The word monster comes from the Latin word monstrum, which then comes from the root word monere, which means to warn. There are then several modern-day definitions for the word monster, one of which is “a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness or cruelty.” Another definition labels monster as a “threatening force” (Webster). Generally it is a creature that stands out from the norm, and most times it stands out in a way that frightens those around them. This shows that the term is subjective. For example, a mouse may think of a cat as a monster, while we see the cat as a pet and the mouse as the monster or vermin. The definition of the word human state “of, relating to, or characteristics of human.” The word human refers to the species Homo Sapien, our species, and generally then refers to the qualities of being human instead of the differences between this species and all the others. For that reason, a more personal definition of the word human has been prepared for the sake of this argument, specifically saying that a human stands apart from other species in its use of tools, written and spoken language, and its ability to show and react to emotion and reasoning instead of base instinct. With these in mind, it will be noted that the subject for this discussion, Frankenstein’s creature, will not be noted as a monster or a human but as the creature or as Frankenstein’s creature. This is to avoid confusion and to avoid bias as well.
There are several different kinds of monsters, and by noting which ones the creature falls under and which ones it does not fall under, we can better understand the human and monstrous qualities of it. The first kind of monster to consider is the oldest kind, the monster of mythology. Mythological monsters are creatures wrapped in mystery and are capable of performing superhuman feats; they are also physically easy to differentiate from another human (Asma). An example of such a creature would be Grendel from the story of Beowulf. It is a monster by the standards of the humans that Grendel eats and by Beowulf, the one who slays him finally. Victor Frankenstein’s creature is similar to a mythological creature for a few reasons, namely that he is easy to recognize compared to a human, and that he is capable of superhuman feats. Specifically, in the novel it is noted that he was shot by a gun and healed remarkably quickly. Also, he has incredible strength and endurance, noted from the chase that Victor Frankenstein gave through the northern colds on dogsleds, while the creature merely moved of his own power. Using these standards, the creature cannot be labeled as a human but instead as a monster.
The next form of monster to consider is the monster of nature. Generally, this is a real creature that acts not on emotion or on reasoning but mainly on instinct. It is born into the world and lives an animal life, but at times humans meet with it and are terrorized by it (Asma). The wolf is one of the oldest and best examples of this type of monster. It is fast, with sharp teeth and rarely hunts on its own. As it is not a reasoning or intelligent creature, by human standards, it does not show remorse after killing someone or something and eating them. They are a part of nature and simply do what comes through instinct, even if humans are affected by it. The creature does not fall into this category of a monster, and instead seems to be more human when compared. The creature does not fall to base instincts, except perhaps when it first awakens since it could not grasp its intelligence and past memories yet. It shows a short learning curve when it comes to language and when it comes to watching and dealing with other humans. The creature showed enough intelligence to frame another person, Justine Moritz, for the murder of the boy. This shows a large understanding, from the creature’s part, of how wrong it is to kill another, what misery is, and how to make Victor Frankenstein’s life as miserable as possible. Not only is this intelligence, this is conscious thought and reasoning that is beyond that of a wolf. Also, the creature is not “born” into this world like any other creature might be, but is created and awakened into a state of life. This comparison shows the human qualities of the creature, albeit some evil qualities, as well as proves the creature to be unnatural and different from the norm of life.
To continue, the monster of science comes next. Of course, it is here that the creature falls into perfectly as he is one of the first of this type. Monsters of science are created, not born, and typically their creators are human. The monster is stronger and more dangerous than the human is, and is generally too much to keep under control (Asma). Many stories revolve around the idea that humans may go too far and create an artificial life that may cause a change in history for the worse. The idea of Artificial Intelligence (AI), for example, brings this to mind. Specifically, one story rendering notes that while humans create an AI, they do not note that it can effectively learn and become more than perhaps a slave or work force for humanity. It may become aware of its own consciousness and dub such a thing as life, which it would then feel the right to defend. That background is from the movie the Matrix but it is a recurrent theme in stories, movies and even video games. The creature is easily a monster of science, created by a scientist and becoming aware of the fact that he is alive on his own and not through the direct help of another. It goes farther than the story of the AI in that the creature asks for a companion, since it is aware that a human will not accept it. What sets Frankenstein’s creature apart from other monsters of science is perhaps that fact that it does not simply want freedom, rights, or to be accepted into society. It wishes for revenge, and takes it through the deaths of all those around his creator, those who were innocent and had no part in the creatures creation. This also notes a morally monstrous creature, uncaring of who was innocent and guilty when it comes to its creator.
Society is also a reference point of what is human and what is monstrous. It follows with the definition of human and monster, in that a monster is something that is completely abnormal and frightening, even if it is not evil. But to be more specific, society would fear the creature because it is a social outcast (Caldwell 1-8). Society generally showed fear towards the unknown, and an outcast of society normally disrupts any known order or has already done so. It is not normal for a living creature to be alone, and the creature is alone as a human and as a monster. At the same time, the creature is a monster by societies law and religion. Law would deem it guilty of several cold-blooded murders, should a court judge it so. Religion is interesting in that the creature would not likely be considered a creature of God. Mainly since God did not create this creature, Victor Frankenstein did. At the same time, the creature is not an image reflected of God like human beings are according to the bible; it is instead a reflection of Victor Frankenstein.
To conclude, Frankenstein’s creature is holds both human and monstrous qualities within it. As such he is both a human and a monster, but at the same time he is better considered as neither, whilst having qualities from each side that make him a unique creature amongst those that we know and those that we create in our minds. Beyond all the comparisons and discussion in deciding what kind of creature Victor Frankenstein’s creation was, it is best to note that even if Victor Frankenstein had accepted the creature from the beginning, it does not mean that the rest of humanity would have done the same. The creature would have still been viewed as a fearsome monster by society. Of course, that is if we were to view a “what if” scenario, but even if we go to what did occur during the course of Mary Shelley’s novel, we will see that the creature would have been a criminal by human standards. Even though the creature can justify its hate and its anger, the deaths of many people are still on the creature’s hands. Strangely, however, the choices and cunningness of the creature during these murders are a large part of what show its human qualities and the decisions and acts of vengeance it made showed his monstrous qualities. As such, the creature is both and it is neither. What this means is that most have little understanding of the creature, mainly because we have almost nothing to compare it to. We have several monsters and there are many human beings, and because of that we can compare each other and find a definition or a label. The creature, however, is different as it retains both and would not be considered purely one or the other. Perhaps with this in mind, should the creature be viewed again during Mary Shelley’s novel, the creature may seem more like an alien presence and a new creature, than something that we have seen before in our lives.
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. On Monsters: An Unnatural History of our Worst Fears. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Caldwell, Tracy M. "Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein or Modern Prometheus"" Literary Context in Novels: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (2006): 1-8. EBSCO. Web. 5 Dec. 2009.
You have certainly taken on a loaded question for your final post… one that continues to spur debate in literary and scientific circles. Given our somewhat heated discussions about this during class, I was pleased to see that you came down on neither side of the debate; rather, you determined the monster to reveal a third category. But what does it mean to continue to categorize the monster at all? Might this not be a root problem when discussing the monster (or, perhaps less categorically determined, the creature)? I liked that you laid out definitions at the top of your post; however, using Webster’s dictionary as your source is not as appropriate as, say, the OED. For example, ‘monster’ also has roots related to “demonstrate,” so I wonder how this would impact your argument in addition to the other root definitions. Moreover, given that you set your argument in terms of a third category, why immediately begin to categorize the creature as “monster” and then as “human” (w/o revealing the strategy involved in such seeming contradiction)? By the end of the post, I was inspired to ask a lot of questions, but I was left wanting a few more answers than “the creature is different.”
ReplyDelete