The first and second volumes of Frankenstein draw parallels between
Victor Frankenstein and his creation that allude to broader questions about
human nature. Frankenstein discovered the cause of life, and with this
knowledge he created a murdering monster, but “ …the murderer escapes; he walks
about the world free” (120). Both Frankenstein, by association, and his
creation were the murderers, and both escaped sanction. Seemingly, Frankenstein
was his own monster.
On the
contrary, is the monster human? His
internal qualities are humanlike, for has senses and is capable of learning
language and higher emotions like empathy, as demonstrated through his generous
interactions with the family in the cottage.
The monster learned this gentility by means of that family, yet he still
murdered. This dual-nature of the monster is reflective of Frankenstein’s
knowledge, a power with which humans can do good (in Frankenstein’s case create
life, specifically a companion for his monster) or evil (create monsters) (Uglow,
“The Lunar Men”; 500).
If
Frankenstein is similar to his monster, who is similar to his human creator,
and they both have the capacity to be good and bad, what is Shelley saying
about human nature? Is it human nature
to be kind and benevolent, or are humans evil and hateful “monsters” ? Furthermore, is behavior, or how we choose to
employ our power of knowledge, a function of nature or nurture? It seems to me that humans and monsters
aren’t as different as one would think.
I think this is another one of those irreconcilable tensions we discussed in class!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about how the “worm-sightings” signaled shifts between the material, aesthetic, and moral. Our concept of good and evil seems rooted in our senses. As soon as Viktor gave the monster life and animation, he saw how ugly it was and deemed it evil. Even William, who the monster sensed was “unprejudiced, and had lived too short a time to have imbibed a horror of deformity” (p. 166), screamed in horror and thought he was going to be eaten. The only person that didn’t have the same visceral reaction to the monster was the blind man. Our behavior would seem to arise from our nature. But this obviously neglects the fact that socialization is also a process of learning from others. The monster uses the cottagers to fill his domestic sphere and acquire language/culture. But the violent reactions he receives on the basis of his appearance drive him to murder. Yet the monster seems to acknowledge his own imperfect, and immoral (?), nature upon reflecting on his own appearance (p. 139, 154).
I really dislike the term "human nature" for this very reason. No - humans and monsters aren't portrayed as different entities in Frankenstein, and that's because I think Shelley makes a point of using the term "human nature" in sort of a diffuse manner - for example, she writes, "The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature" (85). She at once uses the term and rejects it, so I think Emma brings up an interesting point in that there is a "monster-like" angle to everything - the concept of "human" is escapable and elusive.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting question, and one that I have a number of conflicting thoughts about. The similarities between Frankenstein and his monster are undeniable- both are driven, through the pursuit of knowledge, to misery and extreme acts. However, there is a definite contrast between the environments in which they obtain their knowledge- Frankenstein grows up surrounded by love and human generosity, while his monster is forced to live in utter seclusion. Does the fact that they eventually come to parallel each other so strongly indicate that there truly is no intrinsic difference between them? Or, alternatively, does the descent of Frankenstein's monster from benevolence to murder actually serve as a condemnation of "human nature"? After all, it is only through learning about humans and interacting with them that the monster truly loses his innocence. Does this render him an equal of mankind, or a victim of its corruption? Are those options even mutually exclusive? I am still unsure of where I stand on these questions.
ReplyDelete