What is a Monster?
I feel that one of the key topics Shelley raises throughout Frankenstein is the definition of the term monster. Frankenstein's creation is often referred to as a monster, and becomes known, primarily, as "the monster". However, the definition is not so clear cut. Is Shelley commenting on the creation's lack of humanity? Should the world fear those who are grotesque and abnormally unattractive? Does murder make him a monster, or was he born a monster? Is Frankenstein the true monster for how he treats his creation and his friends?
I do not believe that there is a clear, simple answer to these questions. Personally, I feel that both Frankenstein and his creation are monstrous. They treat each other as animals not worthy of respect, but only as tools to achieve some greater goal. Furthermore, I do not believe that the creature's physical appearance plays a role in his monstrosity. I do acknowledge that humans despised him for how he appeared, but refuse to believe that his appearance was a signal that he was dangerous and evil. Instead, Shelley is commenting on social practices of the day. Grotesque features or strange circumstances of birth do not make a monster. There is a monster within everyone, and if the right triggers are pushed than our dark side may surface to everyone's horror. Driven to kill by emotion or over rationalization, Frankenstein and his creation bring out the monster in each other, and the innocent dead in their wake should remind the world what dangers lie within.
This theme of what makes someone evil resonates with humanity still today. Movies, television shows, and books all attempt to define what makes someone evil. Whether it is Crime and Punishment, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or even Harry Potter, the qualifications for a monster are always being redefined.
posted by judge at 4:03 PM
4 Comments:
Hey Quinn-- can you talk a bit more about what why we shouldn't buy into the idea that the monster is a monster because of his physical appearance. I'm especially interested in your comment: "I do acknowledge that humans despised him for how he appeared, but refuse to believe that his appearance was a signal that he was dangerous and evil. Instead, Shelley is commenting on social practices of the day." Could you elaborate?
Sure. Basically, the monster has a grotesque appearance, yet Shelley makes it clear that he has the potential for, and perhaps reaches, a level of sophistication equal to humans. The monster does not appear inherently evil. While he was moaning and reaching for Frankenstein at the moment of his creation, his recollections are of innocence and lonliness. I think that Shelley is arguing that society forces certain individuals to become monsters. Society outcasts the creature for his appearance and this pushes the creature to dangerous exremes. However, at the time of creation his only desires were for a companion and to learn whatever he could possibly be taught. These are valiant traits, traits that remind the reader of a young Frankenstein. Frankenstein is another charachter who begins young and hungry for life, but is warped by society and the creature, to become a monster who is just as corrupt.
This may be off-topic, but when you mentioned Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde , a thought came to my mind. What if Victor and his creation are the same person? They are often referred with the same descriptions, they both talk with similar eloquence, and we hear the story through the voice of Victor throughout the majority of the novel Yes, at the end the monster does appear at the conclusion and Walton does see him, but other than that seen, Victor's story could have been entirely fabricated.
After looking around on the web a little, I discovered a novel written by Arthur Belefant written in 1999, Frankenstein, the Man and the Monster , in which he explains that Shelley intended for the reader to perceive that the monster never existed and Victor committed all three murders as his mind slowly degraded and was overcome with science fiction. I couldn't find a good summary of his text, but from bits and pieces, Victor's motivation in doing this was also described as an attempt to avoid committing incest (by marrying Elizabeth I guess?). I personally think this is a pretty wacky explanation, but does anyone else any thoughts on this theory?
I think humans have this instinct that anything abnormal must be bad, especially if it's unattractive and frightening looking. They impose harsh judgments on other humans who are not "pretty" or attractive, I think this is an unfortunate part of human nature.
I agree that physical appearance shouldn't have any bearing on defining a monster. The most beautiful woman in the world could turn out to have the nature of a cold blooded killer.
Post a Comment
<< Home