In the world of Frankenstein, the theme of monsters is discussed with Frankenstein's creature being thought of as the worst monster but was he truly? Frankenstein by going against nature and creating his creature as an affront to God and self proclaiming science is more important than anything, even his soul though this is before he realizes what he's done is wrong and rejects his creation which fuels the creatures hatred for humanity because it's lonely. The creatures monstrosity by being "what it is" a animated body created of the dead limbs of various people would be quit horrifying for any person to accept but the monstrosity of being ostracized from society, being rejected by his creator, and the attitudes of the villagers when they see him and immediately are disgusted all serve to make you feel pity for this creature and put him as a victim of circumstance.
Frankenstein's monstrosity in his flaunting of natural rules shows a pride on the level of the devil in Paradise Lost because he believes he's justified in creating this creature because science gives him the ability to do this and why shouldn't he if it's possible than God is okay with it? This monstrosity of character only seems to drive Frankenstein more insane as the story goes. The monstrosity of human pride and entitlement serve to be a social critique of how far humanity "should" go in the terms of science and research.
It's an interesting question that you have brought up. Is Frankenstein's monster truly a monster? Or is it a combination of a judgmental society and the neglect from Frankenstein that defines the creature as a monster? Personally, I feel that society is the true monster. Of course the creature is made of dead limbs and is large and ugly, but doesn't he begin his life with love of beauty and compassion? People are the ones that destroy these things. His creator abandons him, and society treats him horribly, which only leaves the creature with an ugly view of the world causing him to become the "monster."
ReplyDelete