Shelly warns us about the capability of humans and how far we should push our curiosity. Frankenstein wants to play God and be worshipped by his creatures, but he does not understand the delicate balance already in place and how this will disturb it. We have seen how humans have a superiority complex, but this takes that idea to a new level. Frankenstein’s creature is capable of many feats, given his larger, sturdier form, but his mind is the most fascinating of all. The monster is able to learn at an accelerated rate and push even the human mind, which we treasure above any of our other physical attributes. It creates our superiority; we see greater strength in larger animals, who we have no competition against, but this creature creates a problem because of its mind in combination with his size.
He cautions Frankenstein, “Remember, thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine; my joints more supple” (126). But he does not mention his intelligence; he discusses and understands Paradise Lost and The Sorrows of Young Werther, he learns language and understands it from afar, and he learns basic communication and survival skills on his own, without the help of a mother figure or the guidance of any other animals. We all needed guidance and help learning language, and he did not. Where would the monster rank on the Chain of Being? He is far superior to us; he is frightening because he is different, but intellectually and physically advanced.
I think you raise an interesting point when you say that humans value their intelligence above all other physical attributes. This connects back to the idea of the polyps being above us in the Chain of Being, as they can regenerate and are therefore harder to kill. An obvious counterargument (and way of comforting ourselves) is to argue that our intelligence puts us above all other creatures, despite their hardiness. We assign more value to the attributes that we have so we can keep our comfortable position on top of the Chain. Frankenstein, then, has opened a Pandora's Box by creating something that is "other" and combines intelligence with extreme physical strength.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein's monster probably would rank higher on the Chain of Being because of his superiority to humans in all ways. Another interesting question would be where Frankenstein's monster ranks on the Chain of Being as compared to the polyp. Frankenstein's monster would definitely be hard to kill and is far superior to polyps in size, strength and mental capacities. Polyps, on the other hand, have the power of regeneration, but only in hospitable environments. Although, to our knowledge, Frankenstein's monster cannot regenerate (I wouldn't put it past him), Frankenstein's monster can exist in harsh environments where polyps cannot. Does this make Frankenstein's monster a stronger and more resilient being than the polyp and, therefore, would Frankenstein's monster rank higher than the polyp on the Chain of Being?
ReplyDeleteI find the idea of where on the Chain of Being the monster would be because he thinks himself as a monster. He calls himself hideous and monstrous multiple times, even as he understands his greater prowess. Part of the reason he stays with the French family is because he finds them all so beautiful and perfect. He wants so much to be human that although he is stronger and smarter than humans, he believes himself to be below them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting question because it brings us back to our early class discussions about the placement of newly-discovered species in a predetermined hierarchy. With the introduction of Frankenstein’s monster, we find ourselves in a similar predicament—to what group does this monster belong? He is made of human parts, and although he is far larger and stronger than you or I, he most likely resembles a human more so than any other type of animal. Based on this fact alone, I would rank him close to man on the Chain of Being. However, when we begin to look at the monster’s intellectual abilities, he far outranks any human being. This complicates the matter and brings up the question of what we should use to rank someone or something on such a chain: physical appearance or mental ability. I agree with Claire in saying that the creation of an “other” is like the opening of Pandora’s Box; the whole Chain needs to be restructured to include this new being. And if we restructure the Chain, should we also find a new place for Frankenstein himself? Now that he has created life and achieved inarguably one of the greatest intellectual feats, should he be placed above all other men?
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, our class has more or less accepted the legitimacy the concept of the Chain of Being since its introduction and then used it in applicable circumstances. However, right off the bat we noticed a little difficulty in even placing ourselves on this chain in comparison to the polyp. Now, we are faced with an infinitely more complicated task of ranking Frankenstein's monster. I believe that one of the reasons why we read works discussing the idea of the Chain of Being in the first few weeks of class is because this would give us a starting point in our discussions.
ReplyDeleteBut now that we have progressed farther into the course, I think we need to realize the shortcomings that this model has and amend it accordingly. If we had some trouble placing a polyp on this scale, how can we ever be expected rank another creature who is physically superior to us but owes his existence to humankind? (Not to mention the fact that he would be able to understand the concept of the Chain of Being which is something that has not yet been encountered.)
One thought that I had about amending the ranking process would be to introduce a number of different chains. However, linking these different scales and finding equivalent baselines would certainly be tricky (let alone defining each chain). I do feel that moving towards a web would at least be a step in the right direction though as it allows us to consider organisms in more than one dimension.