When I was younger I went through a phase where I only read old British and American classics. While I read most of them somehow Frankenstein managed to slip through the cracks. Perhaps it was because I wasnt sure what horrors I would find (considering the fact that every cartoon had a Frankenstein mockery running around destroying things and the only image I had in my mind was of a large man running around with bolts in his neck in black and white) so when reading the book I was largely unprepared for the actual text. Everyone I know whose read Frankenstein love the book and I didn’t expect myself to like it as much as I did because when everyone loves something you start the book with certain expectations and more often than not those expectations are not met. However Frankenstein is one of those novels where whole paragraphs resonate and you are so intrigued by the whole book that putting it down is not an option.

I especially like Shelley’s way of writing because she turns descriptions into beautiful images through her use of words. Shelley also has a way of making you feel both pity for the “creature” and horror at what he does. Shelley has created a character so complex that on one hand he is an innocent and extremely lonely infant almost and on the other he is a cruel and diabolical monster of sorts. Perhaps if he was only feared and not isolated he would have resembled the Greek gods in his immaturity and immense power – a combination which is frightening in any form. Frankenstein himself is the creator of this being and his actions show us the consequences faced by any man who tries to become and behave like a god. Frankenstein is not only a book about monsters and the creator vs the creation but it is also about consequences and the cruelty of humanity. We all say and behave as if we would not isolate a creature because of its appearance but would instead judge it based upon its actions and, until the murder of William, the creature does not do any harm to anyone and he even helps out the De Lacey’s in their poverty. Frankenstein himself could not bear to look upon his own creation and I find that incredibly sad because the creature was his responsibility and perhaps if he had gotten even an ounce of love or kindness from anyone he might not have been as monstrous as he appeared.

Before having read this story, my only mental image of Frankenstein was a green monster who yelled unintelligibly and chased people around. But clearly the story has more much to it. It is interesting to look at this book and attempt to identify who the true monster in the story really is. The “monster” could be classified as a monster because he killed people, or because he is an outcast from society. But is he really the monster? Or is Victor the monster for creating such a creature? Victor decided to play the role of the creator, and made a beastly-looking animal without thinking about the potential consequences. Victor neglected to realize that any humanly thing, no matter how grotesque, will benefit from or even need some sort of companionship.

Victor created this monster and practically abandoned it out of fear. Between being cast off by society and also finding Victor’s notes about his disapproval of his existence, the monster felt isolated and lonely in the world. In my opinion, Victor Frankenstein could be classified as even more of a monster than the “monster” himself. He went against the rules of nature and created his own human, and then allowed the creature to roam free and kill people that he cared about. And was also too afraid of being labelled as a lunatic to fess up and tell people what he had done, even allowing someone else to be executed for a murder that he had an indirect hand in.

I found it interesting that the monster was able to pick up on the human’s language so quickly, and seemed to actually be a moralled person who later regretted his monstrous ways. I found the story as a whole very interesting.

            Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was a better read than the first time round. When I was in grade 11 I feel that I wanted to dislike the book to prove the point that Romantic literature is boring. Needless to say now that I am not the biggest fan of Romantic literature; however, the second time reading Frankenstein it was not as bad as I initially received it. Also I figured out exactly why I do not like it. I have to say Frankenstein has to be my least favorite character of all time. Sure you can say he is an anti-hero and he made a mistake playing with life and death. But really, what did he think was going to happen when he stitched together corpses? That they would magically make him into a perfect being? And also, what is up with all the running away. Sure his monster is pretty horrific and not too nice, but he did make him. Maybe if he stuck around and taught him stuff his monster would not have gone on and murders his family and other people. But then again, nurture versus nature… Which I have to say I am not completely sure it is nature. I feel that Frankenstein’s monster could be capable of being nurtured into an upstanding loving citizen, as shown through the part of him watching over the activities of that family. He grew to love, and when they did not love him he went out of control. I am not advocating that Frankenstein should have complied with his wishes, and I understand he was upset when he made the monster, but I do think he should have taken responsibility to look after him. Or attempt to. Also, it is not only his relationship with the monster and his way of running away when the going gets tough, there is just something else I do not like about him.

            Anyways, my favorite part in the whole book was how Mary Shelley shows you a bit of humanity in the monster as he grows to love and learns what is love. That is not to excuse his behavior later in the book; however, I like how she brings out the monster in him. Definitely not the Frankenstein story I was hoping for. But then again, maybe I just like clichéd stories.

Oh Rousseau, so poetic but almost to a fault. Throughout reading his discourse my opinion on his ideas changed between agreement and confusion at his claims. His statements on evolution morph between questions to statements that are incredulous to me. He says “how can scarcity drive men to cultivate the land unless the land is divided among them; that is to say, until the state of nature has been abolished?”  However, if man during his state of nature lived among wild animals (such as packs of wolves, or coyotes, or bears), in theory he would have had to learn about territory and division of land before interacting with other “humans”. As other animals mark and protect their territory, I assume it would have become apparent after sometime that the animals have their own space they don’t want taken away or trespassed upon. Man’s understanding of a division of land would have started with his instinct and understanding of how to survive amongst wild creatures and therefore would have developed an understanding of the importance of dividing the land.

I realize that there are faults in these thoughts, but I just can’t agree with his theory that the state of nature was as peaceful and calm as Rousseau depicts it because of the wildness of nature. He claims every other creature is exactly the same over the course of thousands of years and never changes, but how can mankind be just as much of a warm-blooded creature as the rest, and be the only animal to have evolved? Yes, humans have made huge leaps in evolution that make all the difference between us and wild animals, but contradictory to what Rousseau claims, an animal/species will change and evolve over the course of a thousand years (although minimally).

Rousseau has interesting thoughts to read, and I have enjoyed reading them but also have difficulty with taking him seriously after certain statements/claims he makes. Kevin, although I challenged you on your own blog post, after writing my own I understand what you were aiming for by deconstructing Hobbes and Rousseau’s theories of “laws”. Rousseau’s understanding of evolution has made me wonder if science has really changed so much of our understanding of the world today, then it did all those years ago.

After finishing Rousseau, I’m still not sure if I enjoyed reading his discourse. The poetic moments were a nice break, but don’t make up for some of his statements.

I have to say, Frankenstein was quite depressing.  Over the years, I’ve watched many adaptations, read many different versions, but the original story, while extraneously wordy at times was very depressing.  I found myself sympathizing with the monster at times and feeling repulsive at Frankenstein for his selfish actions.  Yet at the same time, I don’t find the monster innocent.

Frankenstein the Monstrous God?  Well that’s what Frankenstein did.  He played God and created life.  And some would argue, that like ‘God’ he released his creation into society and did nothing to help him.  Moreover, as much as Frankenstein may deny it, he had a fundamental role in shaping the monster into what he is.  For Frankenstein refused to even help the monster, attempting to destroy it.  Although his reasons were valid in a sense, they were motivated primarily by revenge.  Which kind of brings up how he could be any type of impartial god because he has emotions and is heavily influenced by them, but did not Zeus or Poseidon have emotions?  Thus, in a sense, Frankenstein was God of his monster, influencing almost everything that he did because of the way he created him and how he dealt with him.

The Monster, as he is known… the question that probably is most hotly debated is whether it is his fault or society’s fault or Frankenstein’s fault.  Well… I believe a lot of the blame is can be portioned to Frankenstein, but I am very aware that the monster made his own decisions.  The monster was kind, intelligent and at times, very compassionate.  However, he is also very vengeful.  The rage that led him to murder Elizabeth, William, Clerval and frame the murder on an innocent woman… That type of reasoning and decision making I detest.  Could not the monster have stood up against society’s taunting of him and did he have to succumb to the curse Frankenstein placed on him?  He had a choice.  While the choice may have been extraordinarily difficult and the manner of pressure placed upon the monster great, did the monster not admit he was monstrous?  It’s not a hard line evidence because just because he thinks he himself is monstrous doesn’t mean he is, but I find that although the monster, may have been born innocent, he certainly succumbed to society, to his curse to prove himself truly a monster.

That being said, I also think that society played a vital role in creating Frankenstein and The Monster.  Society, is the mirror that created the two monsters  Society at Frankenstein’s time made him push the limits, advance beyond what was deemed morally acceptable leading to him regressing his morals and creating life.  The Monster, was scorned by society, which reflected him as a monster, so much that the monster, became one in action and in appearance.

Comments are appreciated, sincerely,

Vincent

Frankensteinis one of those books that really just tugs at my heartstrings. It truly makes me upset reading it, almost to the point of tears. I read this a while back, and rereading it left me with the same emotions…

The reason I say this, is because the tale of the monster just is so heartwrenching to me. Although he causes so much destruction and devastation, it does not stem from an innately evil cause. It simply derives from a longing to be loved, to feel that another individual has some remote sense of care for you. I can’t consider the creature to be the true monster in this story, simply because he acts out due to an unsatisfied basic human desire; compassion and social interaction. He’s very comparable to a child, lashing out and misbehaving all to get attention. It actually makes sense, this analogy, as the monster is in his supposed youth when he begins to cause mass chaos, for he can think of no other way to deal with his emotions.

When we hear the creature’s account where he observed that loving family in the mountaintops, it truly evokes a very innate, natural sense of the need for companionship. All Frankenstein’s creature wants is love, yet the world cannot look past his grotesque external characteristics to see the individual inside. It truly portrays the shallow nature of humanity. In fact, it seems that Victor Frankenstein and all the others who abhor the creature are the true monsters. If they had merely put aside their external perceptions and focused on the truth of the matter, that the creature merely longs for affection, then no harm would have come to anyone. It truly speaks about human nature, and our pathetic judgment of others based solely on the most trivial things, such as appearance, religion, gender, etc. Frankenstein isn’t so much a story about monsters, but rather about the shallowness of humanity. I completely sympathize with the creature, although his actions are terrible, because not only is he cast out of society, he is made to feel like a demonic being. Can anyone blame him for reacting?

Although I don’t condone the actions of the creature, they are perfectly understandable, and I will always sympathize with him. He truly wasn’t the demon, but the society that shunned him. How can they blame him for what they started? He merely fought back against their mistreatment.

So…I had a nice conspiracy theory blog that I was just about to upload, then my laptop went and crashed on me, resulting in the complete loss of said blog, and rather than rewrite the damn thing, I decided to take a book analysis I did in high school (for this book, of course) and post it here instead. The whole thing is quite long though, so I just put in the more interesting bits, some of which is similar to my forever lost blog. So…here you go.

Although I consider the climax to occur at the time of the monster’s final speech, research into other sources points instead to the death of Elizabeth as the climax, with the final speech a part of the falling action. Despite this information, however, I firmly maintain my position that the climax does indeed occur at the end of the novel. My reasoning for this is that while the death of Elizabeth does mark the final nail on the coffin for the fate of Victor, the death of Victor and the monster’s vow of suicide marks the final nail on the coffin for the fate of anyone who undergoes the enterprise that Victor has pursued. It finalizes the cautionary theme of the entire novel, and is thus in my opinion the true climax of the story.

In general, the characterization in the novel is the weakest aspect of Mary’s writing. Though the characters themselves are round and moderately believable (probably more so in the time period this was written in), the problem is that virtually every person in the novel possesses the exact same character – in other words, they all have the same personality, but with varying circumstances that may illuminate one or more different aspects but still in the end derive off of the same archetype. This was a somewhat annoying deterrent to my enjoyment of this novel, though it wasn’t a major turn-off as the story focuses more on philosophical concepts than personal relations. In hindsight, I’ve considered the possibility that the reason for this severe lack of character variety is the resultant of a technique that Shelley utilized in order to highlight the fact that everyone possesses the potential to become like Frankenstein and his monster. If this is true, then I applaud her; I honestly doubt that it is though.

“Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect…Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me” (110).

After finishing the novel, I have come to this conclusion with regards to this allusion: Frankenstein’s monster is Adam, while Frankenstein himself is Satan. My reasoning for this is thus:

Frankenstein, in his creation of the monster, “polluted” the natural form of life. The knowledge of good and evil was forced onto the neutral existence, thus creating the unnatural monster – this is an allusion to Eve being tricked into eating the fruit by Satan. Upon seeing the hideous monster, Frankenstein, the rest of humanity, and eventually the monster itself abhors its appearance – this is an allusion to Adam and Eve wearing clothes because they did not want to be naked. After this point, however, the allusion becomes loose for one reason.

There is no parallel to God.

Because of this, the events themselves play out differently than in the biblical sequence (I may be wrong as I have not actually read the bible). It is not God that punishes Frankenstein/Satan for his misdeed, but rather his own knowledge and corruption that destroys his “Eden” of Geneva. The monster/Adam, having no God to guide it, is gradually tainted by the world and ultimately becomes evil even though it wishes to be virtuous. The tragedy of the story plays out when, at the end, having mutually destroyed each others’ happiness, Frankenstein/Satan dies in the cold hell of the arctic while the monster/Adam resolves to die in a hell of fire.

Being someone who does not believe in objective morality, I viewed Frankenstein and his monster as equal existences while I read the story. In my opinion, Frankenstein’s fatal mistake was not in creating the monster, but in his immediate rejection of it thereafter, which was the trigger that would eventually lead to the tragic conclusion. I consider the monster to be more justified than Frankenstein in his demands, but recognize Frankenstein’s reasoning in refusing to create another monster that he has by then designated as the source of his misfortune. It is here that this story becomes a true tragedy rather than a conflict of “good” and “evil.” Both characters are simply existences that are trying to gain happiness in their lives, who through unfortunate circumstances and misguided actions cause the unhappiness of all.

Reading something I wrote roughly a year ago makes me feel like my writing quality has degraded…oh well. Hopefully, my computer won’t crash next time.

Out of all the books that we’ve read so far in Arts One, and perhaps including the books that we have yet to read, Frankenstein is my favourite. I liked it for both personal and academic reasons. We’ve encountered various monsters throughout the various texts we’ve trudged through, but I think the creation in Frankenstein is the ultimate monster that dominates and eclipses the rest. He’s not the type of evil, seductive monster one would encounter in The Odyssey, or the raging feminist Medea, or the type of “good” monster that unites human beings together in Leviathan. In some ways the creation in Frankenstein is the stereotypical monster. We once agreed, as a seminar class, that the definition of a monster is an individual that is socially isolated, misunderstood by society, want to be accepted, yet use the wrong methods. I’d say Frankenstein fits this very definition, or stereotype, of monsters that exists in the educated mind (the less educated would say a monster is one of those boogeyman who hides in one’s closet, then jumps out at night).
Some people could arguably say that the Frankenstein’s creation is the monster in the novel, but I honestly never thought of it that way. I think Frankenstein himself is more the monster, but I’ll explain why later. Initially, I thought the name “Frankenstein” referred to the creation itself, and not the creator. Various cartoon series I used to watch when I was little made me think that way. In reality, “Frankenstein” was the creator. The novel never gives the creation any name, let alone call it “Frankenstein.” This somewhat influenced me to think that perhaps the creator, Frankenstein, is the monster- although, I admit, I have associated the word “Frankenstein” so much with a monstrous individual that my thoughts may be biased. Maybe there were no monsters! But to me, Frankenstein is the obvious monster.
Frankenstein, in some ways, represents society. We agreed in our seminar discussions that society’s expectations and norms give birth to monsters, who don’t quite fit into these regulations. Frankenstein was expecting a creation that resembled a human physically. What he failed to realize was that he had created a human emotionally, but that the creation was encaged in the physical body of a “monster.” Frankenstein only saw the physical side to his creation, and that was enough to repulse him. The creation itself represents the kind of social misfit who can’t fit in anywhere, and turns to destructive means. Many serial killers and notorious criminals could probably relate to Frankenstein’s creation, as well as those responsible for school shootings.
Another reason why I thought the creation outshined other monsters we’ve read about in Arts One was because while the other monsters showed some human characteristics, this monster was almost entirely human except in physical features. In other words, this was the most human monster we’ve encountered to date. I can use one word to describe this monster: haunting. Even more hauntingly beautiful than Caliban’s speeches in The Tempest. I think the last image the novel leaves us with has imprinted on my memory for indefinable reasons. There’s something so human about this monster that I can’t describe it, and something so pitiful and admirable that no words can express it. He’s human because he was born good, he wanted acceptance and couldn’t get it. He had a much purer and innocent heart to begin with than many humans I know nowadays, but because of his deformed features, he was doomed to be forever alone. Most people in such situations would probably go off on a murder spree without feeling an ounce of remorse, but this monster actually had a conscience. He lamented the death of Frankenstein when I probably would’ve celebrated the event. Frankenstein gave him nothing but a cursed existence, but the creation felt responsible for the death of his creator and offered to kill himself as compensation. It’s his love for humans and need for acceptance (a human trait) that ultimately killed the creation in the end.