photo credit |
First of all, Victor created his “demoniacal corpse,” as he
calls it, so he really should not be surprised by its rather grotesque
appearance. I think his reaction reveals much about his character. He spends
two years of his life in isolation, obsessed with creating new life.
Immediately after he is successful, he essentially throws everything away
simply because the Creature is scary looking. This reveals Victor to be
incredibly superficial and shallow, concerned only with aesthetics, not
ingenuity. Victor chooses to take life into his own hands, thus also accepting
the consequences of his actions. Throughout the novel, the audience discovers
the keen intelligence and good mannered nature of the Creature, despite his
outward appearance. By abandoning his creation, Victor fails to learn about the
successful aspects of his work until it is too late. Only after the Creature
experiences discrimination by the townspeople does he begin to act violently. I
argue that the Creature cannot be held accountable for his rage since he was
not taught acceptable behavior and is left to discover the ways of the world
completely on his own, in the face of adversity.
In many ways, Victor is symbolic of
humanity; Throughout time, humans have attempted to impose control over aspects
of life that should not be controlled, such as life itself. Victor exemplifies
this complex aspect of the human experience. It is no secret that people fear
the “Other,” or whatever strays from the social norm. The Creature looks like a “monster,” and therefore is
treated as such. It is only after he is introduced to humans that the Creature
becomes violent, a result of their negative reaction to his looks. The Creature
blames Victor for his plight, and in this way Victor is responsible for his own
fate and the fates of his loved ones. Shelley’s portrayal of the Creature as he
observes the De Lacey’s has more humanity than any characterization of Victor
in the novel. The Creature yearns to be accepted, but knows the only person who
will be able to see past his appearance is a blind man. He wants to impress the
De Lacey’s with his extensive knowledge and fine manners, but is not given the
chance. Shelley’s characterization of the Creature is both sympathetic and
tragic, and makes him relatable to the audience.
The Creature exemplifies many of
the good aspects of human nature, while Victor’s actions explore the bad. I see
Frankenstein as an allegory for the
detrimental effects of discrimination. The Creature has a brilliant mind and
good intentions, two human traits that are highly regarded. Despite this, he is
ostracized from society because he looks different. This novel is expertly
crafted to make this message obvious without preaching about the dangers of
prejudice. Victor symbolizes the aspects of human nature that crave control but
fear the unknown. I found Victor to be the most frightening character in the
story because he represents humanity, which is not exactly a compliment.
-Hannah Casey
-Hannah Casey
I think Hannah presents a great argument here in her blog, but more than that she presents a great question, which I think helps to speak to many of the underlying themes, conflicts, and motifs that Shelley intends to perpetuate throughout the novel. Today, many people have only been exposed to Frankenstein through various film versions and cultural references, and not through the novel itself. Therefore, many hold the misconception that the novel Frankenstein tells the story of a dangerous, deformed creature, which was created by a mad scientist playing God.
ReplyDeleteYet, I bet many would never expect a story in which they encounter the complex and fascinating minds of both the creator and monster, which will eventually tear their sympathies between the two. Shelley’s decision to use first person narrators to let the two main characters tell their own stories makes them really seem alive; their thoughts and feelings are so carefully constructed and rich in details that you immediately get drawn into their perspectives, often without noticing on which side you may align yourself with.
So, to my point throughout the whole novel we are left asking ourselves precisely the question Hannah purports: who is more of a monster? I don’t necessarily think Shelley intends for us to come to a definite conclusion, but rather I think she wishes for readers to see the blurriness of the boundaries, and ask themselves what this confusion speaks to about human nature.
I agree with you that Frankenstein is more dispicable than the monster in this novel, but I believe both of their motives for all their actions are incredibly "human". For instance, Dr. Frankenstein had no idea what he was capable of creating. It is also a tragedy that he did not allow himself a chance to get to know the creature that he created because of his assumptions that the creature was intrinsically bad. The way Frankenstein reacted when he saw how hideous the monster was says something about how humans generalize someone's disposition based on how they look. If you even look at examples in our own culture, we see how "bad" characters in children's movies and tv shows are portrayed as ugly, and how good characters are generally good looking.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the creature's reaction to his neglect -- his killing rampage and his dreams of having a companion -- are very human traits in that we see this happen to people who were neglected or abused as children. If a person is treated poorly by their parents they feel as if they are undeserving of love, which makes them lash out in violence. This is why the creature is more or less a sympathetic character -- because he is merely a child who got neglected by his father.