He is brilliant, has a bright head and future, and is so, so human. He could not possibly be one of the monsters of horror stories or video games. Yet, is he not responsible for the creation of ‘one’? Nietzsche once said “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” Actions are often a reflection of one’s person and character. In this case, the Creature is a reflection of Victor, and to humans in a greater sense—his aspiration to be great and known, and his less savory faults of irresponsibility and selfishness. How could the Creature be made if the idea, the concept of its monstrosity, was not first shaped and given to it by Victor? Please note that it is Victor too who automatically recognizes his creation for a ‘monster’ thus imposing his views on readers without any other reason besides it not being to his expectations. Victor’s words, along with his biases and flaws, imprint the false idea that no human could be a monster, which is farthest from the truth. Moreover, Mariana said it best when she wrote: “They do not consider the consequences that arise from decisions they make and they don't care to fix their wrong doings. They let them be and allow someone else to deal with the consequences. Victor was careless and did not care about anyone but himself. As long as he did not have to confront his mistakes he was fine. This I believe is the monstrous aspect of the novel: human's inability to take responsibility. Since Victor was the one representing this qualities he should be the one categorized as the "Monster."”
Hello Nicole, I would like to reply on your comment about what Nietzsche said. I too have heard that quote, but not the whole thing. I had only ever read this shortened version: "When you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back." Given it is a paraphrased version (and undoubtedly from the German there are many/various possible translations) I had no idea about how Nietzsche included the concept of monsters and monstrousity in it. I just looked it up and apparently the full quote is Aphorism #146 in Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good & Evil" (1886). Anyway, Nietzsche develops in his philosophy a concept derived straight out of the individualism of Romanticism and the nihilism of some forms of Modernism - this concept is the idea of a new morality which he works out in his Geneaology of Morals (1887). It cannot be developed here, but here is the main point: Nietzsche believed during the period that he was slowly going mad (although despite this I do think he does make some valid points at times) that the weak create a "slave morality" which inverts the correct order of things so as to make the Noble and Strong (the Good in Nietzsche's view) the wrong. Essentially, the weak and unambitious and feeble out of their contempt for the strong (and thus Nietzsche calls them the "Noble") create a false moral sentiment whereby anyone who has any pride, any courage, any daunting effort to go beyond the limitations of man (Übermensch) - is a narcissist suffering from delusions of grandeur. That is, anyone who tries to be a Victor Frankenstein, is lampooned by the whole of society for his ambition. So in Nietzsche's moral theory, Victor would be the true Hero. And the more he has to struggle against the envious weak, the more noble he is (remember those brute common seamen who Walton has to deal with?). That is, why do we not in the least bit praise Victor a bit for the dauntless courage and character of willing to do "what no man has done before"? But I don't agree with Nietzsche, because the whole result of a monstrous creation proves the moral point of the novel: that man cannot surpass man, only God can do that (the folly of narcissism is proved). That is, a man can no more lift himself up by his own bootstraps than the devil can overthrow the figure/character of God. That is the great tragic element: the tragic hero cannot be tragic unless he was doomed to fail from the very beginning. That is the great potential catharic energy built up into the plot like a great store of dynamite. How could, in the case of Paradise Lost, the devil overthrow God? That, again, is the great tragic element: If God (the character, not the real thing/being which many might or might not believe in) is omnipotent (all-powerful) then from the very set-up Lucifer's plot was foiled. There was 0% initial potential for him to succeed. In Frankenstein, the same with Victor. So likewise, it is literarily necessary (Literary Necessity/Contingency?) that the creature should be a monster, because only then can Victor be a (tragic) hero. He was never any closer than Lucifer was to succeeding in his quest, but hey (and here is the Nietzschean point I want to make) - at least he has courage and vigor and ambition! How many living people are less animated than the parts of Frankenstein's monster, through lack of positive and moral ambition and self-respecting pride/passion (Nietzsche would frown, however, at moralizing his points). Frankenstein was not some unimpassioned pedant like Mr. Krempe.
Young Victor Frankenstein from what we have read so far into the novel, is not a monster. Victor is simply a capricious, egotistical narcissist and a naïve sheltered youth who by sheer willpower alone accomplished the greatest scientific achievement of his day. The Research done by young Dr. Frankenstein has innumerable value to medical and scientific research of the understanding of the human body. Indeed Dr. Frankenstein was both foolish and narrow-minded on his choice of actions following his success in the reanimation of the “Creature” therefore letting it loose on the world to do gods knows what (allegedly killing poor little William). This is the part of him who is still at the moment of our reading a sheltered youth ignorant of the struggles of the people of his day and with no thought of mind towards them as the rich still pay no mind to the poor today and we don’t call them monsters, we call them spoiled. So, is this enough to call him a monster? His only crimes thus far are remaining silent while a person was being tried for a murder and withholding evidence that could have probably acquitted her and secondly in direct defiance of god creating life and irreversibly changing the course of human history. My Opinion is that to label someone as a “Monster” a person must have one quality and one alone, he or she must fall in the category of a sociopath, that is to say a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. Now Dr. Frankenstein behavior so far was antisocial and criminal but Victor according to the text is remorseful therefore un-qualifying him in my criteria of monster, not to mention that he is now on a ship where he is telling the story and confessing his sins and that he was chasing his demon trying to undo what he had done, which in a way is his way of attaining atonement for his sins and taking responsibility.
In order to consider who is the real “monster” of this tale, first we have to define what the word monster means, if it means an abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes, than yes. But if we define the word monster as a person who exerts cruelty, than we would have to consider Victor as the real “monster” of this tale.
ReplyDeleteI find Victor as the real monster not only because he created a creature so ugly that would frighten people, but because he was no man to face his creation and left him alone in the world for his own sake. What kind of person would give life to someone but not be brave enough to take care of him? It is the same as comparing him to women who give birth and simply abandon their child anywhere. “But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley, 36). Victor simply regretted his creation and fled from him, leaving the Creature alone in an unknown world.
Victor became unknown of his creature whereabouts for nearly two years, until the day he went back because of Williams’ death. In a visit to his brother’s death place, he finally saw his creation again, without any hesitation, Victor judges the Creature responsible for the death of his brother. “Nothing in human shape could have destroyed that fair child. He was the murder!” (Shelley, 50). Even if Victor was right that it was the daemon’s fault, how can we blame someone for something they don’t even have consciousness? It would be the same as putting a 6-year-old child on trial for killing his dad by accident.
One other reason that makes me consider Victor as the real “monster” is his position towards Justine’s fate. He’s letting a lovely innocent woman pay for something she’s innocent of. Although I didn’t get to the point where the Creature’s guilty is confirmed, I think Victor should have told everyone about his knowing. Or else, he’s not only going to be “guilty” for his own brother’s death, but also for Justine’s. “But I – I was a wretch, and none ever conceived of the misery that I then endured” (Shelley, 60). He already knows his misery, but his monstrosity prevents him to confess.
Derrick Sibley
ReplyDeleteThroughout history, science has brought great discovery and advancement. Although Victor’s creation was not by our standards a success, to fault him for trying would be to fault mankind. If the outcome of the Creature had been different, would Victor have not then been heroic? His disregard of the Creature is certainly irresponsible, but I do believe that victor is remorseful as he recounts, “No one can conceive the anguish I suffered.” (Shelley, 50). Perhaps it is fair to say that Victor is even embarrassed. He is weary of telling anyone what he has created in fear that he will be conceived as a “madman” (54). Conversely, by physical description, Shelley has described the “wretch” as a monster; however, it is his actions that lead me to see him as monstrous. At this point the Creature has begun his killing spree. The idea of vengeance for abandonment, or killing for any reason makes the Creature a monster.
Let me be quite blunt about it: The Creature is a Monster. Victor Frankenstein is not. Let me also emphasize that this does not mean that I am against or unsympathetic about or towards the monster. Not at all. On the contrary, I affirm that he is indeed a creature who desires internal purity and beauty and who often does attain throughout and in the course of the novel (as we shall see).
ReplyDeleteSo why insist that the creation of Frankenstein is actually a/the Monster? Well, firstly we must also distinguish between the terms: the creation is more of a creature than a creation, since the word "creation" often carries with it the more positive connotation(s) of a production profoundly and ideally reflective of the inner metaphysical (non-physical) vision of the artist/creator. A creature can be any random miscellaneous chance occurence within the functioning apparatus and invention in creation which is called nature. In creating the monster, Victor says:
"Who shall conceive the horrors of my secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortured the living animal to animate the lifeless clay?"
Essentially, I think that there is a profoundly nuanced lesson to be learned from the novel of Frankenstein, and others which include/involve similar creatures, such as Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831). The metaphysical meaning and lesson is a profound transvaluation of what beauty means and in regards to its external and internal appearances, but it is not so simple as: "Beauty is only skin deep." On the contrary, again, it goes beyond simple evaluations and gives an escape and a way out to simple ways of affirming beauty. It is not that the creature is not a monster and Frankenstein is not, but rather, that yes unfortunately the monster IS a monster, but its alright. Its alright in the end because if only he can reconcile himself with the near impossible to accept fact that he is an abomination, a freak of science and nature, and that it is not proper that he be accepted into the world as a common one, then he can learn to live in peace. And in sincere happiness also, maybe with a blind (or extremely forgiving) hermit and monk in the woods, hidden from the mob of hating mankind. At the end of the day the Monster is a hideous abomination which, although he should be loved.
I think that very few movie renditions have done favor to the more hideous descriptions of the monster, which is why I suggest that we keep in mind a more broken image when thinking of the monster. In our more forgiving attitudes, our minds render, with the work of the imagination, an image of the monster more softened. Again, I suggest we maybe think of a monster more akin to those in the video game Amnesia. Those monsters look like they are actually made out of discombobulating flesh. I feel like Frankenstein's monster was very beautiful at the first moment/instant, but then after vigor and motion set in it, and after the flash of a lightning bolt (as the movies display it) the whole contraption fell apart and became like a tattered flesh quilt. Essentially the weight of gravity and force of muscle contractions and flow of disinvigored blood did not fit together. And so slowly it became undone until it came to its near final state, which I call its "Amnesia monster state".
This is the monster: "His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath... only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips."
Perhaps the question for this blog could be, then: "Who is the real tragic hero? Victor or the Monster?" As an only natural evolution of the initial blog question.
Humans as far as I'm concerned have one purpose, reproduction and because of this one purpose to pass our genes to the next generation, we associate the values of genes that we want our next generation to have as beautiful and the ones we do not want as ugly. The idea of inner beauty does come into play as we do not want our children to be assholes, but mainly it has been proven that beautiful people have an easier go in life than ugly ones. This is why "The Creature" is seen as ugly and as an abomination. First because humans are scared of everything they do not understand which led to the creation of gods and organized religion and secondly because everything we do not understand generally falls into the category of evil. So to me it does not make sense to call "The Creature" beautiful as it must have been as Victor described it "a horrible wretch" but for a first attempt or shall we call it alpha it wasn't a bad effort of behalf of Dr. Frankenstein who I'm sure with practice could make a more beautiful creature who could be accepted into society and live a peaceful life as the former could not.
DeleteI think that the real monster is not the creature but Victor. In fact, Victor was so ambitious that he did not quite consider what his creation would cause. He was blinded totally by his desire of success and fame. In chapter III, Victor says, “I made some discoveries in the improvement of some chemical instruments, which procured me great esteem and admiration at the university.” Victor was so proud of himself that he forgot everything else, including his native land, family and friends. However, he wanted to go beyond these achievements. He got so fascinated and engaged with the study of life that he decided to give life to a lifeless matter. He played to be the master of life without realizing the consequences that this will bring upon his world. Victor was clearly the monster in this story. In fact, he created his own demon. He was so obsessed with his work that he did not even realize that he was mirroring himself in this experiment. All of his selfish desires to become the greatest of all led him to create a self-image of himself in this creature. In chapter III, Victor says, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” It shows us clearly how he was playing to be god without measuring the consequences that this will bring. He did not think about how this experiment will turn out or how it will affect the world in which he lived. He just wanted recognition and admiration from others, and to be praised as superior because of his achievements.
ReplyDeleteThus far in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein it seems clear that the monster in question is Victors ‘creature considering the fact that he murdered cute little William. In contrast to this obvious remark, I think the person who deserves the title of “Monster” is Victor. He is the real beast. His role as this ambitious creator who I think bit a little more than he could chew is the reason behind this emotionally broken creature. Victor was ashamed of the life that he created depicting it as a “wretch and filthy daemon” (Shelly, 50), but why? The monster was completely innocent. Just like we humans think that animals are dangerous and deadly perhaps, viewpoints are being switched here. Where, the creature thinks of humans as senseless beings that are not acceptant of others unless they fit their definition of humane. I think that Victor is selfish and inconsiderate of creature’s feelings and desire of a father or family. Without Victor there will be no monster therefore, Victor is the monster within the creature (that many assume is the monster).
ReplyDeleteBy definition, a monster is a large supernatural being that is unappealing and frightful. Since Victor is a human he does not appear frightful or unappealing, but his imagination is unnatural so is his enthusiasm. He confesses so himself in Volume I chapter III before creating his creature stating that, “it was indeed a passing trance, that only made me feel with renewed acuteness so soon as, the unnatural stimulus ceasing too operate…”(Shelley 34). Out of curiosity, he was able to create a monster from decaying bodies; giving it life. Any parent that does not care for his child or in this case creation is considered a bad parent and therefore is a monster. Children are born innocent, and society depicts whether the child will be good or evil. Victor is solely responsible for his creation which explains the anguish he felt once he discovered who killed William. Not only was he saddened that his brother was murdered, he knew the creature who killed him was his. Guilt tormented him because in truth he was just as responsible for his brother’s death as his creature was, making him a monster.
Thus, Victor is the obvious monster of this novel. Children are not toys or objects that you rid of when you do not like them. “The evolution of culture is ultimately determined by the amount of love, understanding and freedom experienced by its children... Every abandonment, every betrayal, every hateful act towards children returns tenfold a few decades later upon the historical stage, while every empathic act that helps a child become what he or she wants to become, every expression of love toward children heals society and moves it in unexpected, wondrous new directions”(Lloyd deMause). In other words, children should be cared for because they are future societies. Victor is responsible for creating his creature and abandoning it. Making him a monster in disguise.
Listening in on class discussions and reading these blog responses, I feel like most people are basing their opinions on the fact that they already know the story of Frankenstein. As someone who haven't read, watched, or heard about this novel, it's strange to me that many people consider Victor as the monster, or even the fact that this question is addressed. If we are considering this question in terms of the chapters we've read as a class thus far, I see no reason to think Victor as anything more than a normal, brilliant, young student aspiring to make his dreams come true. If we are trying to cavil at any aspect of Victor's personality, because for some reason we feel everyone must be as perfect and amiable as the character Clerval, I feel we are being more romantic than the novel itself. As far as I'm concerned the only questionable thing Victor has done so far is work with dead body parts, but he's a scientist. A lot of people bring up the fact that he takes no responsibility for his mistakes. But who at a young age confronts a mistake as large as the one Victor made. I think most people's instincts, especially those that are young would be to run away from their fears. In fact I feel that the fact he ran away from his creature says more about his character than most people think. By initially fleeing from his creature, it shows that he grows and matures as a character as we know that he is seen pursuing the same creature later.
ReplyDeleteHe may not have jumped to save Justine in fear of his own death and worse the exposure of his hideous creation to the rest of the world, but I still feel that is a human trait present in most people. He's not a hero but he's not a psychopath incapable of possessing empathetic feelings either. It's clear during the aftermath of Justine's death that he shows great remorse and depression.
"I was tempted to plunge into the silent lake, that the waters might close over me and my calamities for ever. But I was restrained, when I thought of the heroic and suffering Elizabeth, whom I tenderly loved, and whose existence was bound up in mine. I thought also of my father, and surviving brother: should I by my base desertion leave them exposed and unprotected to the malice of the fiend whom I had let loose among them?" (Shelly 62).
Now as far as the "creature" is concerned. If we are defining the word monster, as Demetrius mentioned, an "...abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes." Then yes. He clearly is the monster of this story. But if we are defining the term as someone, once again quoting Demetrius, as one, "...who exerts cruelty." Then we have yet to see any real crime done by the creature to assume that he is monstrous.
I feel I haven't read enough of the story yet to judge who is or isn't a monster. However it's important to realize that this whole story is told in context as a warning from Victor to a stranger. Advising him not to make the same mistakes as he did. Now I may not know what Victor may do as we progress through the novel, but just considering that fact, I will, for now, assume Victor is not monstrous.
Mariana Reyes
ReplyDeleteThe word 'monster' can be defined as "anything unnatural," and, "a creature so ugly as to frighten people" (dictionary.com). If these definitions are held to be true and applied to Mary Shelly's, "Frankenstein," then Victor's creation can be named the monster of this story. This creation was conceived in an unnatural (biological) way; it was made from parts and pieces from once (natural-born) beings. The master mind behind it, Victor, made artificial birth possible, and once he saw his creation he was frightened. The creation was "wretched."
Based on the creation's features he represents the first held definition:
"His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips." The creator himself says, "No mortal could support the horror of that countenance," after calling his creation a catastrophe.
Yet, there is another definition of the word "monster", which would not make the labeling of the Victor's creation as the monster as simple. That definition states that a monster is, "a person who excites horror by wickedness and cruelty." If this is the case then Victor himself can be seen as a monster. Victor wanted to play God and create life without thinking of the consequences. He just wanted glory, " A new species would bless me as it's creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me."
He did not consider the possible repercussions that could arise from doing something that went against natural science. Victor just wanted to get rid of the creature, therefore he did not take responsibility of it once it escaped from his room, "all these employments are now at an end and that I am length free." He felt that any responsibility he held in creating the creature was gone once it left, he easily rid himself of his guilt. This excites horror since it shows how careless humans can be.
They do not consider the consequences that arise from decisions they make and they don't care to fix their wrong doings. They let them be and allow someone else to deal with the consequences. Victor was careless and did not care about anyone but himself. As long as he did not have to confront his mistakes he was fine. This I believe is the monstrous aspect of the novel: human's inability to take responsibility. Since Victor was the one representing this qualities he should be the one categorized as the "Monster."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to assert who is the monster thus far in the reading as there is not enough information to determine it. By outward appearances the creature may be a monster but by inward complexion we would have to dive into the minds of our subjects. We do not fully understand whether the creature has a theory of mind or not. And though by parts it may be considered a human being, we do not yet know if it can think, question, or communicate as the rest of us do. We cannot see or experience it for ourselves. We more of less see it through the eyes of Frankenstein. And through those lenses the creature is not depicted as dialectically as one would hope to make a conclusion of monsterhood but is nonetheless what we have. And from such eyes we cannot help but think the creature as a monster considering the manner it is portrayed in. Having been depicted as malformed and unnatural since its birth, we guided to believing as such.
ReplyDeleteHow can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? … but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room…(Shelley 35)
Frankenstein’s depiction of the creation is avidly grotesque despite the fact that it was his creation. Through Frankenstein, in his reflective story, we would expect that he would know best as to whom the monster was, whether him or his creature. However, thus far in the reading, I am compelled to argue that Frankenstein is the true monster. I cannot yet condemn the creature to be the monster considering that it currently seems to be a victim of his circumstance – a victim of the real monster, the monster that is Victor Frankenstein. A victim of Victor! Though, I may not fully understand the story and mind of the creature I do see the mind and story of Victor, and in today’s world, any parent that abandons their child is considered a bane to society, neglecting the most crucial aspect of their existence. Even if any human being (or any other creature for the matter) does nothing on this earth, raising their young is the single most sufficient accomplishment of their existence. There is almost nothing more important you can do in life than to simply raise your young. We are all aware of the natal innocence that exists in all new life. Frankenstein’s creature was no different. Whether the creature can be considered to be human or not, I do not know. But we must bear in mind that it has all the components of a human being thus I am constrained to feel that it is one and thus requiring a raising process as any other human being – a process that Victor Frankenstein very much nonchalantly neglected. Although this creature was not his flesh and blood, it still is the work of his hands, consequently, a responsibility that is his. Running away from one of the most crucial aspects of one’s existence is the most monstrous and inhumane action in my opinion. It is far more inhumane than the creation itself making Victor Frankenstein the true monster.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThus far in my reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, I have come to an understanding that the true monster in this novel is not Frankenstein’s creation but rather Frankenstein himself. The creature is extensively depicted as the grotesque looking being but his outward monstrous appearance does not compare to Frankenstein himself. In my opinion Frankenstein is the real monster because of his abandonment of the creature, and his willingness to obtain what he desires disregarding to way to achieve.
ReplyDeleteVictor worked hard for approximately two years on his project of bringing life back into an inanimate body. And after deprivation of friends, family, rest or health his completes the project. Yet his description of the creature and his actions following the “birth” of the creature are what lead him to be categorized as the real monster in this novel. Victor described the dream he had once as a “breathless horror and disgust…” that filled his heart (36). Later in the novel, when he encounters the creature in the icy cave, ha makes many insults to the creature. Rewinding back to the night in which the monster was conceived; Victor immediately after he sees the monster awaken, regrets having made this creature. Victor “rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my [his] bed-chamber, unable to compose my [his] mind to sleep” (36). Victor abandoned the creature immediately after the creature’s birth. After analyzing this passage again and reflecting upon a remark Jeremiah made in class about this moment in the book, this passage strikes to me as a main point to which Victor’s monstrosity is depicted. Victor leaving the monster is synonymous to a mother leaving her child after birth, or Adam being left by God without any guidance. At the moment the creature most needed him Victor vanished because he was “scared” and in disgust of the creature’s appearance.
Furthermore in the end of Volume II, (I apologize to anyone who hasn’t read up to that point and ask to you please finish reading volume II and then return and finish these next lines) Victor accepts the creature’s request to make another creature who could serve as the creature’s companion. Victor accepts this because he views it as a way to rid himself and his family of the creature, but he would be creating another “monster” as he deemed it. He disregarded the possibilities of all the wrong things that could happen and accepted the proposed offer. This again, to me, labels him as the monster. He was willing to do whatever it took without regard for the possible outcomes. Maybe his family would have been safe and not suffer the same fate as poor William but some other family can end up suffering a similar loss.
Because of his way to obtain what he desires carrying only for the well-being of himself and some around, disregarding what the possible outcome can be in greater picture and his abandonment of the creature which lead to the creature being the way his is, is what leads me to believe Victor is the true monster.
Having read thus far...
ReplyDeleteI must begin by reflecting that I would not have formulated such a question to myself. In the first place, I do not think that monsters exist. It's not a matter of belief, but rather, a matter of the common use of the word, and what it is meant to signify. A quick Google search rendered the following definitions: "an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening," and "an inhumanly cruel and wicked person."
From both definitions we can derive that, essentially, a "monster" is everything I am not. So what am I? Everything a monster is not. Or would you concede that you could be, or share the traits of, a monster? That you can be "monstrous?" Psychologically, naturally, humans- and perhaps all beings- polarize the signifiers of identity in order to easily establish one's position in a situation. But we must remember that the archetypes we deal in are not the realities we believe they are.
Thus, monsters do not exist. What does exist, in this tale, is the psychological drama of a creator afraid of his creation, and afraid of his capacity to create.
Fear is the creator of monsters.
In the few chapters we have read, Victor is seen to have many lofty feelings: of love towards his family; of passion towards his studies; of complete abandon towards his work. However, we know nothing of his motivations. Victor himself, as the narrator of this tale, has said next to nothing of them- and let me remind you, that compounded adjectives describing feelings do not demonstrate this kind of introspective, metacognitive understanding. Victor seems oblivious to the reason(s) why he has undertaken the task of creating life in such a reckless manner: "No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards... in the first enthusiasm of success,,, A new species would bless me as its creator and source... Pursuing these reflections, I thought, that if I could bestow animations upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time... renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. These thoughts supported my spirits, while I pursued my undertaking with unremitting ardour."
At this point, for me, there is only one question worth asking:
Why, Victor? Why?
Due to the fact that we have only read a section of the book, I feel it is still very early to conclude and make a solid argument as to who – among the main characters – the real monster is. However, thus far in the reading, I am inclined to believe that the real monster of the tale is the one subtly mentioned, but the one that carries through the novel, - the society.
ReplyDeleteMary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in the era of Romanticism, where physical beauty and its attributes were emphasized. People bluntly separated objects into two categories: beautiful and atrocious. The reader begins to associate the creature Victor was so passionately creating all these years with the word “monster” when Viktor himself says, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch… I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished …breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley 35-36). This quote illustrates two points. First, Victor himself admits that his ardour “far exceeded moderation”, which only proves his selfish, egocentric, and narcissistic nature, and that he has such egoistical ambitions that he goes as far as comparing himself to God saying, “[M]y imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man” (32-33). Second, the moment the creature comes alive, it is being judged (by its own creator) on its appearance even before the reader has the ability to see the creature in action and judge for him or herself. Frankenstein is so repulsed by what he sees that he leaves his apartment in the middle of the night.
However, despite its being rejected and abandoned, the creature did not become bitter or wrathful – he was a tabula rasa. The question of nature versus nurture has often entertained psychologists and academics alike, and considering the creature as one of a kind and inhuman (it wasn’t born the natural way), the nature is not applicable here, but nurture could have made a difference. Moreover, people have a moral obligation and responsibility for those who they bring into the world - abandoning a product of his labor was more inhumane of Viktor than the inhuman creature itself. Viktor clearly lacks any compassion and hates the creature the minute it opened its eyes. He does not take responsibility for his actions – he runs away and then for long time does not even care where is the creature as long as it is not within Viktor’s space. And as the newborn creature sets off onto its journey and learns about the world, it is filled with love, kindness, and benevolence. It is its encounter with people that made it hurt and made it change his benevolent disposition. People judged the creature by what they saw and were terrified and abhorred. People, with Victor among them, are the real monsters.
I do not agree that the people are the real monsters I just believe that humans are generally frightful insecure cowards that are scared of everything they do not understand and must come up with ways to explain everything, first logically then illogically. That's why we have religion and demons to explain the bad things that happen and God to explain the good things. People are not monsters they are just ignorant and behave to the best of their abilities but generally are not cruel to each other and show compassion to one another.
DeletePablo
Falonne Tsopmegha
ReplyDeleteI have to admit however that there is something strange about him that I myself find it difficult to describe. How can you create something and you don't even have to decency to comfort it. You made it yourself from all the beautiful things you came across so how can it be ugly? His attitude towards his "creature" is so childish that I find it difficult to believe children face their creations with pride though they are not the best of the world.
We usually blame our mistakes on God our creator or on our parents who are our main guide on earth. Therefore if the "creature" Victor brought to life is a monster or what ever he can be, Victor is to be blamed because he attempted to take over God's position but failed, and instead of taking accountability of his actions, he chose to run away. "Unable to endure the aspects of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long a long time traversing my bed-chamber, unable to compose my ming to sleep" (Shelley, 36). What about that poor "creature" you gave life to who didn't ask to exist? Do we choose the way we are born? The same as the creature didn't choose his physical appearance. What good can you expect will come from death? Victor did so he is the one to be blamed again. Death appeal to living being as anything Good, so what good will come out of making a living being out of death body parts. I would find it difficult to depict Victor as a monster because his actions may not work in his favor, and all he wanted to put and end to human suffering "If i could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to any but a violent death!" (Shelley, 23).
I victor to me is childish, selfish, all about himself, irresponsible and impulsive, he only acts on the moment and when face with the problem, he jumps on the first solution he gets at hand even if it brings other problems he will have to deal with later. So I totally agree with Gerry when he said so far there is nothing that displays Victor as a monster.
So far, it is discernible that Victor Frankenstein’s supernatural creation is the monster. By definition, I would categorize the Creature as a paragon of the term monster.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the Creature is physically monstrous, being that he was created by Frankenstein’s innovative way of composing lifeless limbs to depict a supernatural wretch. Shelley was indeed descriptive in the novel, “His yellow skin […] only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, […] shriveled complexion, and straight black lips,” (Shelley 35). The abnormalities of this wretch would most certainly send anyone racing in the opposite direction. Frankenstein may be culpable for designing the Creature, but fortunately for him, he does not have to “live” with the daunting image that the Creature possesses.
Furthermore, Frankenstein’s creation committed a wicked act by murdering the young and blissful, William. As a result, it is much more facile to classify the Creature as a monster. Victor’s father announces, “Stretched on the grass livid and motionless: the print of the murderer’s finger was on his neck” (47). The novel officially states that the wretch is now considered a murderer. What a monstrous act! Wouldn’t you agree?
Lastly, Mary Shelley presents Frankenstein as a favorable character. Throughout his university career, Victor has diligently earned the spot at the top, thanks to his well admired projects and academic success. In addition, he is missed at home by his family, including the lovely Elizabeth and his broken-hearted father that only wishes to be helped by Frankenstein, “Enter the house of mourning, my friend, but with kindness and affection for those who love you” (47). Although Frankenstein may be strange and irresponsible, it feels as if he has a purpose for something great.
Thus, the most deserving character of being titled “monster” is the Creature. Not only does the wretch appear to be frightening, but he has committed a heinous act by becoming a murderer. Shelley portrays the image of a monster through the Creature’s appearance.
I love how everyone has forgone the idea of actually giving replies to others’ posts and went for just posting their individual opinions. But that aside:
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to hand out the label monster, detail some evidence, and be done with the assignment. However, I ask all my fellow classmates to remember that the word ‘monster’ connotes a world that can firmly delineate what is wrong and what is right. Yet, knowing that Frankenstein is a frame-narrative, where the story is shared first by Victor, then retold by Walton, means there are bound to be changes. There are bound to be biases. That ultimately means that the tale they relate is found in a subjective world. One cannot carelessly take sides and say one is the monster and the other is not. If anything, it would be far more fitting to say that both Victor and the Creature are the monsters of the book.
Classic pop-culture movies and references toward the novel have created this idea of associating the physically ugly, deformed, and unnatural to the concept of ‘monster’. Many of you have even defined the word with “an abominable creature so unpleasant for the human eyes,” which cements this idea. However, this definition is not only a reflection of how society has conditioned its citizens to be wary of what is irregular, but also shows the innate biases some would hold as it indirectly relates to the discrimination against the supposed ‘human’ monsters from everyday life: marginal groups who suffer from prejudice based on their sexuality, their skin, their inabilities (the disabled) and so forth (Gonclaves). Thus, plainly saying the Creature is the monster for its appearance of “[its] yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips” is sort of shallow (Shelley 34). Even the arguments about how it is the Creature’s fault for killing, or being given the blame of killing, William and Justine falls short in the fact that Victor is just as responsible for carrying the guilt.
Which brings me to my next point: Victor is obviously a man who has grown up in a well-to-do family. He is brilliant, has a bright head and future, and is so, so human. He could not possibly be one of the monsters of horror stories or video games. Yet, is he not responsible for the creation of ‘one’? Nietzsche once said “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” Actions are often a reflection of one’s person and character. In this case, the Creature is a reflection of Victor, and to humans in a greater sense—his aspiration to be great and known, and his less savory faults of irresponsibility and selfishness. How could the Creature be made if the idea, the concept of its monstrosity, was not first shaped and given to it by Victor? Please note that it is Victor too who automatically recognizes his creation for a ‘monster’ thus imposing his views on readers without any other reason besides it not being to his expectations. Victor’s words, along with his biases and flaws, imprint the false idea that no human could be a monster, which is farthest from the truth. Moreover, Mariana said it best when she wrote: “They do not consider the consequences that arise from decisions they make and they don't care to fix their wrong doings. They let them be and allow someone else to deal with the consequences. Victor was careless and did not care about anyone but himself. As long as he did not have to confront his mistakes he was fine. This I believe is the monstrous aspect of the novel: human's inability to take responsibility. Since Victor was the one representing this qualities he should be the one categorized as the "Monster."”
Hello Nicole, I would like to reply on your comment about what Nietzsche said. I too have heard that quote, but not the whole thing. I had only ever read this shortened version: "When you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back." Given it is a paraphrased version (and undoubtedly from the German there are many/various possible translations) I had no idea about how Nietzsche included the concept of monsters and monstrousity in it. I just looked it up and apparently the full quote is Aphorism #146 in Nietzsche's book "Beyond Good & Evil" (1886). Anyway, Nietzsche develops in his philosophy a concept derived straight out of the individualism of Romanticism and the nihilism of some forms of Modernism - this concept is the idea of a new morality which he works out in his Geneaology of Morals (1887). It cannot be developed here, but here is the main point: Nietzsche believed during the period that he was slowly going mad (although despite this I do think he does make some valid points at times) that the weak create a "slave morality" which inverts the correct order of things so as to make the Noble and Strong (the Good in Nietzsche's view) the wrong.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the weak and unambitious and feeble out of their contempt for the strong (and thus Nietzsche calls them the "Noble") create a false moral sentiment whereby anyone who has any pride, any courage, any daunting effort to go beyond the limitations of man (Übermensch) - is a narcissist suffering from delusions of grandeur. That is, anyone who tries to be a Victor Frankenstein, is lampooned by the whole of society for his ambition. So in Nietzsche's moral theory, Victor would be the true Hero. And the more he has to struggle against the envious weak, the more noble he is (remember those brute common seamen who Walton has to deal with?).
That is, why do we not in the least bit praise Victor a bit for the dauntless courage and character of willing to do "what no man has done before"? But I don't agree with Nietzsche, because the whole result of a monstrous creation proves the moral point of the novel: that man cannot surpass man, only God can do that (the folly of narcissism is proved). That is, a man can no more lift himself up by his own bootstraps than the devil can overthrow the figure/character of God. That is the great tragic element: the tragic hero cannot be tragic unless he was doomed to fail from the very beginning. That is the great potential catharic energy built up into the plot like a great store of dynamite. How could, in the case of Paradise Lost, the devil overthrow God? That, again, is the great tragic element: If God (the character, not the real thing/being which many might or might not believe in) is omnipotent (all-powerful) then from the very set-up Lucifer's plot was foiled. There was 0% initial potential for him to succeed. In Frankenstein, the same with Victor. So likewise, it is literarily necessary (Literary Necessity/Contingency?) that the creature should be a monster, because only then can Victor be a (tragic) hero.
He was never any closer than Lucifer was to succeeding in his quest, but hey (and here is the Nietzschean point I want to make) - at least he has courage and vigor and ambition! How many living people are less animated than the parts of Frankenstein's monster, through lack of positive and moral ambition and self-respecting pride/passion (Nietzsche would frown, however, at moralizing his points). Frankenstein was not some unimpassioned pedant like Mr. Krempe.
Sorry, the above comment was by me. I pressed preview but it published instead...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYoung Victor Frankenstein from what we have read so far into the novel, is not a monster. Victor is simply a capricious, egotistical narcissist and a naïve sheltered youth who by sheer willpower alone accomplished the greatest scientific achievement of his day. The Research done by young Dr. Frankenstein has innumerable value to medical and scientific research of the understanding of the human body. Indeed Dr. Frankenstein was both foolish and narrow-minded on his choice of actions following his success in the reanimation of the “Creature” therefore letting it loose on the world to do gods knows what (allegedly killing poor little William). This is the part of him who is still at the moment of our reading a sheltered youth ignorant of the struggles of the people of his day and with no thought of mind towards them as the rich still pay no mind to the poor today and we don’t call them monsters, we call them spoiled. So, is this enough to call him a monster? His only crimes thus far are remaining silent while a person was being tried for a murder and withholding evidence that could have probably acquitted her and secondly in direct defiance of god creating life and irreversibly changing the course of human history.
ReplyDeleteMy Opinion is that to label someone as a “Monster” a person must have one quality and one alone, he or she must fall in the category of a sociopath, that is to say a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. Now Dr. Frankenstein behavior so far was antisocial and criminal but Victor according to the text is remorseful therefore un-qualifying him in my criteria of monster, not to mention that he is now on a ship where he is telling the story and confessing his sins and that he was chasing his demon trying to undo what he had done, which in a way is his way of attaining atonement for his sins and taking responsibility.
Pablo Echegorri