Society as Dr. Frankenstein
The plight of Frankenstein’s monster shows an interesting societal phenomenon – the violent monsters we fear are not naturally occurring, but created by the currents and perceptions of society. While there are certainly people and animals born with defects that render them physically abnormal, it is important to note (at least in my opinion) that everyone is born with a blank slate. Even Frankenstein’s monster is initially naïve and benevolent, seeking nothing more than love and understanding. Only when he fully realizes that society shudders at and hates him for his outer monstrosity does he revert to a primitive, blood-seeking monster.
His violent and merciless nature is that of a stereotypical monster; I wonder, is his the only case in which bloodthirstiness is brought on by society’s condemnation and isolation? Do those which/whom we consider monsters fit that stereotype of cruelty only because of the way we treat them? If so, are we the propagators of our own nightmares, needlessly torturing ourselves with fears of monsters that are out to kill us? In that case, we aren’t too different from the Dr. Frankenstein.
It is also interesting to think about the possibility that even though we are scared out of our minds by monsters, we as humans need the monstrous around us. With so many examples of abnormality, all we need to do is look around to be assured of our individual humanness, individual status as normal as opposed to “abnormal.”
posted by Quinn at 1:55 PM
4 Comments:
A-ha. I think you're on to osmething here: It is also interesting to think about the possibility that even though we are scared out of our minds by monsters, we as humans need the monstrous around us. With so many examples of abnormality, all we need to do is look around to be assured of our individual humanness, individual status as normal as opposed to “abnormal.”
This makes sense to me--that we need the abnormal in order to define the normal. **In fact, the normal depends upon the abnormal for its own "normalcy."
It is also, then, becomes important to note that there is no essential "abnormality" in the world--rather it is a construction, used in this case to help people define themselves as normal (and maybe as human).
Maybe the same kind of argument could be apply to amit's recent post, where he struggles over the "natural" vs. the "unnatural"?
correction to previous comment: Maybe the same kind of argument sould be applied to **Ami's** recent post...
I think that this idea also extends to the fact that both Frankenstein and the monster seem to keep making themselves more and more miserable as the plot progresses. The monster says that murdering is "torturous." Then why does he keep doing it? Is revenge really a good enough reason? In addition, Frankenstein doesn't really seem to try and come up with any solution to the problem except kill the monster. I know that this is kind of a weird statement, but couldn't Frankenstein have at least tried to be friend the monster even if it was only a pretense to get the monster to stop killing? Or, as someone else said in class, make the monster a female partner who is unable to reproduce?
I think being merciless, violent, and/or cruel is what makes a person, or a thing, I suppose, a monster or not. To your question--do they fit the cruelty stereotype because of the way we treat them?--I would say yes. I agree, everyone is born with a clean slate.
Perhaps the nature versus nurture theory can be applied here. Are "monsters" born as blood-seeking creatures? Or do they become that way because of societal implications?
Post a Comment
<< Home