I had a lot to say about Neitzshce after reading these essays…three weeks ago. Three weeks can really do things to your memory; oh well.

My first impression of this guy was a rather bad one—he seemed to possess a strong need to constantly build up his own ego while looking down on others (i.e. the reader), and a great deal of his first essay was filled with so much pointless fluff that I found myself reading every second sentence to alleviate the drone going on in my head at stuff I’ve heard before and heard better. Granted, Neitzsche did have legitimate arguments (unlike, say…Rousseau) which he portrayed in an annoyingly roundabout way, and his ego building had peculiar undertones of irony that I half-believed and half-thought I was imagining. So ended his first essay; and so began his second.

His second was largely devoid of the fluff that infested the first—a pleasant surprise, but not enough to make me lower my guard. This felt like the meat of the essays while I was reading it, with themes very similar to Leviathan and actually better written in my opinion. Political science, political science, and more political science; the good stuff, I suppose, although it was similar to his first essay in that I’ve heard it all before. My general opinion of him was certainly improved upon finishing this essay—and so began his third. His…third.

Horror of a vacuum is a universal truth of humankind (in technical terms, everyone with self-awareness). This fear, of course, is paradoxical (and this is one of if not the only correct application of the word ‘paradox’), and can be reasoned out on an intellectual level (but never really goes away as a pure emotion). We would rather will nothingness than not will—this is the sentence that told me this essay was different than the rest. Very different. Asceticism, asceticism, asceticism. Despite not knowing what exactly that word meant for the entire essay (I googled it after), I found myself pulled along by Neitzsche and his suddenly concise, effective, and well-flowed writing. The two essays were revealed as simple foundations for this one, where he, after repeating things I’ve heard before again and again, finally pulled out something that I’ve never heard before. Asceticism, applied in the physical sense—self-torture. Asceticism, applied in the philosophical sense—self-fulfilment. The law of normality, working in conjunction with one of if not the most enduring form of the pleasure principle (Asceticism), produces the delusion of religion, guided by the ascetic priest—mass salvation. This is a view that I’ve never read before (maybe because I don’t read a lot), and I stand corrected on my original view of Nietzsche (well, maybe not completely). In my view, his third essay was not about morality; it was about, well…asceticism. The title “Genealogy of Morals” would have been better named “Genealogy of Asceticism,” although then a lot of people would probably either get the wrong idea or lose interest entirely. I myself lose quite a bit of interest in anything with the word “moral” in its title, but I guess I’m in the minority; oh well.

This story was extremely grim in my opinion. It appears as though every single family found in this book has been hit with some sort of death or loss of sorts. This consistency of misfortune can be seen with the monster as well. the monster is equally detached from his family as Justine and Elizabeth are. It could be that Mary Shelley is attempting to draw a parallel between the establishment of the families in this book. Each family has problems and dysfunctional attributes that are not to be seen in a standard family. They find themselves disarrayed by orphans and adopted children. This could be attempting to show the unjustified hatred felt by society towards the monster. The monster would obviously not fit into a standard family due to his physical appearance. This shows the Hypocrisy of Frankenstein and the other members of society towards the misunderstood monster.

The monster does not fit into the same category as those that I have previously knowledgeable from my readings in arts one. what I have not seen from previous monsters is this level of intelligence. In Frankenstein, he is able to learn to speak very quickly. Not only does he learn language, he masters it, becoming extremely eloquent and able to make cohesive arguments. These arguments are sound and too effective in my opinion to have come from a monster.

Perhaps my idea of a monster is similar to what Sam has stated in class. A monster is simply a creature which cannot argue its point whether it is because of a lack of intelligence or too radically different. Because of this, we feel a disconnection from these “monsters” and lose empathy for them. When one reads Frankenstein they do not have such sentiments towards the monster. Instead, they look at the monster and feel remorse for him. They see his point of view more fully over Grendel’s because of language. Without such a strong ability to communicate, the monster in Frankenstein would be much more monstrous. He would not be perceived with the same light if he was unable to argue his point. This is  the reason many do not view Medea as a monster. She was able to in over the views of some through her strong argumentative skills and intelligence. By having these characteristics, she was able to be seen as less monstrous.

Prior to reading Frankenstein, I’ve definitely heard of him, since I feel as though he is just one of those “cult classic” monsters that everyone more or less knows about. And that’s how it was like for me. I was somewhat familiar with Frankenstein, more so his physical appearance, but upon reading this book I got a deeper sense, a more well-rounded sense of a more human monster than the other novels we have read thus far in Arts One.

This book was a pretty fascinating read in my opinion. I found that Mary Shelley does an exceptional job of bringing Victor’s character to life. Through the use of her vivid and imaginative descriptions, she really paints a picture in your head. Additionally, prior to reading Frankenstein, I expected him to be this awful, immensely monstrous.. monster. I expected his appearance to match exactly who he was on the inside. However, having now read it, my expectations were flawed. Frankenstein is more misunderstood than anything. People think the book is going to be focused on this evil green dude with bolts in his neck murdering a bunch of people; but he is just a misunderstood creature. Rather than fear him, I sympathize for him. For his misjudgment, and attachment to such superficial claims. I particularly enjoyed this book, because this was one of the first times that we’ve seen a twist to our perception of monsters, well at least in my opinion. In Oedipus, we see a man who is a victim of circumstance, but his physical appearance doesn’t look like that of a monster. (Obviously opinions about Oedipus will vary, but that is mine). But in Frankenstein, we have an intimidating, scary-looking (an actually frightening) monster. Frankenstein’s outer appearance paints an inaccurate image of whom he truly is inside. This is so juvenile, but Frankenstein kind of reminds me of Monsters Inc.. where the monsters are misrepresented, and people fear them without really getting a deeper sense of their character and looking beyond just the outside. Which brings me to my other point, I found this book to be quite emotional to my surprise. The tale as a whole intrigued me, and it pulled me in. This book, I can confidently say, kept me enticed the whole read through; from cover to cover.

Overall, I thought Shelley made an excellent book. Reading this piece brought me into almost an alternate universe, for it widened my perspective on monsters.

Well, I must admit, I was one of those who thought that the monster’s name was Frankenstein, and that the scientist was just… some guy. I have been deceived. I also thought that the monster was going to be much more monstrous than he really was in the book. I was actually looking forward to it a little bit, to finally have a monster who is undoubtedly a monster, undoubtedly evil and vicious. But as much as this monster was a murderer, and his namelessness leads him to simply be called ‘Frankenstein’s monster,’ he really wasn’t that truly terrible. Again, we see a creature sadly misunderstood. While his appearance is certainly terrifying, and… unnerving (dead things brought back to life… zombies, anyone?) I can’t help but sympathize with him for being judged so superficially. Especially since the first person to reject him so harshly is his creator, Frankenstein, the closest thing he has to a father. That leads me think Victor would make a fairly bad parent, if you ask me. Again we find ourselves faced with the question of who is the monster. I would be one to lean toward answering this question with neither, as both the monster and Frankenstein do cruel and terrible things, but are also put through cruel and terrible things. I’m not incredibly brave, I would probably run away from something with “watery eyes” and “black lips” as well. But I would also probably be quite cruel if the only thing I knew from the beginning of my life was rejection and loneliness.

If, at the end, the monster had not come and given Victor that final farewell, I would perhaps be more open to calling them both monsters. But the fact that the pain he feels over the terrible things he’s done leads him to tell the people that he’s going to kill himself puts a whole new dimension to him, even so close to the end of the book. He knows his creator wanted him dead, and decides to carry out those wishes, even though he could have simply walked away, free from Frankenstein. He fears for others who he may harm, and says “I shall collect my funeral pile, and consume to ashes this miserable frame” (pg. 224). That one hit me right through the heart. We have on our hands a suicidal monster. Who, I believe, is really no monster. He did monstrous things, he did terrible, tragic things, but no one had ever shown him love or compassion, and so I cannot place the blame entirely on him.

I really enjoyed Frankenstein, probably because it’s one of our first books in which we have multiple encounters with a monster which becomes a very human character as we learn more about him. Part of me hates the monster for his rash and violent tendencies, but another part of me hates Victor for not accepting his creation.

I was really surprised at how emotional this book was. I was expecting a very simple and straightforward story, and instead what I found was an exciting and emotional tale. My favorite part of the novel was the final scene in which the monster returned to Frankenstein’s corpse. It’s here that we see how evolved and human the monster really is. His emotion and intelligence made his actions seem so out of place, perhaps he wasn’t a monster after all. This really ties in with the idea of lonely and misunderstood monsters, such as Grendel or even Medea, creatures which receive no sympathy and because of this become monsters.

Another aspect of the book I enjoyed was the changes of Victor as a character. Early on he’s young and passionate, locked in his quest for the “secret of life”, yet with time he begins to realize the consequences of his creation, and he is worn down from guilt and revenge. His goal changes from creating life to that of destroying life. The very life he created! I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Victor, his youthful ignorant self created a creature which haunted him for the rest of his life killing his family and friends. While some might argue that he is the monster of this story, I can’t help but disagree. While of course he could have showed a bit more compassion to the monster, I don’t believe he has the obligation to be its best friend and make sure its never lonely.

Regarding the monster, I felt like his character was a little strangely constructed (no pun intended), as he’s an incredibly enlightened individual, yet he commits multiple murders just out of rage. Putting that aside, the monster is a character which we are meant to feel bad for. The monster is that lonely kid that nobody talked to in elementary school, but was actually probably a really nice guy. Perhaps that’s what I dislike about the monster, the fact that we have to feel bad for him. He’s a character built to evoke that emotion from the reader, the emotion of pity and sadness. I enjoyed Frankenstein a lot more than I ever thought I would.

After many bus rides to and back from work, I have finally managed to finish Frankenstein. Probably one of the first observations I made about it was how much it felt more-so science fiction than gothic/romantic (as it is usually referred as).  I had some trouble staying tuned into the story at times (although bumpy bus rides probably didn’t help my focus…). Mary Shelley’s prose was first person, but often second or third hand (one person telling another person’s story who was then telling yet another story). Nevertheless, it did make for compelling reading at times. Secondarily, whilst the monster’s creation and subsequent actions have influenced the plot well, the story is focused on the life of Victor Frankenstein, the monster’s creator, and his family. I have yet to see a movie rendition that focuses on this, not to say there isn’t one out there, but if you mention the name “Frankenstein” it is more often than not referred to as the monster rather than the man who created him.

Probably one of the biggest problems I had was that I did not relate to any of the characters probably because none of them had any redeeming qualities. Victor Frankenstein came off as arrogant and thought he could play God by “creating” a creature from bits and pieces of the dead and revived via lightning. The way he removes himself from the people that care about him (Elizabeth for instance) and drowns in his frantic pursuit of knowledge is heartbreaking. The creature had every opportunity to learn right from wrong and appeared to have done so, but ultimately let revenge and self-pity rule over his decisions. The cumulative havoc the two cause to those around them is shocking and pretty inexcusable. Whilst the characters can be sometimes relatable, I feel like the strength of the book lies through its conveyance of themes, and as Mary Shelley seems to promote (subtle, we elaborated on this in the seminar…), I may have benefited from giving the book a second read.

Nonetheless, it was pretty enjoyable. It wasn’t the most thrilling piece of literature we have read in Arts One, but again I tend to enjoy philosophical texts a bit more….

This isn’t the first time I’ve read Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus, but it also isn’t the first time I’ve found it enjoyable. Both readings I found the first 70-80 pages as a crawl, but really heated up after the Monster becomes apparent to Victor.

A teacher of mine once mentioned how Frankenstein is arguably the first piece of Science Fiction to which I’d have to agree, although it’s not too significant in my opinion. The novel makes some mention of broad terms such as “Galvanism” and Alchemy as tools for the production of Victor’s man, but never goes into grave detail of how he sparked the lifeless body parts to function and spring to life a conscious being. To be fair, you can’t expect Mary Shelley to make a realistic depiction of the complex task creating life. In fact, majority of science-fiction simply slaps on scientific elements and words like Doctors, laboratory’s, beakers and of course the word “science” itself to give it a false sense of realism. The only thing that differs the fantasy genre and the science fiction genre is that fantasy is modest enough not to attempt to explain any of it’s super naturally occurring elements, while science fiction pretends to. But more importantly, the story of Frankenstein serves as a cautionary tale for mankind’s “forbidden flame” of creation through modern science.

Since the 1960s and the rise of knowledge of Human and Animal genetics, mankind is now in possession of being “Gods”. Cloning and genetic engineering is being attempted and advanced rapidly. Worst of all, there’s a likely possibility that despite firm international legislation, human cloning (Genetics wise, NOT the identical replication kind) is likely taking place all around the world. Every piece of produce we buy at the supermarket can be properly deemed “Frankenfood”, it has undergone selective genetic hybridization and conditioning. We can now control our food and environment surrounding us on a massive scale. The most horrifying revelation is we are on the brink of defying natural law with stem cell-research and our ability to recreate organs than mankind could never naturally reproduce or heal. Is this for the better of mankind or are we walking a fine line of playing God and overstepping our boundaries? How much control can we exert before civilization as a whole resembles nothing as it does today. It would be unfair to lead this slippery slope I’m describing to the ultimate conclusion of a dystopic society identical to Brave New World, but it could potentially lead to an outcome bearing some similarities.

Just reflect how far mankind has come within the last century. The automobile Flight, Space Travel, the Human Genome Encoded, Division of the Uranium Atom and Nuclear intercontinental weapons. Cloning and even synthetic organisms like microscopic nano-machines have been created. It’s evident our knowledge and capabilities is exponentially growing. Just how long will it be before a mother and father will be able to talk to there doctor about whether or not they want their child to be a blue eyed boy and with the body of an athlete? Perhaps I’m too paranoid, but I still pray to God or whatever force lies out there that such a day will never come.