“I am malicious because I am miserable” (169).
The group that presented on Mary Shelly’s novel Frankenstein during Friday’s class period brought up a thought that I found very interesting. The group mentioned that in reading the novel, one could infer that many of the negative and violent traits Frankenstein’s monster possesses are characteristics that he learned from observing human behavior and interaction.
For example, Frankenstein gained the majority of his knowledge about human beings by watching Felix, Agatha, Safie, and De Lacey in the cottage. On the day he finally musters up enough courage to approach the old blind man, he is interrupted by the rest of the family, who are terrified by his appearance and chase him away. The monster also encounters an angry village mob and is shot at for trying to save a drowning girl. All of these instances, in a way, reinforce violent behavior to the monster. Now, take all that into consideration plus his lack of companionship, and it is easy to be sympathetic for this supposedly cruel creature.
So, the question I’m left asking myself after all of this is, if our humanity is what makes us human, what are we considered when we lose that humaneness during times of conflict like the people Frankenstein’s monster encounters? Are we less human? If not, then is Frankenstein’s creature really less than human?
As a response to your final question, I believe that Frankenstein’s creature truly was just as human as any other. His behavior and reactions, though eventually violent and accentuated by his increased strength and speed, were nothing short of human throughout the entire novel. In the beginning of his life, we get to see how a human might experience the world. To me, it was very interesting to see how Shelley attempts to describe a human’s first experience with his senses, and how he learns to integrate those senses to obtain an accurate picture of the world. Frankenstein’s creature also demonstrates his humanity in his desire for companionship, and his bitter sadness when he comes to the realization that he will never obtain that companionship. His reactions, though morally wrong, are understandable when one considers how difficult a life in solitude would be.
This is a very interesting point! All humans learn through observation, and from the moment Frankenstein’s creature comes to life, he is mistreated by humans. His creator, Victor Frankenstein, is repulsed by the creature’s appearance and immediately rejects him. As is often the case in broken families or families in which children are neglected, the “child” (in this case, the creature) grows up to be destructive and reclusive and is not properly socialized. People are repeatedly violent towards the creature, which as you said, only reinforces a cycle of hostility and aggression. How else is the creature supposed to act, if this is all he has known? This calls upon the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate, and as I see it, strongly illuminates and supports the nurture side of it. We care for others as we were cared for, and in the creature’s case, this makes for an inevitably bleak and unsuccessful integration into society.
In considering what defines humanity, we should recall “Robot Dreams” and the ideas of its universe. As opposed to humans, robots – as stereotypically and traditionally imagined – operate with a single focus or purpose, their functions controlled by so-called “cold, hard reason;” humans, however, experience emotions and often see them blur their logical faculties. Hence the phrase “to err is human.” In context of Frankenstein and his creation, Elvex deems himself human because he errs: he dreams; he feels weary; and he identifies himself as what he isn’t. Isn’t Frankenstein’s creation human because he feels and acts so strongly as a result of his emotions? Does he not dream as humans do? Experience fatigue, isolation, and want of companionship? All of these actions and feelings represent social markers of being human. Frankenstein’s creation, then, resembles a human being and not a monster, robot, or whatever other stigma his creator lambasts him with during the novel. Regarding comments about his impassioned use of violence, I refer to the aforementioned phrase (“to err is human.”) If rage and sorrow move Frankenstein’s creation to violence, is he not more human? Like a child lashing out for attention, he merely expresses his discontent and thereby reacts to his challenging circumstances in a very human manner.
With your definition of human, I would think that Frankenstein’s creation was indeed human. The creature was not always compassionate, but neither were the rest of the characters, as you noted. In general, both the creature and humans in the novel used violence in times of negative emotion, such as fear and unhappiness What I found most interesting from your post was questioning if we are less human when we are not acting in humane ways. Even though both the humans and creature acted violently, we would traditionally only classify the creature as being less of a human because of this. If I considered classifying the people as less human, my mind immediately would travel to dehumanization. Many negative ideas accompany dehumanization for me, such as the Holocaust, and lessons never to take away what makes another human. Why is it that we are so quick to dehumanize Frankenstein’s creation, but considering dehumanizing the villagers seems wrong?