Fear of Ourselves

In class, Professor Schwartz brought up the idea of evil that is hidden and insidious, rather than overbearing and consuming as it is portrayed in modern-day pop culture. The scary stories of the past were frightening because the unnamed terrors in them were often reflections of us. Why are we so terrified of murderers, serial killers, or cannibals? Because they make us afraid of ourselves – if they could commit such crimes, what are our tipping points? The monster is a reflection on the darker nature of Victor, and on the murderous potential of humans. I believe Shelley purposely chose to make the monster nameless as a statement on the parts of ourselves that we do not know – the little devil on our shoulder. Readers sympathize with the monster, finding some of our own insecurities in his narrative. However, he shrouds his petty murders by using our empathy. 

The monster likens himself to Lucifer in their shared loneliness and isolation. They are also similar in that they question authority, but they act on their defiance in questionable ways. The monster uses human lives as bargaining chips in his bitter war against his creator. The monster is also constantly shown as some sort of child, confused about the world and its ways. In this sense, he is innocent and does not have any prejudices. However, he is also like a child because his decisions are brash and morally ambiguous - perhaps the monster is a physical representation of Sigmund Freud's idea of the id.

Nature of Isolation

   Frankenstein’s Monster laments, “I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me; I tried to dispel them, but sorrow only increased with knowledge. Oh that I had forever remained in my native wood, nor known nor felt beyond the sensations of hunger, thirst, and heat” (101)! The story that the Monster paints for Frankenstein is, purposely, a story of human’s thirst for knowledge and acknowledgement—and the doom that comes with it. Like Adam, tasting the forbidden fruit is what leads to the fall of man. But, as Monster points out, at least Adam had a lovely lady to share misery with. Monster is left in total isolation, and worse loathed by people. His creator fated his creation’s despondent loneliness by creating, as Monster describes, “a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust... my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance” (111). I found that the saddest part of Monster’s ill-fate, is the complete self-awareness he has of people’s negative (and violent) reactions to him. When he speaks to the old, blind man whose family he had been observing, he describes the prejudice he feared his friends had against him, even though he was kind and beneficial (114). His crushed hopes in humanity, lead him further into isolation. This begins his descent into violence and vengeance, which he enacts after being rejected for a woman by his creator. In a classic case of “if you can’t join them, beat them,” Monster spreads his unhappiness, tormenting his creator and killing the woman who Frankenstein felt a duty to protect. Finally, Monster waits for what he believes to be the only way to overcome the depression that accompanies the gain of knowledge—death.

   The tragedy, I find, in Frankenstein is that Monster learned about violence and prejudice, it was not in his nature. Man drove him to desperation during Monster’s search for some meaning in life. But because of the rejection of his fearsome exterior, they hardened the softy that was inside. In his quest for love, which is given to all creatures by their creators (parent-child, God-humans), he only found hate and rejection.

Thirst For Knowledge

        Throughout the story Shelley portrays knowledge as dangerous. This danger is most obviously and clearly exhibited in Victor’s knowledge about creating life. Despite however this focus on knowledge and its dangers, secrecy is ever-present in this tale; the inherent lack of knowledge that secrecy creates is also demonstrated to be dangerous in this novel.  The danger of absent knowledge is shown in the Death of Henry. Perhaps if he had known about the monster and about Victor’s reason for the voyage he could have saved himself.  Similarly, if on the wedding night Victor had not kept the existence of the monster from Elizabeth, she would have known to be cautious; perhaps if Victor had not kept knowledge of the creature from her, she would have saved herself.  Furthermore, Victor keeps his secret of animation from the creature by thoroughly disposing of the female creature.  In doing so he prevents the creature from creating his own mate and appeasing his desire for companionship. The creature’s continued lack of knowledge in turn causes the death of Elizabeth.  Through the continued negative presentation of both possessing and not possessing knowledge it seems that Shelley is telling the reader that it is not knowledge or this lack of knowledge that is dangerous. It seems she is alternately suggesting that our human thirst for knowledge is dangerous.  

What is the root of Frankenstein's melancholy?

On page 164, Victor Frankenstein confesses his actions to his father. After Henry, Justine, and William have all died, he proclaims that he would "a thousand times... have shed [his] own blood, drop by drop, to have saved their lives." This is the root of Frankenstein's gloom. He loved his family dearly, and they were good to him. They were completely innocent, and had no hand in their own deaths. Their murders were one hundred percent the fault of Victor. Later, when Elizabeth is murdered as well, Victor's pain is even greater. He wonders if he can even survive, feeling responsible for the deaths of his family.

But how guilty, really, is Victor? Certainly he had no intention of creating a monster. He wished only to create a being of intelligence and beauty - not a killing monster. One may argue that he achieved his goal. His monster has complex feelings, and is capable of abstract thought. He wishes only to be loved, and in a sense, is just as beautiful as Victor on the inside. What, then, is the pivotal part where Victor becomes guilty of his family's deaths? I argue that this happens not when he creates the monster, but when he refuses the monster's needs and desires.

After creating the monster, Victor immediately abandons him. He screams in terror at the sight of his creation and runs away. Later, he refuses the monster's only request, that he make him a mate. This is what turns the creature into a monster. In the end, Victor is guilty of his own grief. His actions have led to the demise of his family, and ultimately himself. By refusing to take responsibility and care for his own creation, he has bred a wretched creature that can only have one desire: revenge for his own wretched state.

Frankenstein: How A Satire on Chivalry Hides So Well From A Narcissistic.

The creature was determined to see Victor suffer on his wedding night after it saw him tore to pieces what could have been its only hope for solace until the end of time. Victor, convinced that he was in the right for refusing to grant the creature its wish, was ever more adamant against a misery he brought on himself. Completely absorbed in his own interpretations of events, Victor was unaware that it would be Elizabeth, not him, who would “die and at once satisfy and extinguish [the creature’s] malice” (147). It is undeniable that, in a sense, hubris had the best of Frankenstein, as the pride in his own “righteousness” led him to believe that the evil’s retaliations would be directly upon him, not Elizabeth, and that he shall be remembered as a great guardian whose passing would sorely be missed:

“The prospect did not move me to fear; yet when I thought of my beloved Elizabeth, of her tears… when she should finer her lover so barbarously snatched from her, … I resolved not to fall before my enemy without a bitter struggle.” (147)

                Time and time again, we would see Victor expressing the inner turmoil equal in magnitude with that of a martyr. He feared his death would leave Elizabeth devastated, as noted earlier. He contemplated and weighed the horror that would fall upon his reunion with Elizabeth against her joy of seeing him.  And he wondered if he should be present to bring her joy only to rob it away from her in a length of a breath. Cumulatively, the times Frankenstein lost in these undeniably chivalrous thoughts stand in sharp contrast with the effort he took describing his very reunion with Elizabeth itself. The wedding ceremony lasted a paragraph (170); their honey moon spent on the sea lasted a few pages (172-73); and Elizabeth’s death less than a page (173).

Clearly, Mary Shelly has cleverly voiced her opinion against frivolous chivalry mindset that pre-occupies the sub-consciousness of not just Frankenstein, but – in the social context of her own time – also of men who think of their women as something merely “so worthy” of their love (173). Would this include Shelley’s own husband? It must be noted that it is Percy who wrote the Preface of this novel. Surely he must have gone over the final chapters thoroughly and realized this subtle satirical message of his wife. But, if we were to take into consideration the fact that Percy is a narcissistic – a point of discussion in class last week, it is possible that Percy himself has also let hubris get the best of him, and that this novel is perhaps the finest satire on chivalry ever made it out alive to the fine print.

The Modern Prometheus and the Unpunished Epimetheus

As a cautionary tale, Frankenstein serves to terrify and repulse; what if we were to take technology too far and give life to something that we could not control, which we hated and regretted creating? While Mary Shelley wants us to empathize with and pity the creature, the creature is still a violent being, who has murdered people in cold blood. He might excuse himself as acting on the rejection and repulsion of others but he has committed horrible crimes. The creature serves as a great warning – as an almost impenetrable and sentient force, impossible to avoid and capable of feeling emotion. What happens when we do things without considering the consequences? 

This issue is particularly relevant in the United States, where we tend not to rely on the precautionary principle, but rather blindly blunder forward until we confront accounts of harm or injury. Shelley has provided us with a tale of what a lack of foresight will bring us. Relevant to this tale is that of Epimetheus and his brother Prometheus; Victor serves as Epimetheus, lacking the foresight to save a positive quality to give to man, while the creature serves as Prometheus, suffering the consequences for Epimetheus. Throughout the tale, while the warning may be clear, Victor is never truly labeled as culpable for his actions – he avoids blame and the creature’s existence is never revealed to the general public. The creature is the one that suffers from Victor’s selfish actions – he is distraught, rejected, and pitiable – finally resorting to self-immolation as a means to escape his wretched existence.

Nature Vs. Nurture

     The question and debate of nature vs. nurture is ever present in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Not only is the question applicable to the way the monster was treated, but it also speaks to modern technologies and medicine. Is there a moral dilemma in cloning animals or regenerating body parts? Where does society draw the line in what scientific processes are considered too unnatural?

     In addressing the question of nature vs. nurture in regard to the monster, it is fairly clear that Shelly's story argues that nurturing has a greater effect than nature. Throughout the story, I kept wondering to myself 'what if Victor hadn't acted so horrifically to the monster originally?' or what if all those who saw him and were abhorred by the monster's grotesque exterior didn’t treat him with such distain? The monster was self-aware from inception and was driven to commit evil crimes because of a lack of connection and affection from his selfish and weak creator. 

     Personally, the ending of the novel left me to reflect on the morality and dangers of the direction of modern science. After all of the reflection and thought, I still cannot come to a definitive conclusion as to where the line should be drawn. Just like Frankenstein's wish to be able to bring those from the dead back to life, much modern science is aimed at bettering peoples lives. However, there must be a point at which it goes too far. I was left wondering about the next 50 years of modern medicine. With advancements in genetic manipulation, it seems as if we are headed away from natural relationships and toward calculated and scientific creations. The trend is seemingly becoming more similar to the relationship of creator and creation rather than parent and offspring.

A Damaged and Hateful Heart

By the end of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein I was torn between sympathizing with Victor or his monster. Undoubtedly both were wretched creatures with a wretched existence, but who had it worse? The monster's grotesque and unlovable form was a sentence worse than death that committed him to a disturbing resolve to impress upon his creator the same damning fate Victor impressed upon him. After all Victor's loved ones fell at the monster's hand, Victor made a similar vow saying, "...to pursue the demon who caused this misery, until he or I shall perish in mortal combat. For this purpose I will preserve my life ; to execute this dear revenge will I again behold the sun..." (220). Both the monster and Victor, in the wake of pain and hate, resolved to sooth their agony with the blood of the other. These vendettas illustrate Frankenstein's and his monster's similar nature to void the conscience and commit oneself to evil as the monster eloquently describes, "I had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in the excess of my despair. Evil thenceforth became my good" (238). Unfortunately the sweet solace they thought revenge would bring turned bitter. Upon Frankenstein's death the monster laments at his wrong doing as he says "No guilt, no mischief, no malignity, no misery, can be found comparable to mine. When I run over the frightful catalog of my sins, I cannot believe that I am the same creature whose thoughts were once filled with sublime and transcendent visions of the beauty and the majesty goodness" (239). This is where the real horror of Mary Shelley's story is found; how easily a benevolent creature, like Frankenstein's monster, can be scorned and transformed into a vessel of a hate and disdain. Equally frightening is that a monster such as this, contemptuous and angry, is necessarily going to spread his evil. This ability to adopt evil and infect others with it is the most terrifying theme in Frankenstein.

Role of Emotions

The role of emotions in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is very prominent throughout the book. Victor continually becomes overwhelmed with extreme emotions. The first example of this is Victor’s obsession for his academic studies. He says he quickly masters the material because he abandons his social life and focuses his life solely on Chemistry. Next, he creates the monster and, after the sight of it, becomes physically sick from guilt. While this occurrence is not unreasonable, it is improbable that someone becomes physically sick over an emotion such as guilt. Similarly, Victor becomes sick when he realizes that the monster has killed his friend Clerval at the end of the novel. In both cases, and in many more less significant examples, there is a direct link between guilt and sickness. Why would Shelley include these physical reactions to guilt in her novel? One answer may be that it was included as a tool through which she augmented the severity of Victor’s emotions. While this is possible, it is not very plausible due to the frequency of occurrences. It is more likely that Shelley used these physical reactions to convey to the reader that Victor may not be mentally stable. Beginning with his obsession and quickly leading into extreme guilt, Victor seems to display qualities of an emotionally unstable individual.