'Frankenstein has become the monster' - What relevance does this statement have for us in the 21st century?

Frankenstein Essay

‘Frankenstein has become the monster’

What relevance does this statement have for us in the 21st century?

Most people have heard the word ‘Frankenstein’. Many have not read the book or seen the film and therefore associate the name with the monster and so the fiend of the story could, in theory, be Victor. This essay seeks to explore whether Frankenstein has any relevance or not in the 21st Century or whether the notion of monsters is now outdated.

During the time when Mary Wolfstonecraft Shelley was alive, science would have been looked upon as something evil; something against the will of God. Victor Frankenstein was a scientist. All he wanted to achieve through bringing his scientific creation to life, was glory. This monster was just a tool for him to fulfil his ambition. While Victor is building up to the creation of the monster, his work consumes him and his health deteriorates, as well as his shaky mental condition. He views the monster as being

“Beautiful. Beautiful!”

VICTOR

As soon as the monster is alive, however, his views change radically.

“Oh! No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.”

VICTOR

At this point, the creature becomes a monster.

First of all, there are a number of reasons why we can say that Frankenstein is a monster within himself. To begin with, he created the monster from death; something considered, in our world, to be something wrong. To make this fact worse, he stole the limbs and organs he needed, so he can be viewed as a thief as well as an abuser of the knowledge he possesses.

“His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of pearly whiteness; but these luxuriance’s only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.”

VICTOR

The yellow skin represents illness, the black evil, yet the white is a breath of the innocence of a young child. The eyes are often described as the ‘window to the soul’. The fact that the eyes are watery tells us that, either his soul is tainted from his creation, or maybe he has no soul. The way the monster is described sounds horrible - even evil - and what sort of a man could create such a thing?

In fact, who could put themselves in the position of God? Most heroes in novels are, in some way, religious; maybe Victor is not a religious man and by this reality, can he be a literary hero?

“Who shall conceive the horrors of secret toil as I dabbled among the unhallowed damps of the grave or torture the living animal to animate the lifeless clay? … I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit.”

VICTOR

The quote above suggests that Victor is not religious, using words and phrases such as being “unhallowed” and to “torture the living animal”. He says himself that he seems to “have lost all soul or sensation”.

One has to imagine the monster as being an innocent being, to phrase it bluntly, an 8-foot tall baby. It sounds strange, but he has not been taught anything. He does not know right from wrong, he does not know the constraints of society and he does not even know himself. This innocent sees his creator; his father, reject him, run from him, and treat him as an enemy. One could ask oneself how this would make one feel. The answer is likely to be that of revenge.

The monster desperately wanted to be accepted and demanded that Victor created a mate for him. In return, he would find the most deserted part of the world and live there. To this end, he begins to create a companion but, tragically for the monster, destroys her. The monster saw what happened and this would have been a terrible trauma. Not only had his ‘father’ hurt him deeply but this act could also be seen as a mocking insult.

“I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged. The wretch saw me destroy the creature on whose future existence he depended for happiness, and, with a howl of devilish despair and revenge, withdrew.”

VICTOR

In the film version, Frankenstein actually brings Elizabeth back to life, again, something that could be seen as a spiteful revenge.

Indeed, it could be said that the whole novel is Frankenstein’s fault. To begin with, he created the monster, who in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

VICTOR

In the film version, Frankenstein actually brings Elizabeth back to life, again, something that could be seen as a spiteful revenge.

Indeed, it could be said that the whole novel is Frankenstein’s fault. To begin with, he created the monster, who in turn, created all of the damage. At any time, Victor could have stopped what was going on, for example, at Justine’s trial. Victor was the only person who knew that it was not her who killed William, his own brother, but it was his creation. He was just too selfish to own up to what he had done and never even once thought of the consequences.

All of the reasons above are for Victor actually being the monster of the book, but maybe the monster is meant to be Frankenstein’s doppelgänger. The darker side of Victor.

The two are very alike in many ways, for example, the creature/monster debate can be applied to both beings and Victor has referred to the monster in many ways:

“Daemon.”

“Devil.”

“Monster.”

“Wretch.”

“A creature of fine sensations.”

VICTOR

Naming the monster “a creature of fine sensations” can be compared to Victor’s opinion of the monster at the beginning of the novel. He thought him as being “beautiful”. Since then, he turned his creation into a monster. When the monster is telling him his story, Victor’s mind changes drastically from viewing him as being a “daemon” to “a creature of fine sensations”.

Even though the monster has only just learned speech and language from a book and the teachings of Safie by the DeLaceys, he and Victor speak in a very similar manner. They both allow their need for revenge dominate their lives and end up by craving the misery or destruction of the other. In the same way, Victor’s physical and mental deterioration is reflected in the monster. Both characters state, in some term,

“No creature has ever been as miserable as I.”

VICTOR

The use of knowledge in Victor’s character is magnified in the monster – they need to know more and have a thirst to succeed.

In other ways, the two individuals are inversions of each other. Victor is described by Walton as being young and handsome; an intelligent man, with a good personality and state of mind. The monster, however, as explained in a quote above, has the physical appearance of being ugly, inhuman and beastly, certainly a quality common in an evil doppelgänger. Victor seems to be, from his narrative, arrogant, selfish and antisocial, whereas the monster is selfless with a want to be sociable. For this reason, it could be possible to presume Victor as the monster’s doppelgänger instead of the other way around. After all, Victor does not have the courage to acknowledge his mistakes, when the monster openly accuses himself and accepts that he has done wrong.

“I am alone, and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species, and have the same defects. This being you must create.”

MONSTER

“You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being. This you alone can do; and I demand it of you as a right which you must not refuse to concede.”

MONSTER

“I returned home, and entering the house, presented myself to the family. My haggard and wild appearance awoke intense alarm … I had no right to claim their sympathies.”

VICTOR

These three quotes from the monster and Victor’s narratives give more information concerning the two characters.

Victor is surprised when he hears the monster is not an evil being, craving for the destruction of anything in his path, but a tender human.

The fact that the monster is miserable is Victor’s fault. He created the monster with his deformities without thinking of the consequences and he rejected him. Victor denies any tie with his creation, so saying that a mate of the same species would not deny herself to the monster could be tactical blackmail in order to persuade Victor to honour his request. Up until the conclusion of the story, Victor says nothing of his flaws, yet the first time the monster is able to speak; he acknowledges that he has faults, physically and mentally, as we all do. The parent/child relationship between them is reversed at this stage because the monster is ordering Victor to grant his request, although by asking this, he is being selfish, who is to say that his created companion will want to love him and be with him? This is a quality that is seen in Victor from the beginning.

The monster has ideas about what love is and what is should be, taken from the DeLaceys – even though they are in poverty, they love each other and are happy. In fact, loneliness is not necessarily implied when a person is alone, but loneliness can breed in large groups of people. The monster, even though he is demanding of Victor, is pleading for help and does not have the power to give himself what he thinks he needs to be happy. He has no one else to turn to. Shelley uses a number of double negatives, such as in the second quote above; “you must not refuse to concede”; which could stand for the monster and Victor.

During the third quote, Victor is experiencing what it is like to be the monster. Because of his appearance, he does not deserve sympathy or any sort of compassion. Does this make Victor a more terrible person that the monster?

So far, I have only explored the reasons for Frankenstein being the monster. What I have written has no relevance what so ever to the 21st century, or does it?

Victor, in a late piece of his narrative, refers twice to the consequences of his actions and how his scientific discoveries would affect the future.

“A race of devils would be propagated upon the earth, who might make the very existence of the species of man a condition precarious and full of terror. Had I a right, for my own benefit, to inflict this curse upon further generations?”

VICTOR

This links very closely with designer babies. By this time, Victor has lost all previously earned sympathy for the monster and seems to have learned from his previous mistakes.

“I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own piece at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.”

VICTOR

This is the first section of the novel in which Victor has taken some responsibility for his careless behaviour. This can also be contrasted with Victors hopes and dreams of fame as a young man venturing into the world of science.

Frankenstein wanted to create something perfect - elite - something that could take over the world, which is linked to designer babies.

‘Designer babies’ is an issue that we are being faced with now in our society. Questions raised against the notion include: Is it moral? Are we playing God? Is if fair? How far are we prepared to go? What are the constraints of science? Where is the diversity of human spirit? Does it reflect fascism?

However, there are also people who believe in the thought, promoting questions like: Why not move forward with technology? How do we know what will happen if we don’t find out? What is wrong with bringing happiness into people’s lives? Who are we to say stop?

We have no answers to the questions being asked, but overall, there seems to be a negative opinion concerning the concept.

People argue that children born under these circumstances could be discriminated against. There is also unfairness involved, because such procedures cost money, although, it could allow couples to have a child when otherwise they may not have been able to. Unfortunately, this takes money away from other sectors of public and private healthcare, for example, cancer research.

Cloning could bring the physicality of a person back to life, which is exactly what Victor did.

The same kinds of questions are raised with cloning as with designer babies: Is it ethical? What is the reason for it? Is it natural? What is to stop an elite force being created?

There are basically 2 reasons for cloning:

If, for example, the perfect species of plant was created, cloning could be implied in order to multiply them.
If a species were becoming extinct, cloning could be used to increase the numbers.

Other than those 2 reasons, scientists are only doing it because they can, which is exactly the reasoning behind Victor’s scientific creation.

Victor stole organs to create something else, which is like organ donation. Several hospitals recently stole babies’ organs for research without their parents’ permission.

Organ donation is a difficult area in which to form an opinion. There are many advantages:

It allows somebody else to live.
The donor has a chance to live on.

There are also disadvantages:

Stopping a life support machine is considered, by some, to be murder.
Organs taken without permission of the donor or their family could be used
People could feel uncomfortable with their loved-one’s organ(s) being used, as they may want them to be preserved perfectly.
It is possible that the donor’s family become too involved with the receiver.
If someone were, for example, racist, they would be unhappy about giving/receiving an organ, which links to the question, do you have to say where the organ came from?

The following questions are also asked: Who decides the order of priority of people? Should a parent be permitted to sacrifice themselves in order to save their child? Is it fair that it is ultimately, it is up to the family whether the organ is donated or not (as long as the patient has a donor card), even if the donor was adamant either way?

Where does it stop? Victor genetically modified his creation – linked to genetically modified crops and animals.

Genetic modification is intended to improve food quality and quantity and it has the advantage of food being sold much more cheaply that anything organic. It can also prevent disease in plants and animals. There are downsides, however, as with most things. The most common is the fact that it is not something natural, but so are many other things we do in our culture. Insecticides can kill birds of prey – they eat the insects that have been exposed to them and the chemicals have had an effect. It has been documented that as a result of GM, the ecosystem has been disturbed, for example, the ‘killer salmon’.

Another controversial issue being raised at the moment is the work of Professor von Hagens and his BodyWorlds exhibition. BodyWorlds - The Anatomical Exhibition of Real Human Bodies, provides unique insights into the healthy and diseased human body.

All the bodies on display are authentic. They belonged to people who declared, during their lives, that their bodies should be made available after their deaths for qualification and instruction of medical professionals and non-professionals alike. The specimens are permanently preserved by plastination - an impregnation technique where tissues are completely saturated with special plastics in a vacuum. Not only does plastination facilitate the permanent preservation of the specimen, it also allows entirely new forms of anatomical display since the plastics lend a high degree of rigidity to the tissues. Anatomically prepared whole bodies, for instance, can now be displayed in upright, life-like poses. Even isolated anatomical structures can be exhibited in previously unseen ways.

The aim of the exhibition is said to inform visitors and to open up the opportunity, particularly to medics, to better understand their body and its functions. Every human being is unique. It would be impossible to convey this anatomical individuality with models, for a model is nothing more than an interpretation. All models look alike and are essentially, simplified versions of the real thing. The exhibition is dedicated to the individual face within, but will these goals be attained?

What is the overall opinion of the exhibition? 50% of people who visited thought it ‘sehr gut’ (very good), 41% viewed it as being ‘gut’ (good), 8% ‘mittelmäβig’ (average) and 2% ‘schlecht’ (bad).

I visited the exhibition in December 2002 and found it fascinating – it was an incredible experience, but I cannot help but wonder what the reasons were for the display. When viewing the exhibits I become aware of the naturalness of our bodies and recognised the individuality we all have inside.

Gunther von Hagens, the inventor of plastination, began his medical studies at the University of Jena in 1965. He was arrested after he had distributed leaflets protesting against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops. Finally, in 1970, he was able to continue his studies at the University of Lübeck, which he completed there in 1973. In 1974, he received his license to practice medicine before moving to the University of Heidelberg, where he completed his doctorate in the Department of Anaesthetics and Emergency Medicine in 1975. It was in Heidelberg in 1977 where he invented the basic technologies for forced infusion of anatomical specimens with reactive plastics especially developed for this purpose and he founded the Institute for Plastination in 1993.

Since 1996 he has been visiting professor at the School of Medicine in Dalian in China and Director of the Plastination Centre at the State Medical Academy in Bishkek/Kirgizstan where he was awarded the title of an honorary professor.

Bastei Lübbe published a biography about Gunther von Hagens with the title "Immortal, at last" (Original title: "Endlich unsterblich") in German, authers, Nina Kleinschmidt and Henri Wagner.

Some people would say that Professor von Hagens is a modern-day Frankenstein, especially after the public autopsy he demonstrated. I did not see it, but would very much have liked to. I have heard stories concerning it, such as the fact that people felt so sickened at the sight that they fled the room.

It can therefore be seen that far from being an outdated notion, Frankenstein and all that he represents has tremendous relevance to us in the 21st century. Man has always sought to change or better his world and technology has enabled this kind of activity to happen with ever increasing speed. Although the morality of many of these changes is hotly debated, these changes continue. In the same way that Victor continued relentlessly with his project, so do we.

Perhaps the final word should be that of caution. In the same way that the monster destroyed Victor Frankenstein, we may end up allowing technology to destroy us.

2,805 words, excluding quotes