I read Frankenstein for the first time. (It is so interesting to see how the literary canon differs from country to country, I haven't read any of the novels or poems before. And I also don't know a lot of the references which are made). I always thought that Frankenstein is just a spooky horror-story...I even do not know how the story ends except that the monster somehow turns against its creator. I have never seen a movie about it and my only associations with this topic were the green-skinned, tall monster and 'never try to play God - it will come to a bad end'. And I also thought that Frankenstein would be the name of the monster.
Now, everything changes. Surprisingly, the monster does not eat meat! Yesterday evening/night I read the chapters about the monster's first winter in the little shed close to the poor family. And I was deeply moved by the description. The monster seems to be so innocent, so kind, so helpful. He (and here I knowingly say 'he' instead of 'it' as he shows a lot of human chracter traits and acts very human: he can feel sorrow, pity, joy etc.) feels pity for the family, tries to help them by collecting firewood. He tries to find a way to become part of the family, and so he learns the language and how to read. In all his behavior he is like a little child, eager to learn more about the world. And at the same time, he is more than a child as he can already reflect on why people fear him. He is lonely and he knows why. He is othered and longs for community and love. This makes me so sad.
And I wonder how he will change, what will happen to him that he becomes a monster. Is it because of his lonelyness, his otherness? What is it that transforms an almost human being (related to the behavior, not to the outward appearance) into a beast? In how far is Victor responsible for this changing, is he alone to blame for it? Did Victor made him a monster?
I can't wait to read more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I adore this post. The question of the creature’s humanity/inhumanity, which is addressed so frequently in the novel, resounds with me emotionally. I even tweeted about it the other day, asking “Is the creature human?” and “What is it, according to Shelley, that makes someone human?” I can’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, questions that are addressed frequently throughout the genre science fiction, but perhaps I can write about them a bit in hopes of making a decent response to your wonderful post.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you mention what I think is an often overlooked point: you refer to the creature as “he,” not “it.” I can’t criticize you for this—I’m almost certain that it’s been done before—but I do think that your action points to a somewhat intrinsic human belief that the creature is somewhat human—quasi-human, if you will. But why do we think this?
Although the creature is proportionally larger than a human, he is still made in the image of a human; as a result, he walks like a human. More importantly, he displays human qualities in his ability to use language, our own in fact. Is language not the thing that undoubtedly makes us human, at least in the confines of this planet?
The most important thing that you point, in my opinion, out is the creature’s ability to feel pity for the family—in other words, his ability to emphasize. The late-great science fiction author Philip K. Dick would argue that the creature’s ability to emphasize would qualify him, at the very least, as human (as opposed to as a human ‘being’). Perhaps the creature is human without actually being a human being.
But is all of this enough? Do the creature’s human qualities count enough in his favor for us to classify him as human? As I said earlier, I don’t propose to know the answers to these questions, and for that reason, I think they are worth thinking about for the remainder of the semester.