I think it’s interesting how in pop culture nowadays, a large portion of the population actually associates the name Frankenstein to be a monster himself, instead of identifying him as the creator of the monster. This irony brings into question the idea that even though genetically and naturally, Victor is technically the human, he presents more robotic and monster-like traits than the actual “monster”. So what makes someone a human? An essential quality of humanity is the ability to form connections, and we do that by communicating in various methods that lead to relationships, both positive and negative. The monster demands of Victor, “‘Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains—revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food!'” (121). Once the monster began to learn more of language and knowledge in general, he realized his loneliness, and this desire to have a mate, to form that kind of connection, is innately human. Though eventually his only connection to another being becomes one of anger and revenge, that is still some form of a relationship. When Victor dies however, the monster claims that “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on” (166), and this shows exactly how his one connection to Victor had been sustaining his humanity. He can not LIVE without some other connection, and the essence of “living” itself is another uniquely human quality when compared to simply “surviving”.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Andrew Marriott on Juxtaposition of Stories
- Andrew Marriott on Juxtaposition of Stories
- John Bogdon on Murakmi’s Visual Foreshadowing; Paying Homage to Michaelanglo’s Artistic Antics
- Imani Gaines on Binaries in Hard-boiled Wonderland
- Weslyn Lu on Binaries in Hard-boiled Wonderland
Archives
Categories
Meta
Your final point was very interesting to me in that human beings are ultimately social creatures, forming connections based on interactions with other human beings. Without creating these connections with others, a human would not learn to communicate, or adapt to his environment in a way that is conducive to “living” as opposed to “surviving.” Surviving implies maintaining oneself based purely on instinctual behavior, which the creature could have easily done if he had not come across other human beings. However, by shadowing the Delaceys and developing an understanding of human culture from them, he is given the opportunity to “live” in his own mind.
Point well made — monstrosity is absolutely subjective. The family the ‘monster’ watches and the villagers in the town he stumbles upon are revolted by his exterior without giving him a chance to behave in a moral way. The novel sets up the question of whether or not society shapes particular members, those who are outcasts, into sociopaths? The creature was thrust into a world where he was doomed to become a monster based on people’s presuppositions about exterior appearance.
I think your title is a perfect summary of what your main focus in this post was–that perhaps Frankenstein and the creature are both partly monsters, and similarly both partly human. The monster side of the creature seems to come primarily from his outward appearance, while the monster side of Frankenstein is more concealed in his refusal to befriend the monster. On the other hand, the human side of the monster is the side more concealed, where the creature demonstrates its humanity through its desire for social interaction; the human side of Frankenstein is obvious in that he possesses physical human traits. I agree with your characterization of this relationship between the two as ironic–while Frankenstein may appear more obviously human to the naked eye, perhaps it is the creature who is actually more human in that the creature seems to desire social interaction more than Frankenstein does.