MONSTERS OR MEN?
The definition of ‘man’ has always been related to human beings, though some etymologists link it to the root word ‘-men’, which means ‘to think’. In contrast to this, the word monster, derived from the Latin ‘monstrum’, can be taken to mean either ‘object of dread’, ‘awful deed’, or ‘abnormal’. If we are to consider the etymology of these two words when classifying monsters and men, the definition becomes more complicated than the conventional bipolar explanations of men being ‘good’ and monsters being ‘evil’. If a man is considered to be ‘one who thinks’, and a monster is considered abnormal (i.e. unable to think), it can be concluded that monsters are simply those incapable of making a clear judgement regarding good and evil. This difficulty in classifying monsters and men is explored in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, Angela Carter’s ‘The Bloody Chamber Collection’, and in Charle’s Schug’s article, ‘The Romantic Form of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’. In addition to looking at the difficulty in defining these groups, this essay also explores the fluid nature of good and evil, how evil can be considered inescapable, the concept of monsters as a social construct, and how both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ can exist in monsters and men alike.
Appearances can be deceiving
The deceptive nature of appearances is one that recurs constantly, especially in relation to the creature. Shelley uses language as a primary device within the novel to present the difficulties in categorising monsters and men. The creature does not have to struggle to find words and gestures to communicate his feelings. Instead, Shelley has him educate himself through Plutarch, Goethe and Milton, and communicate in well-formed sentences. The creature uses el...
... middle of paper ...
...rites, “she could not bring herself to touch him of her own free will, he was so different from herself”. It is the word ‘different’, rather than the animalistic imagery that she uses to describe the Beast that creates the biggest impact, because it suggests that the Beast is only ostracized because he is not like other men, and not for any other reason. The third person narrative deprives Beauty of her own voice, strengthening the emphasis on the idea that this society’s views have shaped her ideals of monsters. In addition to this, Beauty’s experience with wealth and high society only serves to create “a lacquer of the invincible prettiness that characterizes certain pampered, exquisite, expensive cats.” Her return to the beast brings back her selflessness, but Mr. Lyon’s subsequent transformation into a man suggests that one can only be fully good if he is a man.
In society, there have always been different roles in defining the boundaries between right and wrong; Monsters take a big part of that role. In Jeffrey Cohen’s “Monster Culture,” Cohen explains seven theses which provide a clearer explanation of how monsters take a part in establishing these boundaries. The oldest Anglo-Saxon story written- “Beowulf”- provides three different monsters which all connect to Cohen’s seven theses. In the older version, however, the monsters do not relate to humans in any way, except that they are enemies. The modern version of Beowulf portrays Grendel’s mother to still be evil but also have relations with the humans in the story.
“The only motive that there was was to completely control a person… and keep them with me as long as possible, even if it meant just keeping a part of them.” Using this statement, Jeffrey Dahmer offers his insight about what made him the cruel, demented being people have known him to be for the last 25 years. Many questions still remain, however. How do we, in society, define the term “monster”? What makes a monster? What shapes our perceptions of monsters, and how do these perceptions change over time? Several centuries passed between the time of Grendel from the epic poem, Beowulf, and the Milwaukee Monster, Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. Grendel is a creation of the Anglo-Saxons, whose culture
If someone had previous knowledge of a crime, are they just as guilty for not reporting that a crime was going to happen as the person(s) that actually perpetrated the crime? This question was a major point of discussion and the major driver of the plot in the book Monster by Walter Dean Myers. In this book, 16 year old Steve Harmon is being tried for felony murder for participating in a robbery perpetrated by James King, Bobo Evans, and Osvaldo Cruz that ended in the death a Alguinaldo Nesbitt. Although the jury found Harmon innocent in the end, the readers still learn that Steve knew that a robbery was going to happen. Also, scattered throughout the book were bits of evidence that alluded to Steve’s involvement in the robbery. Therefore,
In "Monster Culture," Cohen widely talks about and investigates monsters regarding the way of life from which they climb. Keeping up the formal tone of a scholastic, he battles that monster climb at the intersection of a society, where contrasts develop and nervousness increases. The beast is an exemplification of distinction of any quality, whether it be ideological, social, sexual, or racial, that rouses trepidation and instability in its inventors. The creature or monster is habitually an irritating half breed that challenges categorization its hybridism defies nature. Yet despite the fact that there are unreliable monsters, real individuals can get to be monsters as well. Keeping in mind the end goal to bring oddity under control, the individuals who submit to the standard code of the day bestow huge personalities to the individuals who don't. Nervousness is the thing that breeds them and characterizes their presence. In this manner placing the beginning of creatures, Cohen strives to uncover our way of life's qualities and inclinations. For the larger part of the article, the monster is just the subject of our examination, an extraordinary animal under our investigation.
Mary Shelley’s novel arises several questions relevant to the present day. A question that arises from the novel is whether man is born evil or made evil from his life experiences. The debate on whether how far man should pursue knowledge exists today as well as other questions challenged in the novel therefore “Frankenstein” is a popular novel at present as much as it was in the past.
In the novels Grendel and Frankenstein, two characters are presented as one of, or the, isolated and alienated main character. Both experience rejection by the hands of man, and are pushed into roles by the actions of man. Their relation to man, or their state as man’s, “otherkin” magnifies their rejection, but again their status as being “other” justifies their rejection in spite of the harshly negative results. Their status in these novels reflects much of how contemporary authors write about monsters. Out of ignorance, humans rejected their otherkin, Grendel, and the creature from Frankenstein, and as a result the rejected became violent and wreaked retribution on humanity.
In most novel and movies monsters are known to be evil, committing numerous crimes against humanity and are normally the ones that we don’t sympathize with. However, this novel carefully shows the reader that monsters can be good creatures, with a decent heart and act based on the actions of others. The novel shows how the monster should be pitied, rather than criticised. Mary Shelley's “Frankenstein” manages to create sympathy for the creature through speech, actions and mistreatment the creature suffers.
This paper will concentrate on the definition of human nature, the controversy of morality and science, the limits to scientific inquiry, and how this novel ties in with today’s world. Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein expresses human nature specifically through the character of the “Creature” and its development. The Creature has an opportunity to explore his surroundings, and in doing so he learns that human nature is to run away from something so catastrophic in looks. The Creature discovers that he must limit himself in what he does due to the response of humans because of his deformities. I feel that Mary Shelley tries to depict human nature as running away from the abnormal, which results in alienation of the “abnormal.”
Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a story about the dangers of knowledge and the consequences of overstepping moral and ethical boundaries. By examining Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein through a psychoanalytic lens, it can be interpreted that the creature is a mirror of Victor Frankenstein’s personality. Psychoanalysis argues that the conscious and unconscious mind are made up of the id, superego and ego. In order to self-actualize the conscious and unconscious mind must be in equilibrium. The creature and Victor both strive for self-actualization through their yearning to understand the world. They share the experience of lower-level emotions like the need for revenge. Ultimately, the destruction in the novel is rooted in Victor’s and the creature’s experience of parental abandonment,
Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is impressive, entertaining, and fascinating so is it no surprise there have been so many films and artworks influenced by her novel. Many of which have put their own spin to the horror novel, especially the character of the creature that remains one of the most recognized icons in horror fiction. However, there have been critics whom argue modern versions and variations have lost the horror and passion that is an essential to the creature. The start of the Creature is bound to one book. However, public impression of the Creature has changed severely since the publication of the original novel, leading to diverse styles and plot lines in its diverse film adaptations. People’s impression of the Creature have become so twisted and turned by time and decades of false film posters and article titles that most use the name “Frankenstein” to refer to the Creature itself, rather than the scientist who created him! It’s a shame! An understanding of literary history is a necessity to comprehend the truth of the Creature’s tragic history and how decades of film adaptations changed him into the hulking beast most people know him as today.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
Tragedy shows no discrimination and often strikes down on those undeserving of such turmoil. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a creature more repulsive than one can imagine is brought to life by a young scientist. Although this creature is horrifying in sight, he is gentle by nature. Unfortunately, the softer side of the creature is repeatedly overlooked and the so called “monster” is driven to a breaking point. Even though the Creature committed many crimes, Mary Shelley’s Creature was the tragic hero of this story because of his efforts rescue the life of a young girl and helping destitute cottagers.
The definition of ‘monstrosity’ and what it means to be ‘monstrous’ can be understood to mean something that is visually unattractive, malformed and/or terrifying. However, monstrosity is not exclusively about something aesthetically ugly, it can also apply to what differs from what is considered ‘normality’. What is ‘normal’ versus what is ‘monstrous’ is closely linked when exploring ideas about the human condition. The representations of monstrosity in Frankenstein and in The Tempest reveal how what is monstrous and what is normal are often found side by side, challenging the idea that it is limited to outcasts who do not ‘fit-in’, and that deep down, a desire to be understood, accepted and included and to live life with meaning are central to the human condition and that monsters in society often reveal our deep seated fears and anxieties about our own existence.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or; The Modern Prometheus, published in 1818, is a product of its time. Written in a world of social, political, scientific and economic upheaval it highlights human desire to uncover the scientific secrets of our universe, yet also confirms the importance of emotions and individual relationships that define us as human, in contrast to the monstrous. Here we question what is meant by the terms ‘human’ and ‘monstrous’ as defined by the novel. Yet to fully understand how Frankenstein defines these terms we must look to the etymology of them. The novel however, defines the terms through its main characters, through the themes of language, nature versus nurture, forbidden knowledge, and the doppelganger motif. Shelley also shows us, in Frankenstein, that although juxtaposing terms, the monstrous being everything human is not, they are also intertwined, in that you can not have one without the other. There is also an overwhelming desire to know the monstrous, if only temporarily and this calls into question the influence the monstrous has on the human definition.