monstrosity as a whole

When it comes to considering humanity as a whole in comparison to one human, the step is really wide in to the realm of monstrosity. For one thing, when one person analyzes the world, he/she would typically say that humanity is good but the world is cruel but when it comes to questioning the good or evil of humanity as a whole, people most commonly same that the world is good but humanity is cruel. And when we examine the nature of Frankenstein’s monster, we could say he too is good but the world is evil to him when it comes to analyzing the events for which he is a witness too. This in a grander scale of comparing Frankenstein and the monster as a whole of humanity would leave to the conclusion of the world being good but humanity being evil because Frankenstein was miserable and alone he wanted to bring life into something for him to have a friend but this selfishness that came by wanting to create a human being on his own led him to greater sorrow and instead of creating life he brought greater suffering to himself and his monster because of humanities cruel selfishness.   

Frankenstein and Prometheus: Dangers of Knowledge

I found it interesting how the name of the book or another name for the book was The Modern Prometheus and realized just how similar Frankenstein and Prometheus truly were in that Prometheus steals fire from the Gods and gives technology to humanity suffering by having his liver torn out by an eagle every day. The same vein appears in Frankenstein by having Victor study such things as Alchemy and be obsessed with The Elixir of Life of which such thoughts become the thought to create the Creature. Creating the Creature is Victor's stealing of fire from God in that by trying to create life he crosses a line he "Never" should have crossed and it brings him misery of the ultimate kind. The punishment of both is severe in that Victor suffers the death of family and friends, along with innocents while Prometheus has his liver torn out each day by a large bird. The men of each suffer and strive to do something amazing for humanity and both inevitably fail spectacularly with disastrous results for themselves and the human species.

My thoughts of this was that Mary Shelley was using this analogy as way to warn society of the dangers of doing anything without considering the consequences of your actions to yourself and the world.  We used bombs to destroy our enemies, but also destroyed the lives, property, and personal safety of countless innocents people in WWII in the countries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan and such technology resulted in a real threat of war between us and the Soviet Union for fear of being taken over if we didn't have more "weapons of mass destruction" than the other countries did. The danger of weapons that that are so dangerous in the hands of someone without a proper respect and fear of such dangerous technology is a recipe for disaster on a massive scale and Frankenstein illustrates that concept flawlessly.

Trying to recreate the sublime

When we discussed the sublime earlier in the semester, I remember someone describing it as something so beautiful that it frightens you and that’s what the sublime in Frankenstein does. When I think about those massive, majestic snow-covered mountains I am in awe. It is something so awesome, and man took no part in creating it. This novel is partly about Man not having limits on what he wants to create with all this new scientific knowledge. I think the mountains serve as a reminder of the limitations of Man.

Frankenstein’s fascination in natural philosophy is spurred by a sublime scene, when he witnesses a “Most violent and terrible” storm that he watches with “curiosity and delight.” He learns about electricity when a lightning bolt destroys a tree. In that moment, the power of nature is displayed.  Perhaps, Frankenstein’s creation can be seen as his attempt to mimic nature, to harness the power of nature. He tries to recreate the beauty, but when the monster comes alive, “the beauty of the dream vanished and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” There is no terrifying beauty, just terror.

Mirrored Characters and Obsession with Life

While reading Frankenstein I noticed Victor's constant need to create life. No set back will stop this ambitious need. The fact that this is a horror story speaks a lot about his actions as well. His self centered, single minded desire to accomplish this leads to the deaths of people he loves and much more. Another interesting thing to note is that The Creature is also obsessed with creation. He becomes a reflection of Victor's selfishness; he will do anything to get Victor to create a mate for him. Their lives parallel each other; they are both outcasts who are barely living in the first place; forced to observe life rather than to live it themselves. That is a bleak existence and I can see why someone would want to have a companion to push away the loneliness. Victor, however, had a wife; If he wanted, they could have just had a child and created life the old fashioned way.

Shelley's Critique of Romantic Poets

One thing that I noticed while reading Frankenstein is the overall portrayal of solitude.  Solitude is such an important concept to the Romantics.  It is somewhat of an idealized state of being for a Romantic poet, a way of avoiding the distractions of urban life so that one can compose in tranquility.  Solitude for the Romantics also brought them closer to nature, an effect that the transcendentalists would eventually seek.

While Frankenstein does approach certain aspects of the sublime, his solitude is not portrayed in this idealistic light.  Shelley stresses the unnatural aspects of being alone, how an existence detached from society can eat away at one's soul. 

Finally, there is the failed nature of the experiment.  Frankenstein's creature functions on one level as an allegory for the project Romantic poets undertake in solitude.  By having the creature overwhelm Frankenstein, Shelly is arguing that "success" for Romantic poets may result in a creation that is too much for the writer to handle (on top of costing the writer his physical and mental well-being).

A Human Monstrocity

As I read Frankenstein, I am continually intrigued by the format of the creature. The monster is mad from individual human (and animal) parts, yet seen as a creature unlike any other? If an observer looks at just the creature's forearm, or nose, or foot, or and segment it would look strikingly similar to the observer's own piece of flesh. Now this comparison of parts ignites two different thoughts in my mind:

1. Humans as a whole are a monstrosity. And when we look at history this may indeed be true. For instance, take the French Revolution. When looking at the Jacques executing who they deem guilty in their Reign of Terror without justification or remorse we look at the whole event an act of inhumane and horrible circumstances setting all of society's biggest flaws on a platter with the clear potential of damnation on earth being reached. However, if you were to look at each human as an individual they would not seem quite so horribly insensitive. The individual does not seem crazy, scary, or out of the norm. We see this when we look at the whole of the society much like looking at the whole of the monster.

2. Human judgement is natural and imminent. Despite the monster's features being almost completely human, we are horrified. He is made of humans, yet we conclude him not to be one of us? Why is this? It is because we outcast those who are even slightly different. If we cannot directly identify ourselves to the same category then the other does not belong. Yet there are no written rules of this matter. Who decides the monster is not human and on what grounds? There is no law or precedent, just the consensus of fear amongst the public judged upon appearances.

Monsters and the Unknown

As I was reading Frankenstein, an interesting thought came to mind, and that of course is the thought of monstrosity. But more than monstrosity, it is the very notion of monstrosity and what makes it so. This specifically came to my mind after the events that happened yesterday with the bombing of Boston, which is obviously seen as a monstrous action that someone had committed. This begs to mind though, what is the very definition of monstrosity? We all talk about monsters in a very general sense, monsters hiding our beds, monsters with the sole purpose to scare us as if they have nothing better to do than waste their time making our lives miserable. Why? Because they're monsters. That's all that there is to it. But there's more than that, so much more than that. In our simplistic minds, we simply view monsters as these creatures or beings that exists only to torment, but surely something happened to them to make them so. There had to be some reason, some event, some anything that slowly changed them into the monsters that they are now. The term "monster" is so overused and undefined that it begs the notion of what a monster truly is. Just a simple search on Google presented this:

mon·ster  

/ˈmänstər/

Noun An imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

Adjective Of an extraordinary and daunting size or extent.

Synonyms noun.   monstrosity adjective.   huge - enormous - monstrous - prodigious - tremendous

This can't stand to be true. Monsters truly take all shapes of forms and sizes. That's what makes it so terrifying. The monster itself could be dwelling inside the human mind, the pounding heart, the actions of a people or a being. There is one thing that monsters have shown us through Frankenstein however. The fact that the creation, Frankenstein's monster, had a mind. It had parts of humanity involved in its creation. That is the true monster, the emotions that rage out of control, the despair that became too much to handle, the fear that drives you to the end. The monster itself - it has the potential to rage through everyone because all monsters have a mind to be able to commit the things that it does. That's what makes a monster, not that it has emotions, but that it pays no attention to the control of emotions and lets go of everything that makes the person human.

Separation of the Self; Frankenstein's Flaw

For me personally, the apparent separation of the ‘self’ from society is one of the most striking and terrifying elements of the novel. When I think of someone living on the fringes of society, I typically associate two extremes: one being the solitary monk of a monastic order, and the other being a loner/crazed deviant of society. Neither of which play into the story, I know. 

In Frankenstein the laboratory has replaced the monastery, and the ‘passions’  reflect obsession and scientific ‘exploration’ as opposed to religious reflection. Victor himself is separated from society of his own volition- choosing to indulge his obsessions and block out any persons he cares about. It’s important to see his connection to his creation, however, as both a father and brother character. This unnatural brotherhood ignores all natural progressions of life and subsequent death, or even the natural order of birth. By choosing to identify with the monster over people in society, Victor gives in to his idealization of what his creation could be. 

This identification of ‘self’ with the monster drives him further from the natural order, and yet quickly turns to revulsion upon its realization. Here the separation comes between F. and the monster (who is in many ways an avatar for Frankenstein himself). F’s monster then physically and mentally reenacts the cycle of separation by his own right. Firstly, in his physical presence, we see his body to be a collection of separated parts that are perversely joined together. Secondly, the monster acts to further push away the people that Frankenstein cares about, just as F. did during his experimentation. Notice that NONE of this results in good outcomes? 

Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires, and Global Capitalism

There is a book called Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires, and Global Capitalism. It's basically a Marxist analysis of various monster tropes found in folklore, literature and pop culture; detailing the rise of the zombie motif from Frankenstein to Haitian shamanism to George Romero and much more. In the link below is a recording of the author discussing his book. (It's about 40 minutes long, if you have the time).
http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/monsters-of-market-zombies-vampires-and-global-capitalism

Also, here is another link to an article discussing the rise of the horror genre (in literature and in film) beginning with the Romantic era. (Again, a Marxist analysis)
http://www.redwedgemagazine.com/6/post/2012/10/bloodlines-ii-the-rise-of-modern-horror.html

Really interesting stuff! Enjoy!

Monsters: Creator and Creation

    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.