Avatar. The Avengers. Iron Man 3. Transformers: Dark of the Moon. The Dark Knight Rises.
These are five of the top ten all-time highest grossing movies. Their (arguable) inclusion in the Science Fiction canon begs a question of the genre: is it just the spectacle that we shell out to witness, or is there some more primitive itch that these kinds of events scratch?
This blog is dedicated to figuring out how it is that Science Fiction addresses the problem of defining "human."
When Frankenstein was collecting body parts why was it that no one questioned why? How much of this sciences was actually known at the time that the book was published and how much did Marry Shelly make up? –Sebrina Thompson
Frankenstein, Volume I The first few chapters weren't that interesting to me, but they were fascinating from a psychological viewpoint. Shelley lays out, very clearly, Victor's influences as he sees them, citing books about pseudo-medicine, natural sciences, and religion as major influences from his childhood on this utter fascination he has with creating life. You could look at the books he had a sort of science fiction, in that they weren't facts, but people thought this could be real and these methods could unlock the future of mankind. Victor does get into the hard (science) stuff before he goes to school, but he’s still got his roots and his imagination in this pseudo-science of his childhood and fuels this obsession he has with life and death, as does the Death of his mother right before he leaves. For me, the influence of his obsession and what led him to create this monster are just fascinating. This is only because it’s my field of study. It’s not actually an interesting part of the book. What I found to be incredibly infuriating, however, is that Shelley doesn’t even an attempt to explain any of the ideas behind how the monster became a thing. I know it’s not a hard science fiction story, the focus is on Frankenstein and his human-ness next to this monster that may or may not be human. But when you have a paragraph that just says “hey, I can’t explain this so imma just gone say that you can’t have this knowledge so you don’t go crazy,” and is literally longer than the description of the monster coming into being, that’s just irritating.
I think that volume 2 picks up perfectly from where we left off in class on Monday talking about "the human question". The first line is "nothing is more painful to the human mind than, after the feelings have been worked up by a quick succession of events, the dead calmness of inaction and certainty which follows and deprives the soul both of hope and of fear". Although this does not entirely explain the qualifications to "make the cut", it definitely shows one of the characteristics. The ability to go from such a high to such a low on an emotional level just show vulnerability, which is an important trait to be "normal". Also, throughout the whole first chapter, almost the entire reading consists of feelings and emotions. Frankenstein does a great job at showing that humans need emotion such as fear or happiness. Happiness meaning anything that makes the person feel good, whether it be picking roses or mass murdering. Emotions such as happiness or fear are what drives people and in turn makes them human.
I totally agree with this. There was so much emotion expressed in volume 2 throughout the characters, most importantly the creature that Frankenstein creates. It amazed me on how the creature was able to learn basic survival skills on his own then learn how to speak just by watching others. He fits a lot of the characteristics of being a human being. He’s self-aware, has emotions, can communicate, able to use tools, and is curious. All of his hardships made me feel bad for him and was happy that Frankenstein, at the end, said he would make a female companion for the creature so he wouldn't be lonely.
It seems as though in this Volume Frankenstein's creation is almost joining in on our conversation of what it is to be truly human. In his speech where he relates what has happened to him since he wandered out of the apartment, he not only explains his own development as a man, but relays unbiased views of the humans around him. I say unbiased because he just awoke in the world and doesn't know what to expect; he simply categorizes as he sees. None of us really have this ability because we grew up in society and were shaped by it. He's a new, fully functioning, fully cognizant adult who can think about things as he sees them.
The part that I found most interesting about his comments on humanity is the extreme range of explanations. On the one hand he refers to them as compassionate and just. He grows to like people by watching the family next to his cottage, how they care and love each other. He also alludes to this when he asks Frankenstein to allow him to tell his story before taking action against him. Although, this may not be so much a hint at people's visceral compassion, but more their natural guilt when put on the spot. Which leads to the other end of the spectrum: his comments on how barbaric the humans are when they see him for the first time.
Maybe that's a better representation of humans. We are defined by how we relate to other people. Even though human is an individual we are largely understood by how we're perceived by others.
Once Victor is dead and the creature is depressed, i wasn't too surprised. Going on the theory i had before about how all humans crave socialization, it made sense. Victor chasing him was his socialization. Even though a man was chasing to kill him, it was still something. Even when Victor would take longer in certain towns the creature would always wait or give him a hint to where he went because he didn't want to lose his one companion. When Victor dies, the creature realizes he is truly alone in the world now and has no one that can understand him. Another idea i had after reading the novel is the idea of who is really the protagonist and the antagonist. At first it seems obvious that Victor is the protagonist and the creature is the antagonist, but after hearing the creature's story i began to wonder otherwise. The antagonist is supposed to be the opposition, but both the creature and Victor oppose each other. The creature kills off everyone Victor loves, yet Victor created the creature and abandoned him leaving him alone to fend in the world as an orphan. The creature only really wanted to be loved and be understood, so he lashed out like an angry child. Yes, a child most likely wouldn't go on a killing rampage, but he didn't know any other way to express himself because no one ever taught him how. But in the end i think this highlight how there is no such thing as a perfect person. Being human means we are flawed and like the ying and yang symbol possess both evil and good within us. Being human means you screw up and learn from your mistakes, as both Victor and the creature did in the end.
In volume 3 of Frankenstein, I think that the book really takes hold of the whole "God-like" aspect that we talked about in class. When Dr. Frankenstein is talking about making a woman and all that would go into as if it were just another thing to check off of his list, this could be compared to the story of Adam and Eve. I think that the story also really wraps itself into the sci fi category in this volume also, when they start talking about research that is being done in England concerning the same material the Dr. Frankenstein has been doing. This shows that because the thought of creating humans with our hands is such a normal thought to them, it really forces itself to be nothing but an absolute sci fi because obviously that is not a normalcy in today's world. Overall, I enjoyed reading this book.
After reading the Third volume and final letters of Frankenstein, the ideas that are sticking with me the most are Walton’s thoughts on Dr. Frankenstein, and the final scene with the monster. First, I think that it is very interesting that Walton is so fond of Victor. When he finally dies, Walton refers to the event as the “extinction of (a) glorious spirit,” and that Margaret could not begin to understand the sorrow that he feels. As a side note, this is yet another example of the “You won’t be able to understand how sad/sorry I am, so I won’t even try to tell you…” tendency which I was talking about in class on Wednesday. But I digress. Walton views Frankenstein in an extremely positive light. I think that this fact should not be over looked, as Walton’s character presents a unique tool for the author’s thoughts on her own piece of work. He can be looked at as a representation of us as the reader, he is an audience member to Victor’s story in the same way that we are. Because of this, it seems that Shelly is implying that we as the audience should feel for Frankenstein, that we should view him in this same light. At the very least she is writing in a self-conscious manner, bringing the question of whether or not we should like Frankenstein, out into the open. Secondly, I very much enjoyed the creature’s response to the death of Victor. I did not think that Victor would die in the story, first and foremost. When he did, I thought that it was fitting that the monster found him dead, and responded by saying that he was going to end his own life. I think that it brings up some interesting questions when we look at this book as an allegory for creation and the relationship between creation and creator. If we are to look at the creature as Adam, or man, and Victor as God, then what does this say about our world? Is it arguing that a Godless world is a worthless one? or perhaps arguing the opposite, trying to show that the creature’s actions were irrational? I don’t know, but I enjoy looking at that final scene in terms of Adam and God. Somewhat of a twisted alternate ending to the Garden of Eden? Either way, I very much enjoyed the end of the Book. As another side note, I would like to talk about the form of the book. I very much enjoyed the “narrative sandwich” that was present in Frankenstein. To look at the story through the eyes of Walton was fascinating for me, and I thought it was an extremely creative way to end the story. Also, I think it accomplished the feeling of the ghost story very well this way.
Frankenstein Part III Obviously throughout the second part of the novel we found a much darker somber Victor. The allure and mystery of what was possible for Victor was completely gone. You hear throughout the first two chapters the dread and regret he has for the project he is about to undertake. Which can be directly linked to the conversation we were having in class about the potential of a God almost begrudgingly creating an Eve for his Adam out of pure fear and responsibility as a creator. Throughout the chapters Victor goes on long tangents about the shackles and misery he was feeling, which is a complete flip from the early chapters of the novel. The mad doctor has become a fearful servant to the fiend he created. Throughout the creation of the new creature he consistently second guesses himself to the point where he confronts the monster and breaks his promise. Upon doing this the creature responds “Slave, I before reasoned with you…”, again a comical notion of the potential relationship between a God (or creator) and the created. Imagining this relationship in the first days of the world (if you subscribe the the classic idea of Adam and Eve). An Adam dominating and calling God slave and forcing him to bend at his whim. As we eventually see this cost Victor dearly. Could this have been the conversation that the initial creator of man had with himself? What if fail this creature, what could the outcome be, could I lose everything? Again I do not fully believe this was the idea Mary Shelley had in mind, but has created an amazing conversation piece that could be constantly expanded on throughout multiple texts throughout the semester.
The beginning of volume three started out somewhat slow as Victor described his travels and time with Clerval. Anticipating his creation of the female creature, chapter III is when the story really picked up. Though I had already imagined this creation taking a turn for the worst, the storyline for doing so surprised me. I thought it was bold to have the creature standing there in the window, while Victor clearly just changes his mind and destroys the work in progress. As we talked about just what it is to be human in class, I began thinking about what was really going on in this scene. The monster is just longing to live, happily and with companionship. Victor, too, is longing to live by trying to prevent possible rebellion by the monster’s female counterpart. This as well as the statement made on page 177 “how strange is that clinging love we have of life even in excess of misery” makes me think that the desire to live is a (nearly always) true quality that humans share. Most anyone, even the disabled or disadvantaged, seeks life over death. Victor and the monster do the same as they chase one another hoping to “win” and have the opportunity to live on happily. I also found it ironic that Victor was disturbed and alarmed by a less-than-warm welcome from the crowd as he arrives off of the boat. He tries to enter a land in peace and is immediately rejected and accused. This is just a small taste of what it must be like for his creature to try and fit in with mankind.
After completing the novel and sticking with it to the end, I with great certainty say that I did not care for this piece mainly due to how estranged it was from real life and the implications it gives towards knowledge. From this, I do not mean that the more fantastical claims regarding the creature were not believable after “suspending my disbelief”, however, I in fact refer to the actions and thought processes of the very human and natural character of Frankenstein. From the outset, this novel has painted Frankenstein, an individual too caught up in his work to even perceive what is moral, just or sensible regarding his undertakings. First he is devoted to the archaic science of alchemy, which within the time of the novel was proven to be an incorrect description of nature. Next, Frankenstein after devoting his life to an incorrect science chooses the correct path of natural sciences and physiology. The man however then goes overboard again and thus creates the monster, all the while disregarding the sensibility of what he is performing or its moral context. In this way Shelley describes a very unnaturalistic picture of a scientist let alone a human being as being entirely devoted to their work without being able to foresee any of its future outcome. Upon completion of the creature Frankenstein is repulsed by its appearance and the act he has performed. This means that he did not once in the many months of labor he had toiled, taken a step back to even look at his work. This concept sells the mad scientist archetype, however as being the first mad scientist novel, immediately lowers the view of these individuals in society. In a strange way, Shelley is a direct player in the social distrust of science and innovation based upon the character of Frankenstein.
"Frankenstein Vol 3: Moreau vs. Frankenstein- I was very interested in the mad scientist discussion we had going in class, and I was thinking about the huge contrast between these two giants of the archetype.
Where Moreau is cold and calculated with his beast-men, simply resorting to his revolver if things get out of hand, simply thinking about the monster, the unnatural, makes Victor ill. If Victor travels or explores nature, he seems to do better. Victor does become almost monster-like near the end, where he resolves (after his familiy's deaths) to stalk down and destroy the monster himself.
Moreau's monsters lose their humanity across his story, reverting back to animals. In contrast, Frankenstein's monster seems to gain humanity as the story progresses. Eventually, the monster calls himself "abandoned" and "an abortion" in Walton's letters near the end.
Both work in seclusion. I think that's a mad scientist job requirement or something, isn't it? Moreau has his island, and Victor does do work on one in chapter 19, but that is a brief stint within the greater story.
Moreau is killed by the puma-man that he had been experimenting on, while Victor dies trying to hunt his creation down after it kills everyone in his family except for him.
Moreau's story is told by the third-person, outside narrator, and I get the feeling that's because Moreau is, in a way, a monster himself, and unsympathetic. Is that why we return to third person narrator Walton in the end of Frankenstein? It seems likely.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was a good science fiction novel in my opinion. The book has that feeling where there is always something happening in every chapter. I liked this novel more than Gullivers Travels because to me Gullivers Travels was less interesting than Frankenstein. Like I said in my last comment on a blog, I like to read/watch stuff that involves more futuristic, mysteries, and monsters. I can see how this proves that all human beings need socialization because this novel was basically about a mad scientist chasing after his creation and the monster chasing after his creator. Victor Frankenstein wanted to kill his creation because of the murders the monster has done, even though the monster knew Victor wanted to kill him, it still followed Victor around towns because he was the only person he can socialize with. The monster tried interacting with a several people, but it did not go well, so he had no one else to go to except Victor Frankenstein. One day when Victor Frankenstein tries to find the monster, he dies of old age. Since the creator died, the monster had noone to socialize with, so he knows that there is no point of living anymore and wants to be killed. The monster knew that it is best for it to die then live in a world where noone would like him and people will try to kill him. I believe that if Victor Frankenstein didn’t run away from his creation and educated it, the monster would have learned how to control his emotions and learn how to behave like a normal human being. Since Victor did the opposite of that, the monster felt alone and mad that he started to ruin Victors life by murdering the ones he loved.
When Frankenstein was collecting body parts why was it that no one questioned why? How much of this sciences was actually known at the time that the book was published and how much did Marry Shelly make up? –Sebrina Thompson
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom Em:
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein, Volume I
The first few chapters weren't that interesting to me, but they were fascinating from a psychological viewpoint. Shelley lays out, very clearly, Victor's influences as he sees them, citing books about pseudo-medicine, natural sciences, and religion as major influences from his childhood on this utter fascination he has with creating life. You could look at the books he had a sort of science fiction, in that they weren't facts, but people thought this could be real and these methods could unlock the future of mankind. Victor does get into the hard (science) stuff before he goes to school, but he’s still got his roots and his imagination in this pseudo-science of his childhood and fuels this obsession he has with life and death, as does the Death of his mother right before he leaves. For me, the influence of his obsession and what led him to create this monster are just fascinating. This is only because it’s my field of study. It’s not actually an interesting part of the book.
What I found to be incredibly infuriating, however, is that Shelley doesn’t even an attempt to explain any of the ideas behind how the monster became a thing. I know it’s not a hard science fiction story, the focus is on Frankenstein and his human-ness next to this monster that may or may not be human. But when you have a paragraph that just says “hey, I can’t explain this so imma just gone say that you can’t have this knowledge so you don’t go crazy,” and is literally longer than the description of the monster coming into being, that’s just irritating.
From Mike:
ReplyDeleteI think that volume 2 picks up perfectly from where we left off in class on Monday talking about "the human question". The first line is "nothing is more painful to the human mind than, after the feelings have been worked up by a quick succession of events, the dead calmness of inaction and certainty which follows and deprives the soul both of hope and of fear". Although this does not entirely explain the qualifications to "make the cut", it definitely shows one of the characteristics. The ability to go from such a high to such a low on an emotional level just show vulnerability, which is an important trait to be "normal". Also, throughout the whole first chapter, almost the entire reading consists of feelings and emotions. Frankenstein does a great job at showing that humans need emotion such as fear or happiness. Happiness meaning anything that makes the person feel good, whether it be picking roses or mass murdering. Emotions such as happiness or fear are what drives people and in turn makes them human.
I totally agree with this. There was so much emotion expressed in volume 2 throughout the characters, most importantly the creature that Frankenstein creates. It amazed me on how the creature was able to learn basic survival skills on his own then learn how to speak just by watching others. He fits a lot of the characteristics of being a human being. He’s self-aware, has emotions, can communicate, able to use tools, and is curious. All of his hardships made me feel bad for him and was happy that Frankenstein, at the end, said he would make a female companion for the creature so he wouldn't be lonely.
DeleteFrankenstein, Volume 2
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though in this Volume Frankenstein's creation is almost joining in on our conversation of what it is to be truly human. In his speech where he relates what has happened to him since he wandered out of the apartment, he not only explains his own development as a man, but relays unbiased views of the humans around him. I say unbiased because he just awoke in the world and doesn't know what to expect; he simply categorizes as he sees. None of us really have this ability because we grew up in society and were shaped by it. He's a new, fully functioning, fully cognizant adult who can think about things as he sees them.
The part that I found most interesting about his comments on humanity is the extreme range of explanations. On the one hand he refers to them as compassionate and just. He grows to like people by watching the family next to his cottage, how they care and love each other. He also alludes to this when he asks Frankenstein to allow him to tell his story before taking action against him. Although, this may not be so much a hint at people's visceral compassion, but more their natural guilt when put on the spot. Which leads to the other end of the spectrum: his comments on how barbaric the humans are when they see him for the first time.
Maybe that's a better representation of humans. We are defined by how we relate to other people. Even though human is an individual we are largely understood by how we're perceived by others.
From Sam:
ReplyDeleteVolume 3
Once Victor is dead and the creature is depressed, i wasn't too surprised. Going on the theory i had before about how all humans crave socialization, it made sense. Victor chasing him was his socialization. Even though a man was chasing to kill him, it was still something. Even when Victor would take longer in certain towns the creature would always wait or give him a hint to where he went because he didn't want to lose his one companion. When Victor dies, the creature realizes he is truly alone in the world now and has no one that can understand him.
Another idea i had after reading the novel is the idea of who is really the protagonist and the antagonist. At first it seems obvious that Victor is the protagonist and the creature is the antagonist, but after hearing the creature's story i began to wonder otherwise. The antagonist is supposed to be the opposition, but both the creature and Victor oppose each other. The creature kills off everyone Victor loves, yet Victor created the creature and abandoned him leaving him alone to fend in the world as an orphan. The creature only really wanted to be loved and be understood, so he lashed out like an angry child. Yes, a child most likely wouldn't go on a killing rampage, but he didn't know any other way to express himself because no one ever taught him how. But in the end i think this highlight how there is no such thing as a perfect person. Being human means we are flawed and like the ying and yang symbol possess both evil and good within us. Being human means you screw up and learn from your mistakes, as both Victor and the creature did in the end.
From Mike:
ReplyDeleteVolume 3:
In volume 3 of Frankenstein, I think that the book really takes hold of the whole "God-like" aspect that we talked about in class. When Dr. Frankenstein is talking about making a woman and all that would go into as if it were just another thing to check off of his list, this could be compared to the story of Adam and Eve. I think that the story also really wraps itself into the sci fi category in this volume also, when they start talking about research that is being done in England concerning the same material the Dr. Frankenstein has been doing. This shows that because the thought of creating humans with our hands is such a normal thought to them, it really forces itself to be nothing but an absolute sci fi because obviously that is not a normalcy in today's world. Overall, I enjoyed reading this book.
After reading the Third volume and final letters of Frankenstein, the ideas that are sticking with me the most are Walton’s thoughts on Dr. Frankenstein, and the final scene with the monster. First, I think that it is very interesting that Walton is so fond of Victor. When he finally dies, Walton refers to the event as the “extinction of (a) glorious spirit,” and that Margaret could not begin to understand the sorrow that he feels. As a side note, this is yet another example of the “You won’t be able to understand how sad/sorry I am, so I won’t even try to tell you…” tendency which I was talking about in class on Wednesday. But I digress. Walton views Frankenstein in an extremely positive light. I think that this fact should not be over looked, as Walton’s character presents a unique tool for the author’s thoughts on her own piece of work. He can be looked at as a representation of us as the reader, he is an audience member to Victor’s story in the same way that we are. Because of this, it seems that Shelly is implying that we as the audience should feel for Frankenstein, that we should view him in this same light. At the very least she is writing in a self-conscious manner, bringing the question of whether or not we should like Frankenstein, out into the open.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I very much enjoyed the creature’s response to the death of Victor. I did not think that Victor would die in the story, first and foremost. When he did, I thought that it was fitting that the monster found him dead, and responded by saying that he was going to end his own life. I think that it brings up some interesting questions when we look at this book as an allegory for creation and the relationship between creation and creator. If we are to look at the creature as Adam, or man, and Victor as God, then what does this say about our world? Is it arguing that a Godless world is a worthless one? or perhaps arguing the opposite, trying to show that the creature’s actions were irrational? I don’t know, but I enjoy looking at that final scene in terms of Adam and God. Somewhat of a twisted alternate ending to the Garden of Eden? Either way, I very much enjoyed the end of the Book.
As another side note, I would like to talk about the form of the book. I very much enjoyed the “narrative sandwich” that was present in Frankenstein. To look at the story through the eyes of Walton was fascinating for me, and I thought it was an extremely creative way to end the story. Also, I think it accomplished the feeling of the ghost story very well this way.
Kyle McKenna
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein Part III
Obviously throughout the second part of the novel we found a much darker somber Victor. The allure and mystery of what was possible for Victor was completely gone. You hear throughout the first two chapters the dread and regret he has for the project he is about to undertake. Which can be directly linked to the conversation we were having in class about the potential of a God almost begrudgingly creating an Eve for his Adam out of pure fear and responsibility as a creator. Throughout the chapters Victor goes on long tangents about the shackles and misery he was feeling, which is a complete flip from the early chapters of the novel. The mad doctor has become a fearful servant to the fiend he created.
Throughout the creation of the new creature he consistently second guesses himself to the point where he confronts the monster and breaks his promise. Upon doing this the creature responds “Slave, I before reasoned with you…”, again a comical notion of the potential relationship between a God (or creator) and the created. Imagining this relationship in the first days of the world (if you subscribe the the classic idea of Adam and Eve). An Adam dominating and calling God slave and forcing him to bend at his whim. As we eventually see this cost Victor dearly. Could this have been the conversation that the initial creator of man had with himself? What if fail this creature, what could the outcome be, could I lose everything?
Again I do not fully believe this was the idea Mary Shelley had in mind, but has created an amazing conversation piece that could be constantly expanded on throughout multiple texts throughout the semester.
The beginning of volume three started out somewhat slow as Victor described his travels and time with Clerval. Anticipating his creation of the female creature, chapter III is when the story really picked up. Though I had already imagined this creation taking a turn for the worst, the storyline for doing so surprised me. I thought it was bold to have the creature standing there in the window, while Victor clearly just changes his mind and destroys the work in progress.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about just what it is to be human in class, I began thinking about what was really going on in this scene. The monster is just longing to live, happily and with companionship. Victor, too, is longing to live by trying to prevent possible rebellion by the monster’s female counterpart. This as well as the statement made on page 177 “how strange is that clinging love we have of life even in excess of misery” makes me think that the desire to live is a (nearly always) true quality that humans share. Most anyone, even the disabled or disadvantaged, seeks life over death. Victor and the monster do the same as they chase one another hoping to “win” and have the opportunity to live on happily.
I also found it ironic that Victor was disturbed and alarmed by a less-than-warm welcome from the crowd as he arrives off of the boat. He tries to enter a land in peace and is immediately rejected and accused. This is just a small taste of what it must be like for his creature to try and fit in with mankind.
After completing the novel and sticking with it to the end, I with great certainty say that I did not care for this piece mainly due to how estranged it was from real life and the implications it gives towards knowledge. From this, I do not mean that the more fantastical claims regarding the creature were not believable after “suspending my disbelief”, however, I in fact refer to the actions and thought processes of the very human and natural character of Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteFrom the outset, this novel has painted Frankenstein, an individual too caught up in his work to even perceive what is moral, just or sensible regarding his undertakings. First he is devoted to the archaic science of alchemy, which within the time of the novel was proven to be an incorrect description of nature. Next, Frankenstein after devoting his life to an incorrect science chooses the correct path of natural sciences and physiology. The man however then goes overboard again and thus creates the monster, all the while disregarding the sensibility of what he is performing or its moral context. In this way Shelley describes a very unnaturalistic picture of a scientist let alone a human being as being entirely devoted to their work without being able to foresee any of its future outcome. Upon completion of the creature Frankenstein is repulsed by its appearance and the act he has performed. This means that he did not once in the many months of labor he had toiled, taken a step back to even look at his work. This concept sells the mad scientist archetype, however as being the first mad scientist novel, immediately lowers the view of these individuals in society. In a strange way, Shelley is a direct player in the social distrust of science and innovation based upon the character of Frankenstein.
From Eric:
ReplyDelete"Frankenstein Vol 3: Moreau vs. Frankenstein- I was very interested in the mad scientist discussion we had going in class, and I was thinking about the huge contrast between these two giants of the archetype.
Where Moreau is cold and calculated with his beast-men, simply resorting to his revolver if things get out of hand, simply thinking about the monster, the unnatural, makes Victor ill. If Victor travels or explores nature, he seems to do better. Victor does become almost monster-like near the end, where he resolves (after his familiy's deaths) to stalk down and destroy the monster himself.
Moreau's monsters lose their humanity across his story, reverting back to animals. In contrast, Frankenstein's monster seems to gain humanity as the story progresses. Eventually, the monster calls himself "abandoned" and "an abortion" in Walton's letters near the end.
Both work in seclusion. I think that's a mad scientist job requirement or something, isn't it? Moreau has his island, and Victor does do work on one in chapter 19, but that is a brief stint within the greater story.
Moreau is killed by the puma-man that he had been experimenting on, while Victor dies trying to hunt his creation down after it kills everyone in his family except for him.
Moreau's story is told by the third-person, outside narrator, and I get the feeling that's because Moreau is, in a way, a monster himself, and unsympathetic. Is that why we return to third person narrator Walton in the end of Frankenstein? It seems likely.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley was a good science fiction novel in my opinion. The book has that feeling where there is always something happening in every chapter. I liked this novel more than Gullivers Travels because to me Gullivers Travels was less interesting than Frankenstein. Like I said in my last comment on a blog, I like to read/watch stuff that involves more futuristic, mysteries, and monsters. I can see how this proves that all human beings need socialization because this novel was basically about a mad scientist chasing after his creation and the monster chasing after his creator. Victor Frankenstein wanted to kill his creation because of the murders the monster has done, even though the monster knew Victor wanted to kill him, it still followed Victor around towns because he was the only person he can socialize with. The monster tried interacting with a several people, but it did not go well, so he had no one else to go to except Victor Frankenstein. One day when Victor Frankenstein tries to find the monster, he dies of old age. Since the creator died, the monster had noone to socialize with, so he knows that there is no point of living anymore and wants to be killed. The monster knew that it is best for it to die then live in a world where noone would like him and people will try to kill him. I believe that if Victor Frankenstein didn’t run away from his creation and educated it, the monster would have learned how to control his emotions and learn how to behave like a normal human being. Since Victor did the opposite of that, the monster felt alone and mad that he started to ruin Victors life by murdering the ones he loved.
ReplyDelete