Victor’s life is forever changed when he first
reads philosophy and begins university. While Victor becomes an
excellent student, his desire for an upper hand over nature leads to a
god-complex. By the time he animates his monster he has acquired so much
knowledge that he cannot undo what he knows, what he has seen, and what he has
ultimately created. Victor says, “How dangerous is the acquirement of
knowledge” (81). From that point on the monster plagues his every waking
moment.
The
Monster also goes through an acquisition of knowledge. The Monster’s knowledge
develops from observing natural cycles and the De Lacy family. With this newfound
understanding of the world, the Monster exclaims, “Was man, indeed, at once so
powerful, so virtuous, and magnificent, yet so vicious and base?” (144). The Monster becomes miserable because he
realizes he has no companions and nothing to his name. The Monster says, “But
sorrow only increased with knowledge. Oh, that I had for ever remained in my
native wood!” (146). The Monster, while more intelligent, suffers because he
knows how little he has in comparison to others.
The Monster learns through observation,
yet is miserable. On the other hand, Victor learns in school and books, but is
equally miserable. How then, in both
scientific research (like the Monster’s observations) and day-to-day life, can
knowledge be properly applied so that it leads to progress and not destruction
(as it does in Frankenstein)? Is
there a “correct” application of knowledge?
I'm glad you wrote about this, Becca, because this is the only thing in the book that truly irritates me. I think the whole quote on page 81 is important: "Learn... by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow." That phrasing in itself is problematic: who determines what "nature will allow?" God? Or hindsight? Not to mention, if Victor can accomplish creating a being such as the monster, then why is that not within his nature?
ReplyDeleteIn the passages you pointed out, Victor and the monster make it seem as though there is some clear divisor between ignorance, knowledge, and knowing too much, but I'm not sure that there is such a clear distinction; it is not possible to know which experiment will lead to progress and which will lead to destruction, except in hindsight—which, for Victor and the monster, won’t do at all. To a knowledge-seeking, academia-loving Hamilton College student like me, it seems abhorrent to conclude that ignorance is bliss and knowledge is a bad thing, but that's where I feel Mary Shelley often heads. For if we can never clearly see the limit of what our "nature would allow" until after we've already crossed the line, then we are not free to pursue knowledge without fear.
I also thought this was a problematic aspect of the text. Janelle and I talked last week about how Shelley emphasizes the importance of a balanced education. The problem with Victor's educational process was not simply that he learned too much, it was more that he learned too much in too limited an area. By focusing solely on natural philosophy, Victor disregarded all other fields of study; he was blind to any other way of thinking than his own. Shelley also warns against unbalanced education through Victor's childhood friend, Henry Clerval, who only studied the humanities. Perhaps Shelly isn't critiquing knowledge in general, but rather warns against occluding other types of knowledge in the blind pursuit of one goal.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything written by Becca, Lauren, and Kristen. To take it one step further I think if we look at the references Shelley makes throughout the text we can see just how interdisciplinary her focus is and how much she values what Kristen called a "balanced education". Shelley refers to scientific treatises, literary works, and cultural events consistently throughout the text and the text itself becomes a monster of sorts. I don't think she has any issue with knowledge or education, but with its application and understanding.
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed in class last Thursday, most advances in technology come with risks, only some of which are foreseen. For example, we discussed the technology that "prints organs" and how this could potentially lead to printing an entire person, a thought that seemed to be met with universal fear and disapproval by the class. However, vaccines, which have done so much good have, as Nicole mentioned in our Chem lab, also been linked to increasing rates in autism, a side effect that I imagine few people, if anyone, foresaw.
ReplyDeleteI think that with all scientific advances, it takes time to see if their benefits are worth any negative consequences. On a much less serious note, this reminds me of conversations that I've had with my grandmother about the fact that no one uses cursive or has good handwriting any more. To her, this is a large loss, but from my perspective, it is a small price to pay for all we gain through access to our computers. I believe that every generation has something that they believe society has lost due to some advancement in technology. For our generation, it might be something like Google Wallet, where credit card information is stored in phones. Many people in our generation and older probably believe that this is incredibly insecure; however, I imagine that younger generations will readily accept this kind of technology.
I see Shelley's Frankenstein as a cautionary tale, reminding people to take a moment to step back from scientific advantages and weigh their pros and cons. While this is really the only perspective we see in Frankenstein I don't necessarily believe that it is condemning all scientific advancements; rather, I believe it us just urging people to approach such things with caution.
I am very excited that the discussion of education emerged in this set of postings. When I read this novel the first time, we highlighted Shelley's opinions on education, both in the sense of the strengths of interdisciplinarity and therefore the weakness of single-minded focus, but also with reference to passion and inspired teaching of the sort that Victor and his playmates experience that cause their learning to be truly enjoyable. Of course, it is this enjoyment of learning fostered at a young age that can be partially blamed for the incredible focus of Victor as he creates his monster but nonetheless, Shelley still seems to advocate what would have been seen as progressive learning in the early 19th century. In response to a correct application of knowledge, I think that a multifaceted approach is key. One source of information can never be enough. One distinction or difference of opinion I would like to relate, however, is that the monster and Victor do not experience dramatically diverse educations in the sense of distinguishing books from observation. The monster absorbs much from the books he recovers such as Paradise Lost. I see the more important distinction of the education as solitude vs cooperation. The monster learns from various sources yet his contemplation and interpretation is without check. He has no companion, human or monster, to reason with. Victor has the advantage during childhood of friends, which substantially changes comprehension and reason. Of course, when Victor builds his monster, he is is solitude. If we take his creation of the monster as a destructive thing, then we can observe two separate examples of how solitude can distort reason and cause undesirable consequences.
ReplyDelete