In this novel, as in many Romantic texts, unspoiled nature provides the major uplifting counterpart to the troubled world of humanity. Currently, though, the scientific question about altering life forms through genetic engineering is focused on nature more than on humans: though cloning and related technologies are being debated, large percentages of agricultural crops are already genetically engineered. How does this novel enable or encourage us to think about these issues?
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is definitely a cautionary tale of science gone wrong. Science can be a fulfilling yet dangerous filler for our curiosity. Victor intentionally plays God, saying, "Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world." When Victor brings the monster to life and "the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [Victor's] heart," killing his scientific desires. While he should have been happy his experiment worked, Victor is tortured with the consequences of his decision to pursue this type of science, saying "I was seized by remorse and the sense of guilt, which hurried me away to a hell of intense tortures, such as no language can describe." He knows he crossed the line and can never take it back. Victor finally realizes his mistakes and tells Walton, "how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” A constant theme is nature versus science, as well as God versus man. Can anyone just enjoy their humanity or do we enjoy playing God? Why as humans, do we feel the need to have more power over our own lives and world than we actually have?
It has been said that this novel is about two monsters, or two victims: Victor Frankenstein and his hideous creation. What are the similarities or parallels between the two? What are the differences?
Frankenstein and the Monster both have a thirst for knowledge. Victor says, "I had begun life with benevolent intentions and thirsted for the moment when I should put them in practice and make myself useful to my fellow beings." His professor calls the books Victor has been reading "nonsense" which gives Victor the desire to learn more. The Monster compares himself to Adam while reading Paradise Lost by John Milton, identifying himself more with Satan. Frankenstein and the Monster are only happy when they are blissfully ignorant. Victor says of his happy childhood, "Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest sensations I can remember." The monster is the happiest working for the people at the cottage, saying, "My spirits were elevated by the enchanting appearance of nature; the past was blotted from my memory, the present was tranquil, and the future gilded by bright rays of hope and anticipations of joy." After the people at the cottage shriek at his appearance, The monster wants Victor to create a female counterpart for him, like God giving Eve to Adam, so he won't be "alone and miserable." When Victor denies his request, he plots revenge against his creator. After the murders of his brother and his bride, Victor walks around telling us he has caused himself and the ones he loves constant misery. They both have god complexes, believe they have more power than they actually have. The monster tells Victor, "You are my creator, but I am your master—obey!"
Some critics argue that the text offers no strong female roles. Do you agree? Does it offer any strong male roles? Which ones, and how? (Note: this question may lead you to investigate the term “strong” in this context.)
Victor describes the women in his life by their looks first, and rarely their personalities, so it is hard to tell if they are role models o not. Elizabeth Lavenza, Frankenstein's cousin and future bride, is the antithesis of his monster and described by Victor as "delicate," beautiful, and "sweet." She is usually brought into a scene only when Frankenstein needs her to comfort him, wanting his opinion, but never offering hers. We don't to get to read or see what she is thinking except for a letter to Victor she wrote about their upcoming nuptials and only then she is offering Victor advice, telling him if he marries her, she "shall need no other happiness." When Victor tells Elizabeth of his "dreadful secret," she still marries him when she should have been appalled at his behavior. Justine, the martyr, is described by Victor as "blooming in the loveliness of youth and health." A strong role model is someone who is a brave protagonist, who learns a valuable lesson from their mistakes and takes accountability. Victor learns from his mistake, but only at severe consequences and he lets Justine die without telling the truth about his monster and doesn't take responsibility for the monster either. I do not think he is a strong role model.
Although it might invite discussion of social and scientific questions, this novel tells a story rather than posing those questions or expounding upon them. What are the advantages and disadvantages to our discussion created by the novel’s form? Could a piece of non-fiction engage the same kinds of questions in the same way?
This novel is thought provoking because it leaves its message open for interpretation and Shelley's words might have changed the world, making people think about Darwin's theories of Evolution versus Creationism. Everyone will have a different reaction to this novel, based on their own personal beliefs and history. It's nice to hear mind opening thoughts and conclusions from people who might catch something that I might have not understood from reading and interpreting the novel on my own. One of the main lessons from the novel is "Just because we can, should we?" Someone in our class liked Victor's actions to a "hit and run accident" saying, "It's not what you do, but why you do it" and asked "Do we as a society create monsters?" I don't think non-fiction would engage the same kinds of questions, because we as a society tend to judge real events more harshly than fiction and our society is a "cycle of creation and destruction."
If Frankenstein’s monster were less horrifying to behold, would the plot lose its terrifying force? That is, what elements are truly horrible here: the fact of recklessly created, unnatural life, or the fact of its hideous appearance and acts?
I think the horrifying image of the monster is what pulls the moral of novel together, because Victor needed to realize he made a mistake in trying to create life from spare parts. When Victor brings the monster to life and "the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart," killing his scientific desires. Victor is the true monster of the book and the true horrifying thing, because if he had shown the monster love, the monster would have had a peaceful existence. If the monster hadn't been rejected by his creator and criticized for his looks in the first place, the monster would have lived a happy life in society and there would not have been any conflict or turmoil. The monster was brought down by his looks, something he could not control, and chose to try to gain control through his creator
No comments:
Post a Comment