Frankenstein
Well since there isn't a post for Frankenstein yet I guess I'll do the honors.
Like Carolyn, I have already read through the book and I found myself mostly interested in the middle to end, especially the part where the monster told his story. A little side note: not sure how many people were as mistaken as I am, but I was under the impression that the monster's name was Frankenstein. Oh well, I suppose this is what Laz meant when he talked about misconceptions. That's pretty much all I wanted to say for the beginning of the novel, and because I found the middle/ending most interesting that's mostly what I'm going to discuss, so for all of you people who haven't finished this yet here's your warning.. PLOT SPOILERS BELOW...
First of all, I must admit I am annoyed with Victor. He does all of this research in pursuit of his idea of endowing life in an otherwise dead object. So pretty much he is able to create things from scratch. Which brings up the question, WHY DID HE MAKE THE MONSTER LOOK LIKE A MONSTER? The monster even ponders this while he is holed up next to the cottage. Wouldn't it make much more sense to do something very similar to what God did and create this "animal" in his own image? Since I just brought up God, I found it interesting the assortment of books that Shelley "gives" the monster.
In particular, I found the copy of Paradise Lost to be very telling. It brings up a number of questions about the monster. He compares himself to Satan, except for the ironic part that Satan was one of God's most beautiful angels, while the monster is hideous. Also, it highlights the comparison between God and Victor, Adam and the monster. Out of curiosity, is there a specific genre of "creation" stories that are modeled after the Bible? And if there are, was this one of the first ones, besides the Bible? Finally one last comment about the monster for now. As he begins his story, he tells of his early development and how he learns pretty much everything. I found this part particularly interesting because it is something that we all go through subconsciously. The monster, however, is able to realize the internal changes he is undergoing as he learns more about the world he was so suddenly brought into.
Also, I would like to comment on the character of Elizabeth. She just doesn't seem like a realistic character to me. Unless I'm missing something, Elizabeth appears to be pretty much perfect. When Victor is upset because he is deciding about whether or not to make the second monster, Elizabeth mistakes this as him loving another. She sends him a letter in which she pretty much is like, "yeah if you love someone else that's no biggie. It'll break my heart but the important thing is that you should do what you want to." I mean honestly, would someone really be mild enough to send something like that?
Finally, the relationship between Victor and the monster brings up some interesting questions. Most importantly, How much of the destruction, if any, caused by the monster is Victor responsible for? I think that he overreacted right after he created the monster and definitely did not give it a chance, but once the monster killed Victor's young, innocent brother I think that all of the blame lies on the monster. Also, Victor's reasoning for not creating a second monster made sense to me, and I thought it was a valid justification. Even though Victor did not meet the monster's demands, I still feel that it is the monster's fault and not Victor's for the death of Elizabeth and indirectly Victor's father. At the same time, Victor definitely made some mistakes. He should have taken action to destroy the monster earlier instead of whining about everything and mopping around. Maybe if he acted sooner the outcome would have been different.
At the end of the novel, the monster (does he actually get a name?) says something interesting. While talking to the dead body of Victor on Walden's ship he says, "Blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine..." So to end this rather lengthy blog I would like to pose a question. Did the monster suffer more than Victor? If so is this Mary Shelley's was of expressing what she thinks the worst kind of suffering a being can undergo?
Well that was long....in case you couldn't tell I liked this novel a lot.
Questions / Comments much appreciated
- Steve
Like Carolyn, I have already read through the book and I found myself mostly interested in the middle to end, especially the part where the monster told his story. A little side note: not sure how many people were as mistaken as I am, but I was under the impression that the monster's name was Frankenstein. Oh well, I suppose this is what Laz meant when he talked about misconceptions. That's pretty much all I wanted to say for the beginning of the novel, and because I found the middle/ending most interesting that's mostly what I'm going to discuss, so for all of you people who haven't finished this yet here's your warning.. PLOT SPOILERS BELOW...
First of all, I must admit I am annoyed with Victor. He does all of this research in pursuit of his idea of endowing life in an otherwise dead object. So pretty much he is able to create things from scratch. Which brings up the question, WHY DID HE MAKE THE MONSTER LOOK LIKE A MONSTER? The monster even ponders this while he is holed up next to the cottage. Wouldn't it make much more sense to do something very similar to what God did and create this "animal" in his own image? Since I just brought up God, I found it interesting the assortment of books that Shelley "gives" the monster.
In particular, I found the copy of Paradise Lost to be very telling. It brings up a number of questions about the monster. He compares himself to Satan, except for the ironic part that Satan was one of God's most beautiful angels, while the monster is hideous. Also, it highlights the comparison between God and Victor, Adam and the monster. Out of curiosity, is there a specific genre of "creation" stories that are modeled after the Bible? And if there are, was this one of the first ones, besides the Bible? Finally one last comment about the monster for now. As he begins his story, he tells of his early development and how he learns pretty much everything. I found this part particularly interesting because it is something that we all go through subconsciously. The monster, however, is able to realize the internal changes he is undergoing as he learns more about the world he was so suddenly brought into.
Also, I would like to comment on the character of Elizabeth. She just doesn't seem like a realistic character to me. Unless I'm missing something, Elizabeth appears to be pretty much perfect. When Victor is upset because he is deciding about whether or not to make the second monster, Elizabeth mistakes this as him loving another. She sends him a letter in which she pretty much is like, "yeah if you love someone else that's no biggie. It'll break my heart but the important thing is that you should do what you want to." I mean honestly, would someone really be mild enough to send something like that?
Finally, the relationship between Victor and the monster brings up some interesting questions. Most importantly, How much of the destruction, if any, caused by the monster is Victor responsible for? I think that he overreacted right after he created the monster and definitely did not give it a chance, but once the monster killed Victor's young, innocent brother I think that all of the blame lies on the monster. Also, Victor's reasoning for not creating a second monster made sense to me, and I thought it was a valid justification. Even though Victor did not meet the monster's demands, I still feel that it is the monster's fault and not Victor's for the death of Elizabeth and indirectly Victor's father. At the same time, Victor definitely made some mistakes. He should have taken action to destroy the monster earlier instead of whining about everything and mopping around. Maybe if he acted sooner the outcome would have been different.
At the end of the novel, the monster (does he actually get a name?) says something interesting. While talking to the dead body of Victor on Walden's ship he says, "Blasted as thou wert, my agony was still superior to thine..." So to end this rather lengthy blog I would like to pose a question. Did the monster suffer more than Victor? If so is this Mary Shelley's was of expressing what she thinks the worst kind of suffering a being can undergo?
Well that was long....in case you couldn't tell I liked this novel a lot.
Questions / Comments much appreciated
- Steve
Labels: Steve
posted by L Lazarow | 12:54 PM
20 Comments:
steve--
i asked myself the same question about victor choosing to create a monster. why would he do that if he can basically make anything he wanted to? is that supposed to be some kind of reflection of his feelings or views or something?
also, we talked about today how victor is in love with his sister, but did anyone else get that same feeling about walter during his letters? it just seemed like he was writing some affectionate things, and maybe there was more than sisterly love? but that's his real sister, so that would be pretty messed up...
one more thing--laz brought up today the arguments that have arisen about who actually wrote the book. i guess i understand why someone would think she didn't write it, but honestly if her husband and this other guy did a lot more than influence her and they actually co-wrote it, why wouldn't they have just put their name on the book as well? i mean i know she's a feminist and everything, but this book wasn't written from the authors perspective, it's a story about other people, so i think she's just being an objective writer.
Carly,
I must admit I def. did get some of that same vibe between Walton and his sister, but at the same time I would prefer to think that there is nothing but brother-sister love between them.
kind of branching off steve's comments about Elizabeth, I DO find it weird that Shelly would create such a perfect and steretypical woman character. Elizabeth's subserviance, shown in the quote Steve chose, is something that a feminist would not be content with writing. The book also focuses on Elizabeth's beauty as her initial appeal, nothing about her demeanor. She is also almost inhuman with how little she grieves for her mother and her perfection.
I agree that Elizabeth's character is a bit unnatural (perhaps so perfect that she's "supernatural"?). At least for the chapters we've read, I see Elizabeth as embodying/symbolizing the Romantic opposition to science. She's naturally visually beautiful, writes well, takes over as a motherly figure; and she keeps asking Victor to write. He neglects contact with her in favor of constructing his monster.
In short, Elizabeth v monster is equivalent to nature v science.
SPOILER WARNING
well if that was the way then why did Shelley have the monster kill Elizabeth at the end? The only explaination for that would be to say that no matter what science will overcome the objects of the Romantics and lead us all to our doom. But at the same time this is balanced out by the monster, aka science, going into the dangers of the North Pole to kill himself, which I suppose would support the notion of science/the pursuit of knowledge will lead to man's undoing.
Steve,
molly did note that this was true for the chapters we've read, not applicable to the entire book.
I don't understand how "science's" attempt to kill itself reflects the nothion that science will lead to man's undoing... am I missing something? Isn't this just science lead to its own end?
I believe the monster killing Elizabeth is exemplifying the romantic idea, that science is evil and nature is good, and thus Sheley had the monster kill Elizabeth. She's showing the negative effects of science.
does anyone else find it ironic that the monster reads paradise lost? i mean come on, that just should send flares of his ultimate down fall from "grace", when the monster initally talks of how loving and caring he is...guess what, he does a 180 and starts killing everyone.
oh and i think the burning of the cabin in the woods is like the monster's way of severing ties with humans. no?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just wanted to mention Shelley's emphasize on the Romantic perspective throughout the novel.
1. Glorifed view of nature as ideal, even in a religious way--nature is pratically worshipped by the characters in the story. Victor repeatedly notes how the changes of the season and the weather affect his mood dramatically (as well as Clerval's), and nature has the same affects on the monster as well. Only the Romantics would hold nature in such high esteem (if we needed more proof that Shelley writes from a Romantic perspective.)
2. Man's innate "goodness" and innocence and man's ability to become corrupt only by outside forces. It really does seem that none of the characters ever become corrupt directly of their own will. Victor is corrupt by science and the evils of knowledge, the monster is corrupt by the lessons he draws from Paradise Lost and by the treatment of Victor and other humans. Corruption aside, Victor and the monster are influenced even in good ways by the attitudes and countenances of those around them (Victor is strongly infuenced by his family, Elizabeth, and Henry, while the monster is influenced simply by watching the cottage family for a year, without interacting directly.) It is though no one is responsible for his/her own feelings and attitudes.
Both these points, interestingly, relate to how easily humans are influenced by outside forces, and not just the corruption of society, but the actions of a single person, event, opinion, etc. This gives a sort of "weighty" feel to the story, as though almost every occurance or thought or change in the weather is profound. Very Romantic.
Continuing on what Lindsay said,
3. Science is the main corrupter of Victor's character. He becomes obsessed with it, and it ends up destroying him and his world around him in the end.
I do think, however, that Victor IS responsible for his feelings and attitudes. He is the one who is so driven, society has not made him so. He is surrounded by Elizabeth, who is passive, while his is passionate and uncontrollable. He also decides to move into the world of science, a choice he makes on his own. His father's advice to ignore Agrippa does nothing to change his decision, therefore an outside force is not corrupting him, only himself.
Charlotte-
I agree that science is the corrupter of victor's character. It makes me think of Hawthorne last year, the romantic writer whose basic storyline in a couple of pieces was how devestating the effects are to one who tampers with human life using science. This directly parallels Shelley's Frankenstein.
Also, I was thinking if Shelley made Frankenstein's gigantic size for a reason. Would it symbolize the forces of nature that are too great for Victor to take into his own hands, creating life?
Oh and that was Ellie by the way
Ellie,
I feel Shelley made the monster gigantic so as to further separate him from society. Even when the monster is gentle and wants to become a part of society, people are immediately turned off by him due to his size and his ugliness. His size also emphasizes that the monster is not human and that Frankenstein (as well as other scientists Shelley is most likely addressing) cannot create human life. I feel Frankenstein's size symbolizes the notion that because Victor attempted to create life, all he could produce was a monster. So I agree, the monster's size does represent the fact that forces of nature are too great for Victor. Because he tried to defy the forces of nature by creating life, Victor jas been punished.
I also think its important to note that Victor, while creating the monster, specifically said that he picked out "all the best parts." aka his inability to play God.
Continuing what was discussed in class today, I feel that we touched upon a very interesting point, namely should the monster be considered responsible for his actions, and metaphorically be tried for his crimes as an adult? In his confrontation with Victor, the monster says, "...instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable...I will revenge my injuries; if i cannot inspire love, I will cause fear...This passion is detrimental to me..." Ch.17 To me this paints a portrait of someone who knows exactly what the consequences of his actions will bring. Because of his ability to reason things out, the monster understands the consequences of his actions thus meeting the criteria for being elibile to be tried as an adult. It is also interesting to note that the monster understands how the actions of those surronding him effects his decisions, yet at the same time he makes himself appear powerless to change his actions.
This gets back to the point brought up by Laz, is the monster a tragic character? I think he is definitly portrayed in that way by Shelley with a slight twist: he understands his situation. After all, he openly admits, "My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor, ande my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal." He wants relationships with other beings but it can't happen because of the "magical puppeteer".
Another question that relates to the "trial of the monster:"
If you say he should be tried as an adult, how guilty is Victor for creating him and then abandoning him? Is he not just as guilty as the monster?
basically... how responsible is he for the deaths of his friends and family?
Of course some of the blame must fall on Victor. I'm sure we could argue all day over just where Victor's responsibility ends. I think that Victor is pretty responsible for the deaths of his beloved, but at the same time he is only a proximate cause of this (the monster being the immediate). Therefore in the court analogy he would be convicted for something along the lines of unintentional manslaughter, maybe third degree murder?
Obviously Victor had no intention of harming anyone, but essentially he is the cause of these peoples' deaths. However, he is also a victim here because he lost those loved ones. If he hadn't created the monster none of that would have happened, but he didnt create the monster to go out and kill people, he did it because of his passion for science and yearning for discovery right? Technically Victor is responsible to some degree but not enough to be tried for murder.
As far as the monster goes, I agree with steve that he is completely responsible because he knew what he was doing. Yes, he started out as this beast that didnt know left from right, but he eventually developed human emotions and views and reasonings. He learned things and became more like a human. He knew what he was doing was wrong, and he did it anyway. That's guilt.
Just a thought-
In Euro last year, we talked about all of these philosophers and where morality comes from. This is the whole "nature vs. nurture" arguement. Is Shelley making a point where morality comes from in the monster? Because of his experiences and rejection, he finds it fine to retaliate. His reactions make me think that the monster's morality comes from "nurture" rather than nature, if Shelley is making a point like that. -Ellie
I think that we should look at our own society before deciding immediately that the monster should be tried as an adult. Young adults in our society are tried as juveniles. These teens learn right from wrong early on in their lives, and have it continually inforced by their surroundings (they don't have to deduce it themselves) yet they are still tried as being less responsible for their actions. How can we say the monster shouldn't be held to these same standards?? Yes, he seems to mature faster than a human naturally does, but he does so on his own. Just a thought...
The ice-cave discussion also reminded me of another tough decision society makes. For some reason, this stirred the thoughts of negotiating with terrorists. Victor is put in a position where he either must give the monster what he wants or face the consequences. The monster promises to leave if Victor does what he says. This seems a little like concessions with Hitler, does it not?
Post a Comment
<< Home