The Monster has learned by reading books, and could be classed as educated, but he doesn’t have any moral or social education. He has not learned the difference between right and wrong, because no one is there to teach him. The monster is amoral, and is Shelley’s mouthpiece. It is looking from the outside, in on the world created by humans.
In the end of the book, Frankenstein dies and the monster kills himself. They were different people, but they were similar. Frankenstein cut himself off from the world, whereas the monster was rejected. Frankenstein always saw himself as the all powerful one, but in the end it was the monster who was in control. Society however just carried on, while the two of them died.
I will be focusing on the idea of Monstrosity; the creation of Frankenstein is the stereotypical monster; big, ugly, clumsy, unloved. Did this stereotype come before or after the novel of Frankenstein? Frankenstein had intended his monster to be beautiful: “his hair was of lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances 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 his straight black lips.”
An important question to be asked is what makes a monster? It is more appearance than personality, or vice versa? It would be good if there was no prejudice in the world, but unfortunately, people will always be judged by their looks. In Frankenstein for example, the monster is often treated badly, even if all he is doing is helping.
The blind man, De Lacey, treats him as a normal person. He says “The hearts of men, when unprejudiced . . . are full of brotherly love and charity.” Then the family enter, and the son, Felix, starts beating him. This shows that it is his appearance that makes him hated, as the blind man doesn’t hate him, as he is not held back by his sight, and instead can see the monster’s personality shining through.
Another example of how appearance creates a monster is by using the opposite, by having the two extremes of beauty, the angelic against the ugly. The people murdered by the monster, always look very sweet and innocent. For example, when little William is murdered, he is still “that sweet little child, whose smiles delighted and warmed my heart, who was so gentle and yet so gay.” Even when he is lying dead, he is still angelic looking, “stretched on the grass, livid and motionless; the print of the murderer’s finger was on his neck.” This creates sympathy, because a sweet innocent child doesn’t deserve to die, making the great ugly creature that would do so even worse by comparison.
The personality is not taken into account when a monster is made. For example, the creation was a ‘good’ person, but when he did good deeds, he wasn’t rewarded as someone who looked ‘normal’ might be. When a young girl fell in a river and the monster “rushed from my hiding-place and with extreme labour, from the force of the current, saved her and dragged her to shore, when suddenly I was interrupted by a rustic. On seeing me, he darted towards me, and tearing the girl from my arms, hastened towards the deeper parts of the wood.”
Even when he has not done anything wrong, he is set upon. When he has simply entered a village, “the whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, until, grievously bruised by stones, and many other kinds of missile weapons, I escaped.”
If we compare this with Frankenstein, then there is a world of difference. Frankenstein is a ‘bad’ person; he abandons his child, he plays God, and is generally not a nice person. However, he is not treated badly, because he looks ‘normal’. His creation however is led to believe that he really is a bad person, why else would no one love him? The monster explains his actions; “I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all of mankind? Why should I pity man more than he pities me?”
This is logical. It also goes back to the idea of Nature vs. Nurture. Had Frankenstein not abandoned the monster, had he been loved, then he would not know this pain, he would not know how to cause this pain. It seems to me that Frankenstein is more of a monster than the “monster”. It is the way that the human mind works that makes the “monster” treated as he is.
That is all I have to say on the topic of Monstrosity. That is just one of many ideas in Frankenstein. The other thing that I have to mention is the flaws in the story, that make it seem more likely that this is a novel of ideas. For example, the way that Frankenstein discovers the secret of life. He himself was “surprized that among so many men of genius, who had directed their enquiries towards the same science, that I alone should be reserved to discover such astonishing a secret.”
To me it seems too convenient that he comes across the idea so easily after starting. Any problems that might crop up in the story are just ignored. If something holds back the story, then it is swept aside, so that the ideas can storm through, unrestrained.
How far Frankenstein is a novel for entertainment depends on how you look at it. Modern readers are used to cinema, and television, and stories that are new and scary. For readers in 1818, the ideas in this story are relatively new, and murder wasn’t as common in their stories as it is nowadays.
In conclusion, the novel Frankenstein is more a novel for ideas, than for entertainment, as the ideas come through clearly, shockingly, whereas the story falls apart in places, and in my opinion exists simply to carry the ideas through.
Frankenstein Coursework /
