Scholars have debated for many years over two very fundamental questions about this the novel, Frankestein. Have fun joining in the discussion.
- What is a "monster"? Who is the "monster" in this book?
- With whom does your sympathy lie? Why?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Who is the monster? Where does the reader's sympathy lie? -- Due NOV. 3, 2010
So sorry for the date mix-up. These questions are due on Nov. 3, not Dec. 3. The questions will follow the same weekly due date schedule as we have had all throughout the rest of the semester, excluding holidays.
Scholars have debated for many years over two very fundamental questions about this the novel, Frankestein. Have fun joining in the discussion.
Scholars have debated for many years over two very fundamental questions about this the novel, Frankestein. Have fun joining in the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
A monster is someone who is good, acts with good intentions, but then screw up in something. No one is complete monster--they do monstrous things, or can do monstrous things. There is no evil just to be evil. A villian doesn't just want to take over the world; they take over the owrld because its the best thing to do. True evil are people who do things because they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. And that's saying a lot. Both Victor and the Creature are monsters. Victor is a monster for abandoning his creation; the Creature for abandoning the morals he read about in books while in the forest. Both of them abandon some sense of human decency (and yes, the Creature is a human albeit a hideous human).
I sympathize with both characters--they equal lose everything by the end of the story: Victor his family and friends; the Creature loses simply living. He doesn't have a right to live because he's so hideous. Somehow, there's racial undertones in the novel . . .
1. Based on modern cinema, we think of monsters as horribly disfigured creatures who prey on the innocent. In reality, we know that monsters can come in many different forms -- serial killers, pedophiles, etc. Monsters, obviously, are those who act in ways contrary to the "normal." In the novel, both Victor and the creature can be considered monsters. Victor, not just because he abandons his creation, but because he created him in the first place. Victor goes beyond "normal" scientific endeavor and tries to become God. The creature is monster-like because he uses his abandonment by Victor as an excuse for his murderous behavior. He refuses to take responsibility for his own behavior.
2. I tend to have more sympathy for the creature because he did not ask to be created or abandoned. Victor's inflated ego and his search for glory led him to act in a monstrous way. He was not coerced to make the creature, and then he was so horrified by what he had done that he abandoned the creature with no thought to the consequences. However, the creature does not illicit a great deal of sympathy since he goes on a killing spree and blames it on Victor's actions.
1. The monster in this book is Victor. He creates the creature, but does not take the time to care for him or even get to know him. His feelings about creature are solely based on his appearance. I think that if Victor hadn't run away from creature in the beginning, then creature would not have turned out the way he did.
2. I have more sympathy for creature because he did not ask for any of this. He was just created then left out in the cold. Creature never had a chance, he was never treated with love. Although that does not negate personal responsibility. We cannot place all the blame for creature's actions on Victor, but I definitely sympathise more with creature than Victor.
1. Although the term "monster" can be linked to countless definitions, I feel that this novel leads to a definition concerning morality. Yes, the creature is green and ugly, but more frightening is his disgust and hatred towards humanity. Granted, I would argue that humanity is actually the cause of this particular "monster," but his mentality is nonetheless terrifying. He has become obsessed with revenge; hence, ruining Victor's life is the worst of his monstrosities. Victor can also be dubbed a monster in this novel because his selfish unawareness leads to the creature's depressing plight. To create only to disregard is horribly monstrous! Hence, I argue that they both define "monster" in one way or the other.
2. My sympathies definitely lie with the creature. Quite simply, he didn't ask for any of it! Of course Victor didn't ask to be burdened with taking care of the monster, but it was his own actions that caused his plight. Therefore, I think that Victor's actions are significant enough for him to have some sense of responsibility for the creature, yet he disregards his creation. This disregarding is what consequently leads to the creature's misdeeds. The creature had no action in his creation and consequent upbringing. It is not his nature to be evil, yet the lack of nurture has caused it. I can only wonder how this novel would differ if Victor had been a responsible "father."
1. The creature is repeatedly identified as the monster of the book: He is certainly the obvious choice. Not only does he perform atrocious acts, but his outward appearance adheres to the popular definition of “monster.” He also tends to be creepy like a monster: He lurks outside in the darkness with flashing eyes and stalks, essentially, his prey. The creature also falls into an unknown category: He is not exactly human and not exactly beast. This renders him a likely candidate for the label of monster. Both Frankenstein and the creature make accusations of villainy towards one another: Each associates the other as a monster, and each views the other as having committed horrific crimes. Frankenstein and the creature act in monstrous ways – Frankenstein by creating a “monster,” the creature by several acts of violence and mischief. Frankenstein also perhaps falls victim to the term “monster” by having abandoned his own creation.
2. My sympathies lie with neither. Certainly, the creature had no control over his coming into the world, something a reader should take into consideration; yet, the creature only displays the same harshness and cruelty he experiences from others. Frankenstein also carries out his endeavors without much thought of consequences. He continuously places his loved ones in danger. His ruminations are only for himself; even when considering the potential danger of his family, he often only focuses on the torment their suffering would cause HIM. Moreover, both Frankenstein and the creature perpetually think only of themselves. When the creature sees Frankenstein’s body, for instance, he maintains the thought that not even Frankenstein suffered as he suffered. Both characters prove themselves unworthy of sympathy.
Leigh said; What is a monster? A person with no conscience or feeling. I don't think either Victor or the fiend is a monster. They are simple people who made bad choices in life and paid the ultimate price. People sometimes get the idea that they are smarter or better than any one else. They do things not thinking it through of what would be the cost of their actions. In this case, Victor did not realize that his actions would cause so much destruction to the ones he loves the most. But that was not the only ones who was hurt in the process. Imagine being the monster. With the mind of a child who has been rejected by the only one he knows is devastating within itself. How would you feel. The only instinct he had was to fight. Isn't that like most human nature. When offended we want to fight. The monster did just that, "fight," he had no knowledge of right and wrong.
I feel sorry for both Victor and the Fiend, who didn't even have a name. Things could have been a lot different if Victor stuck to science and not creation. Even though the mishap has been made, if Victor took the monster under his wing and taught him right from wrong and became a father figure to him, he would not have felt threatened.
Yes! The question I've been waiting to answer!
1) A monster is something deplorable. The very term makes you think of the deepest, darkest, and most grotesque parts of any society. They have no remorse. They corner the weak and take what they want. Any mass of criminals can be called monsters. I think it has to do with offenses that are absolutely unforgivable. Murder, Rape, Imprisonment ... the list goes on and on. In Frankenstein I think there are several moments in the book where Victure flirts with this idea of monstrosity. First of all for his arrogance in thinking he could play God. Second .. when he creates the "monster" [haha] and then flees when his visual appearance is less than satisfactory. Every life that the creature comes into contact with and destroys from that day on? Victure has some hand in it. The creature was once peaceful, but ultimately was driven to violence. His readings of certain texts did not help -- so in a sense he had poor guidance ...or he wasn't able to interpret it correctly.
2) At first I had such a deep sympathy for creature -- and somewhere towards the end I found sympathy for Victure with the hopelessness of his situation. But in the end there is something disgusting about both of them. I think it says a lot about humanity itself. Maybe my disgust should be directed more towards it?
1. What is a monster? I was lucky enough to take Dr. Aaij's class in monsters a few years ago, and we spend a lot of time discussing what exactly makes a monster. We concluded that ultimately, it is a being's actions and intentions that make them monstrous. We also concluded that it is not a static state; one may move from innocence to monstrosity, or from monstrosity to benevolence.
Who is the monster in Frankenstein? I believe that Frankenstein himself starts out benevolent, wanting to better mankind through his actions, yet he becomes monstrous in his lack of responsibility, his hatred of the Creature, and his inability to accept consequences. On the other hand, the Creature, who may be physically monstrous, begins his life with noble intentions, then, through the actions of others, learns to be evil.
2. My sympathy lies with Creature. If Frankenstein had been a better "father," Creature would have had a much better chance at forming a life. Frankenstein fails his creation in so many ways. Creature is no more responsible for his physical appearance than the child born with a harelip or other physical deformity, and he deserves love and acceptance just as those children do.
The true monster of the book would have to be Victor in my esteem. He goes beyond the bounds of human knowledge to usurp the position of God and runs the minute he sees the consequences of it. He abandons the creature, abandons Justine, and truly abandons Elizabeth in his egotistical thoughts of the creatures malice. These are the three people who most need him in the novel and he turns his back on them for his own selfish reasons. The creature is made a monster through social circumstance. His cruelty is apparent, but depends on Victor's actions. Victor made himself a monster though his actions, or inaction, which were based solely on his own inclinations with little thought of the effects on others.
Post a Comment