Topic: Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
Topic: What responsibilities did Victor, as the creator, have toward the monster?
Topic: Victor warns Robert that acquiring knowledge can lead to "destruction and infallible misery." What serious consequences may the acquisition of knowledge have?
Choose ONE of the topics above.
In your initial post, give your opinion and two examples from the text to back up your assertion. Also include a counterargument and how you'd address it.
Also post a reply to another student that includes intelligent discussion of the post they made.
Topic: Victor warns Robert that acquiring knowledge can lead to "destruction and infallible misery." What serious consequences may the acquisition of knowledge have?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have seen how the misuse of an abundance of knowledge has brought about destruction and dangerous consequences. Often times, when an individual has been blessed with am ample supply of knowledge, pride reveals itself, causing all thoughts of discernment to be put down, giving the pride in knowledge a direct path for destruction. Shelly writes of the dangerous consequences of misused knowledge through Victor's words, "Frightful must it be, for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavor to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world." This expression reveals Victor's fright in what he has now created through the repulsing effect of pride.
The reader can identify the pride of knowledge taking over in Victor's words, "So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein—more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation." Victor utters these words in Chapter 3 as he relays to Walton how his chemistry professor, M. Waldman, ignited in him an irrepressible desire to gain knowledge of the secret of life. Victor’s reference to himself in the third person illustrates his sense of fatalism—he is driven by his passion, unable to control it.
On the opposite spectrum, the light of knowledge can also be used for good when walked out in humility and respect. In Walton's first letter he writes, "What may not be expected in a country of eternal light?" This line encapsulates one of the main themes of Frankenstein—that of light as a symbol of knowledge and discovery. I believe that it truly depends upon the character of the one whom is obtaining knowledge and how they choose to use it, that brings about the result.
I agree with you. Sometimes when people have so much knowledge, there can be consequences. Also when the person knows how much knowledge they have, their pride becomes bigger, or they get a "big head". That being said, it is also good to have knowledge if it is used for good.
DeleteWell said. True of many things, it is the inner person who determines the outward expression of anything, be it knowledge or power, or any resourceful means; truly, knowledge is in the hand of the beholder ;).
DeleteI completely agree with your statement that "it truly depends upon the character of the one whom is obtaining knowledge". The effect of knowledge really does depend on whose hands it lies in, which is the exact reason Frankensteins creation turned horribly. I believe that those who are not prideful in their knowledge usually make better use of it. Those who are quick to boast and show off, create destruction.
DeleteTopic: Who is the real monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the real monster in the novel is Victor himself. It was his fault in the beginning for creating such a helpless monster, which later caused chaos throughout the town and the Frankenstein family. Victor's creation came to be helpless, confused, and lonely. All he really wanted was a companion to be with, and when Victor broke his promise to him, it made him angry. I think the monster was right to be upset with Victor, but maybe his revenge was a little too violent and personal. There is one point in the story when the monster tries to explain his feelings to Victor; he says, " I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?" (pg 80). This explains how miserable the monster feels, and that is why he acts harmful. Later in the conversation, the monster tells Victor that he should not feel sorry for the people. He says, "You, as my creator, would tear me to pieces and triumph; remember that, and tell me why I should pity man more than he pities me?" (pg 80). I think Victor does not treat the monster as well as he should have in the story.
Some people may disagree with this statement and think the monster is the monster in the story. They may think this because of all the evil he spread through town and how he murdered several innocent people. This is awful, however, it was revenge for Victor's rude behavior. Victor told the monster he would work on a new creation so he could have a companion, and then he scratched the whole project, leaving the monster sad and lonely. Also, the monster was treated so horridly in town because of his looks and first impressions, but when you get to know the monster, he really was innocent and kind.
I completely agree with your assessment. Victor was a creator who turned his back therefore making his creation lonely and having to fend for himself. Honestly considering he had no one to teach him anything except through a hole in the wall, he did incredibly well.
DeleteI agree with your response. I feel the same way that you do i=on this topic. I also believe that Victor is responsible for the "monster's" actions because the monster did not know any better.
DeleteI completely understand what you are saying. I too agree with you. Victor Frankenstein was very selfish in thinking only of himself. He shouldn't have turned his back on his own creation. A creation that started off of a hope/dream. I don't think that the monster would be the real monster in the story because, he was a victim. Him coming into this world wasn't by his own will, he was created by a man who didn't realize how much responsibility his actions would really be. Good job, i really enjoyed reading your discussion.
DeleteTopic: Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteWhile Frankenstein's monster was in fact a monster based on his actions of killing little William and the general rage and destruction he brought, he was not the real monster in Frankenstein. The monster was more of a victim of circumstance and rejection. He did not choose his life or the reactions of people around him, but he had feelings like anyone else and was destroyed by the harsh world. Victor on the other hand chose to create a life and then turn his back away from him. Victor also showed a "monster" side by going back on his word to create a companion for the monster. The only redeeming qualities that Victor had was that he realized that he caused all the misfortune that befell him at the hands of his creation saying, "William, Justine, and Henry-they all died by my hands." (Ch 22) Victor is human with a monster heart. He is able to be remorseful as the entire book shows, but he cannot find the compassion to help the monster. He created life and turned its back on it as "breathless horror and disgust filled my heart." (Ch 5) showing that he could not love something even if it was not beautiful. Victor shows how easily a human can become the monster.
For the people who say that the monster, instead of victor is the true monster, I can see where you get that. Although he was a victim he chose to act on impulse and anger which does give him claim to the title of "monster". I would say though that the monster, unlike Victor, was not raised. Victor was raised in a loving home that taught him right and wrong and he chose the wrong thing anyway. The monster was not taught right and wrong but had to figure it out for himself. I am not condoning his actions, but for someone who had to figure everything out on his own things could have been a lot worse.
I agree with this, as both are given agency, only Victor was given instruction between right and wrong, while the monster was left to his own interpretation.
DeleteTopic: What responsibilities did Victor, as the creator, have toward the monster?
ReplyDeleteOk I chose this one because I know this has a lot of different opinions and thoughts that stem from this question. This book draws a strong sort of twisted parallel to the bible and I want to first and foremost say that I am very very very glad that we humans cannot (apart from naturel means) reproduce life, and there is a very good reason why. I believe that there is a big difference between Victors responsibility in the novel and the responsibility of God to us. Victor Frankenstein, as he said himself was "blinded by power" and once the idea was in his head that he could create a being there was an insatiable desire born within him that made some things that would otherwise be grotesque and repulsive, almost satisfying. Because of this blindness there was no way that victor would have though or even seen the possibilities of this creature, to which I do believe he was responsible. And, in my opinion his responsibility began before the monster was even created - victor was absorbed by science (or "naturel philosophy) the opposite of his poetry loving friend Henry, and therefore disregarded morals in his quest of knowledge. I think this allowed him to easily remove himself from the situation upon the terror and scarring or that first breath. With a clear mind Victor might have anticipated the capabilities of his monster, and therefore save the world and himself from the imposing terror - or even upon the first repulsion and damage created by initial life, taken responsibility for its presence and done something to reverse his terrible mistaken instead of ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Even the author knows this, for it is the reason victor is constantly plagued with the murders of each of his loved ones, and his conviction not to create another. I know that some would like to draw a parallel between victor and the monsters relationship and that of God and humans; but there are substantial differences. The monster is just that, a monster, not a human. His creator was deeply flawed and not fit nor wise enough to take the responsibly of his actions. And secondly, I don't know how this was managed in the book, but humans are unarguably creatures of free will; I ultimately have the power to bend my will to those of authority or people around me, or to not. True, so did the monster - he was capable of love and rage, but he defiantly lacked a morality that would spare innocence and uphold what is right. In a way he was like a young version of his maker, the monster held a selfishness in him that justified his actions without thought or care to the consequences or affects.
Emma~
DeleteI thoroughly enjoyed your response to this question! First of all, your use of strong imagery and mature word choice meld beautifully~ you are a very gifted writer! I enjoyed seeing the comparisons that you made between God (the true Creator) and humans. How true it is that our human flesh can so easily become "blinded by power". These truths apply to many different areas of life~ a good reminder to keep seeking the Lord and not to become deceived by the want for power.
The point you made about how Victor and the monster are similar were really insightful. And I agree that if Victor had better judgement and clarity he could have foreseen this event, and even if he had created the monster anyway, he could have dealt with it much better, and he did react in a very human way, not at all God-like, in terms of compassion and responsibility.
DeleteTopic: Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the actual monster in Frankenstein is Victor Frankenstein himself. The "monster" was simply like a baby who did not know right from wrong, whereas Frankenstein was at an age and knowledge level where he should have been aware. Unfortunately, his interest in science was too high as he states "natural philosophy [was] the genius that regulate[d] his fate" (2.6). Furthermore, the monster after seeing the consequences that his actions caused, "his path of departure was free" (15.5) and he shy'd away from interacting with more humans. In essence, he removed himself from the situation. Frankenstein on the other hand, stayed around his family, interacting with the monster, agreed to make him a companion, all the more worsening things. Frankenstein was the real monster because he was irresponsible and destructive.
Some may say the the destruction the monster caused made him the real monster. He brought terror to people, killed people, caused insanity in others, etc. all characteristics of a typical monster. The difference however, is that his intentions were mainly pure. His desire was simply to become closer to humanity and gain acceptance, but everyones reactions to him were negative and made that impossible for him. Rather than seeing him as a monster, I look at him with sympathy.
Yes, the monster doesn't really enjoy killing. It's not like he does it because he likes it, necessarily. Victor, though, only changed for the worse after being a victim of tragic circumstances. I wouldn't say he inflicted this on purpose. I pity both the monster and Victor.
DeleteTopic: What responsibilities did Victor, as the creator, have toward the master?
ReplyDeleteVictor as the creator had a lot of responsibilities toward the monster. Victor had to look after him make sure that he is well equipped to face the crazy world everyone lives in. Victor was all caught up in his accomplishment of being able to create life that he didn't remember that he had to take care of it and make sure it was ok. The monster then feels this neglect and starts to feel all these other feelings he has never experienced before and he doesn't know how to deal with them.
Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteSince many so far have placed Victor as the monster, I'll try to argue for the monster being the true monster.
Before this, though, I am defining a monster by their moral inhibitions. Vengeful is understandable. Psychotic is not.
First off, you can say the monster was innocent of his actions because he didn't know better. But that's what's so scary about him. He is a being that could easily crush humans - at the time, before nuke technology - and he originally holds no moral restraints. Imagine if he hadn't learned about compassion and belonging in a family by the people of the cottage. Despite that, though, I know he can still go off like a ticking bomb if angered enough. See. "my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery. (16.1)."
It's not the monster's fault that he's a monster, but he's still a monster. Like an asylum tenant that murders people for staining his tie. If he hadn't off'ed himself, he'd have caused some sort of havoc elsewhere.
You could say the monster is simply a victim of circumstances. But that means Victor is also a victim of circumstance, or else that's hypocrisy. He is originally portrayed as a curious scientist before his experiment kills his loved ones, and the loss changes him. How is he supposed to know of the consequences? Scientists can't predict everything. And despite knowing that curiosity kills the cat, humans still contain that inhibition to probe and understand. "The world was to me a secret which I desired to divine. Curiosity, earnest research to learn the hidden laws of nature, gladness akin to rapture, as they were unfolded to me, are among the earliest..."
Very insightful response, most people have said that Victor is the monster and that the monster is the "good" one. You're right to say that Victor and the monster are both victims of circumstance, and I agree with you that the monster is still the monster of the story, (or at least, more monster-y than Victor), it was still his decision to do wrong, he was an intelligent being.
DeleteYou have an interesting point of view when you say "It's not the monster's fault that he's a monster, but he's still a monster." Yes, it is not his fault, but I wonder if he could change from his state as a monster into something better? Are you saying that he is trapped in his monstrous state? I don't know if I can agree with that. From what I saw, he learned from the cottagers and had the ability to change.
DeleteAlso, you bring up a really good point when you say that Victor is also a victim of circumstance. I did not think of that!
Topic: Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteThis question is quite interesting yet hard to decide as well. It is clear that both, the monster and Victor Frankenstein at one point were both monsters. The monster himself was not able to control himself and his emotions. He was not able to choose from what was good and what was bad because he didn't have a fully developed conscious like Victor did. Victor knowing that the monster has no idea of what could have been out in what we call "crazy world" turned his back on his own creation. The monster after feeling Victor's rejection angered. The monster was confused. The monster was like a child, with no parent or guardian but, with a body of a man. Victor should have been the monster's guidance and a father to this monster. Instead he was the total opposite. Things might have been different if Victor had taken responsibility over his very own actions. For example, "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"(ch.9), here the monster on his own is realizing that what he is doing is not the right thing . He's beginning to feel remorse. "There was non among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery", another example of what the monster had in mind.
Topic: Victor warns Robert that acquiring knowledge can lead to "destruction and infallible misery." What serious consequences may the acquisition of knowledge have?
ReplyDeleteThe pursuit of knowledge is a recurring theme in Frankenstein, and it is clearly the belief of Victor that knowledge only leads to pain. In a historical sense, that's true sometimes, but just as many times, knowledge leads to enlightenment and innovation.
Through knowledge comes inventions and innovations, but most of them can be used for both moral and amoral purposes. For instance, an invention like the guillotine has a great capacity to do evil, it was a way to execute, however the guillotine was also humane in some ways, without being too graphic, it makes the process of execution a lot less painful. It's the same way with something like the internet, the internet has a capacity for the mass spread of knowledge and social connection, however, it's also proved harmful when in the wrong hands with things like cyber bullying and viruses. Knowledge is power, and the acquisition of knowledge can lead to power, but it's how the power is used that determines everything.
When Victor creates the monster, he believes he's made a mistake, he's created something evil. However, the monster isn't evil, when he gets wood for the family, he clearly shows empathy. All the monster hopes is that " they would compassionate me and overlook my personal deformity” (133)." The monster becomes miserable and then destructive because he believes Victor has done an injustice to him, creating a creature with a capacity for love and compassion, but not allowing him to experience any of it. The monster remarks "I am malicious because I am miserable" (148).
It could be argued that knowledge is used primarily for bad and should be avoided, undoubtedly, if it weren’t for Victor’s thirst for knowledge, several deaths could have been avoided, and Victor’s life probably wouldn’t have been so depressing. But a better scientist would have used what Victor discovered to do good things in the world, and a better scientist would have treated and reacted to something like the monster much better. And I think that’s what Mary Shelley was trying to say, knowledge isn’t good or bad, what society and individual humans choose to do with it is.
Who is the actual monster in Frankenstein?
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of my fellow classmates see Victor as the monster, I see the monster as the real monster. Even though he is abandoned after being created, the monster does not have an excuse to murder the innocent as he does to Victor's family and his friend Clerval. Even though Victor breaks his promise to the monster, saying, "Begone! I do break my promise," the monster's acts of revenge are unwarranted (Ch 18, pg 180). The monster acts with hideous opposition to Victor by killing almost everyone he loves. Victor says, "One by one my friends were snatched away: I was left desolate" (Ch 21, pg 214). Because of the brutal acts that the monster inflicts, Victor feels enslaved and burdened by the monster for the rest of his life. In the end, the monster even admits that he became a monster when he says, "Evil thenceforth became my good. Urged thus far, I had no choice but to adapt my nature to an element which I had willingly chosen" (Chapter 22, pg 239). By seeing the transformation to evil in himself, the monster shows the reader his guilt in being the monster. The reader, by this point has a picture that the monster is surely the monster in this story.
Counterargument: The monster is only acting out of revenge to the man who abandoned him. He only wants to have "love and fellowship" (Ch 22, pg 241).
Response: Yes, the monster is acting out of revenge, but that does not mean that his actions are merited. He should have love and fellowship and it is a pity that no one gives it to him, but murder will not gain love nor fellowship. It gains just the opposite.
What responsibilities did Victor have towards the monster.
ReplyDeleteVictor was responsible for the monster because not only had he created it, but let it run rampant around the town and commit murders. Due to Victor's intense fear of his creation, he hides from it and lets it escape from his careful confines, (pg 42), when he flees his home in order to escape the monster. However, when William's death spurs him to return home to his family, he finds the monster again, (pg 80), once more feeling responsible for the horrid mess he inspired that had ended up ending lives.
A counterargument would of course be that Victor had no idea what he was creating and the effects it would have on himself and the people around him. He was completely unaware of the repercussions of his work and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the odds against him. However, the argument remains that Victor could've easily interpreted how this experiment would end and he had no right whatsoever to be as selfish as to create something that would be such a danger to those around him.
I like you point Emma! But I would like to know your opinion on how he could have solved his problem, since that was clearly his responsibility. Is it okay for the monster to be caught or killed if necessary? What other options might he have?
DeleteWhat responsibilities did Victor, as the creator, have toward the monster?
ReplyDeleteAlthough Victor found the monster to be grotesque, he still had many responsibilities as the creator. I think the list of responsibilities would mirror that of a parent to a child. He should have looked over it, but instead he was taken back by how ugly it was, and ran. He should have tried to nurture it, but instead he tried to push it out of his mind, and cursed the monster whenever he thought of it. However, as the creation, the monster should have tried to seek guidance from Victor, but instead saw him as a cruel creator.
What responsibilities did Victor, as the creator, have toward the monster?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this story, the first thing I thought was "why couldn't Victor try very hard to make the monster not ugly?". I mean, wouldn't the monster certainly agree to that? I think it was Victor's responsibility to try. Victor was a coward, he ran from the monster and everything he did, taking no responsibility whatsoever (ex. he was horrified with him right after he was created and fled). I believe that Victor should not have created a female monster (Demanded by the monster in Chapter 17), that would just make two of the problem and he had a responsibility to humanity to protect others from his creations. I do believe however, that he should have found a solution, there was options.
Counterargument: Yeah well, what could he have done? The monster was too strong and powerful and it is morally wrong to hurt him.
Answer: Like I said, I am sure the monster would have agreed to being beautified. At the last resort, the monster was killing, something not permitted under any law no matter what circumstances and so it is morally okay to stop him with force.