Over the course of our lifetimes, we as individuals spend a large part of that time defining and understanding who we are. Although we like to believe that we have control over our own identities, a consequence of our social tendencies is that we inevitably take into account the way we are perceived by society as we attempt to define ourselves.
Frankenstein’s creature demonstrates his humanity as he ponders his own identity. Upon learning about the dynamics of relationships between family members and friends, he laments at his lack of any sort of human interaction. He claims that, “I had never yet seen a being resembling me or who claimed any intercourse with me. What was I?” (86). Although the creature makes his best attempts at assimilating into human culture by learning to read and speak, he is ultimately rejected by his “protectors”. Consequently, he begins to see himself as a monster and lashes out as such, burning down the De Laceys’ cottage and eventually killing Frankenstein’s loved ones.
While it may be argued that Frankenstein’s creature is a monster due to his violent reactions at being rejected, it is clear that the creature only begins to act like a monster once he starts incorporating society’s view of him into his own self-identification. Frankenstein’s monster, then, was a creation of not only Frankenstein, but of the rest of society.
I agree that incorporating societal viewpoints is important to the monster’s development, however, In his final declaration, he states,
“For while I destroyed his hopes, I did not satisfy my own desires. They were forever ardent and craving; still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me? Why do you not hate Felix, who drove his friend from his door with contumely? Why do you not execrate the rustic who sought to destroy the saviour of his child? Nay, these are virtuous and immaculate beings!” (Shelley 224).
The chief irony is the monster’s twisted recognition of the truth; after being universally rebuffed for his appearance, he sardonically refers to society as “virtuous and immaculate beings!”. It’s important to note that the monster’s anguish is due to his rejection from society; however, it’s more important to note his recognition of society’s flaws.
This makes me think about the tragedies that have happened recently during our lifetimes such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado or the shooting at the grade school in Connecticut. There are many more examples but sometimes these human beings are turned into monsters by the way they are treated in our society or by the way they react to things that go on in our world today and at one point they were good people but then were turned or affected in some way that made them sick or confused and hurtful to others. I think this story is very significant in today’s world and I like the point about how Frankenstein’s creation was not a “monster” until he reacted to the way that society saw him and treated him.
Your entry reminds me of the question my group discussed on Friday. It was about whether or not someone with a prosthetic limb or organ transplant was considered less than human. My group ultimately decided that no people as a whole don’t think of them as less human, however, depending on how that person was treated in social situations would determine whether or not he or she saw himself or herself as less than human, which I believe is what happens to Frankenstein’s monster.
I agree that Frankenstein’s creature was ultimately a product of his abandonment at birth combined with societal rejection. Undoubtedly this caused him to become the monster that ultimately was responsible for the deaths of many in his quest to take vengeance on Frankenstein. I think, however, that to blame only Frankenstein and society is to ignore an individual’s own ability to influence his/her destiny. Frankenstein’s creature is shown to possess acute mental faculties, and is presented as a well-spoken intellectual. Moreover, he is presented as a moral monster. He is said to be able to appreciate the grandeur of nature, and also claims that he was once good at heart. He, in my mind is at least partially responsible for allowing his good nature to be perverted. He clearly recognizes the immorality of his actions, but he is willing to do anything in order to hurt Frankenstein. There is no doubt in my mind that Frankenstein’s monster saw that no good could come of his evil actions, but he went ahead with them anyway. To me, he is just as responsible for the tragedies in “Frankenstein” as are Frankenstein and society.