It is clear from both Frankenstein and Dracula that the creature and Dracula are supernatural monsters. The supernatural is defined as “Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; occult, paranormal” (OED). Frankenstein contains two types of monsters, the supernatural or scientific creation of the creature and Frankenstein, the human monster. This text as a result questions the boundaries of human nature as well as the changing conceptions of monstrosity. It does so through the means of technology and knowledge. This is firstly exemplified by Robert Walton, who believes that knowledge …show more content…
is a human virtue (Shelley 17). However, in disagreement the creature gains knowledge as he experiences life. For example, he learns that fire provides him light and warmth. However, when he touches it he learns that knowledge is dangerous as it can burn you. “One day, when I was oppressed by the cold, I found a fire which had been left by some wandering beggars, and was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain” (Shelley 81). As the creature can learn like humans, he can also feel and express the same emotions. This is evident as he is saddened and angered that he is not being accepted into society. Additionally, he feels tremendous guilt over the attacks and killings he has carried out. Therefore, it could be argued that the creature is a human because he can gain knowledge and feel, which an animal cannot do. As a result, the creature challenges the query that monsters are animals that cannot help their actions. Through their humanity and duality, both Frankenstein and the creature shape the narrative. Furthermore, they demonstrate the fall of the human by supernatural embodiments. To continue, the fall of the human by the supernatural is evident in The Monk. This is so as Ambrosio is human or non supernatural. He becomes the fallen human because of the supernatural embodiment of Matilda, who is summoned by Lucifer or Satan to cause Ambrosio’s destruction and to lead the monk to him. This in a sense contradicts the power of women in the text as Satan, who is assumed to be male has the power to control Matilda and her fate. It is important to note the identity of Matilda in The Monk. When the reader and the characters are introduced to Matilda she is known as Rosario, an adolescent human boy who looks up to Ambrosio. However, as the text progresses, it is discovered that she entered the monastery as Rosario to be close to the monk (Grudin 137). Additionally, “She presents herself as mortal, as tempted rather than tempter, and her subsequent practice of witchcraft does not contradict these claims. She can still define herself as a mortal woman who has turned to the black arts in order to satisfy earthly passions” (Grudin 137). She therefore identifies as a human monster who has sold her soul to Satan. It could be argued that Matilda was never infatuated or desired Ambrosio. This is so as she wanted to free her soul and the only way she could do that is to obey Satan’s orders. Therefore, though Matilda is the reason for the perversity, it was Satan that was pushing her to act on it for his own agenda. Moreover, though The Monk was published at the end of the eighteenth century, it changes the conceptions of monstrosity and humanity. In The Monk’s predecessors such as Walpole’s Castle of Otranto and Radcliffe’s The Italian, the male monster already exists. In other words, the monster, though human, is not conceived by another. This contrasts in The Monk as Ambrosio is the fallen human that transforms into the monster through the female devil Matilda. Similarly to the creature in Frankenstein, Ambrosio is a human made monster that has feelings and can gain knowledge. Therefore, the reader can feel sympathy with Ambrosio because of the humanity and guilt that exists within him. Additionally, a figure that is significant to note is Jack the Ripper.
In the mid nineteenth century he was a publicised, but also unknown as a serial killer. He embodies the monstrous figures in Gothic texts such as The Monk, Frankenstein and Dracula because he is a monster in human form. He is also an embodiment of real life monstrosity, though he was never caught for his crimes. Nicholas Rance suggests that Dracula was inspired by Jack the Ripper, which was published just under ten years after the murders (429). From August 7 to September 10 in 1888, Jack the Ripper terrorized the Whitechapel district in London’s East End. He killed at least five prostitutes and mutilated their bodies in an unusual manner, indicating that the killer had knowledge of human anatomy (Rance 439). Therefore, the human monster shows that perverse sexuality and murder work together when committing crimes against humanity. He demonstrates particular similarities with Frankenstein as he also has knowledge of and mutilates the human body. This is evident as Frankenstein uses human body parts or “lifeless matter” to construct his creature (Shelley 34). Jack the Ripper also shows similarities with Dracula as the vampire terrorises and infects women who, according to the monster are easy targets. This is because they want to be harmed. It could be argued that this is the case because women want social change away from patriarchal structures, but also the desire for women to express themselves sexually. This is exemplified by Lucy’s transformation into a vampire. However, this idea is conflicting due to Mina because she is conflicted over the New Woman idea. It is evident in the text as she obeys Jonathan and puts down the New Woman. However, it must be remembered that she as well as Lucy allows Dracula to perversely attack
her.
Imagine an eight-foot-tall, misshapen human child. You might complain that this is contradictory - but do it anyway. Imagine some sort of humanoid being with the mind of a human child in an eight-foot body, green with a nail in its head if you want. This is what Frankenstein's creature is. Frankenstein's creature is mentally a child, and we see its evolution through traditional child development in the course of its narrative. But the creature is the only member of its species, and therefore its narrative can be taken to represent the history of an entire species - the creature's first experiences can be viewed as an amalgam of creation myths.
James Whale's Frankenstein is a VERY loose adaptation of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel. The spirit of the film is preserved in its most basic sense, but the vast majority of the story has been entirely left out, which is unfortunate. The monster, for example, who possesses tremendous intellect in the novel and who goes on an epic quest seeking acceptance into the world in which he was created, has been reduced to little more than a lumbering klutz whose communication is limited to unearthly shrieks and grunts. Boris Karloff was understandably branded with the performance after the film was released, because it was undeniably a spectacular performance, but the monster's character was severely diminished from the novel.
... unable to reproduce. Shelley’s use of “terrorizing writing” could not be duplicated on screen. The idea of a monster resembling that of a human would have been unbearable for the audience (Vore, Domenic, Kwan, Reidy 1). If a human like creation could potentially become a monster, anyone is capable of becoming a monster. In Frankenstein, 1818, Shelley is not afraid to reveal the “deterioration of [this] world”(Vore, Domenic, Kwan, Reidy 1). It’s easier for the audience to see the audience to recognize the monster as another creature, rather than a human being. If the monster were to be human, as described by Shelley in her novel, it would not appeal to the audience – causing them to sympathize or fear humanity. Therefore in the production of Frankenstein, 1931, in order to captivate his audience, Whale had to create a monster, vaguely resembling Shelley’s creation.
As we read the story about the man Frankenstein and his creation – it is often described as if he's making a monster. He puts together a man, made from other dead men, to make him alive. He constructs him to be one of his greatest creations of all time, from something that shouldn't be tampered with. Taking something that used to be human, to make another human being. As it turns out, the “monster” is indeed more deep and appreciative than many humans. Bear in mind, that this is fiction that holds a large pile of moral dilemmas. Frankenstein tampers with natures course when he use the dead to make something alive. As we put it in to today's society, we can see a lot of red lines used in a range of different fields. It frightens the normal humans, because they are not used to it.
What is a monster, really? Is it really a Creature that has three eyes instead of two, with pus seeping out of every crevice in his face and an abnormally large form? Or is it someone with a mind so corrupt it rivals that of Satan? Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a story within a story that centers on the tale of a man with an immense thirst of knowledge and a fetish to imitate the Creator. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a lot like the Greek mythological tale of the Greek God, Prometheus, and his brother, Epimetheus, who were assigned the task of creating man. The story captivates the theme of monstrosity. Mary Shelley wrote the novel in a form so the reader’s opinions never stray far from sympathy for the monster and apathy for Victor Frankenstein. The novel looks at “Monstrosity” and “Humanity” in a deeply analytical way.
Throughout the novel, Shelley investigates the idea of monstrosity. She makes the point that a monster does not have to be genuinely evil in order to be considered monstrous. Shelley presents two characteristics of mankind in order to prove her case. The first example is Frankenstein’s creation. Upon first being introduced to his creation, the reader initially labels him as a monster because of his physical appearance. He is portrayed as a man with “…yellow skin scarcely cover[ing] the work of muscles and arteries beneath…watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set…shrivelled complexion and straight black lips” (Shelley 58). Not only does the reader view him as...
A monster is usually viewed to be a supernatural creature that humans judge based on looks and not necessarily on personality. In the novel, Frankenstein written by Mary Shelley, the monster is a creature Victor creates but abandons immediately because he is horrified by his own creation. Due to the monster’s appearance, society does not give the creature a chance to show his true self. Therefore, the monster faces an external conflict because of Frankenstein’s and society's rejection, making it difficult for him to blend into his new life. Victor creates the monster because of his unusual compulsion of aspiring to be like God. However, Victor does not know how to treat or be responsible for his creature. Victor Frankenstein is the true monster
As time goes on, many things tend to change, and then they begin to inherit completely different images. Over the years, the character, created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s famous novel, has changed dramatically. The monster, regularly called “Frankenstein,” has been featured in numerous films, such as Frankenweenie and Edward Scissorhands. Although, the characters in today’s pop culture and the monster in the well-known 1800’s novel have similarities, they are actually very different. The many similarities and differences range from the character’s physical traits and psychological traits, the character’s persona, and the character’s place in the Gothic style.
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.
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley combines three separate stories involving three different characters--Walton, Victor, and Frankenstein's monster. Though the reader is hearing the stories through Walton's perspective, Walton strives for accuracy in relating the details, as he says, "I have resolved every night,...to record, as nearly as possible in his [Victor's] own words, what he has related during the day" (Shelley 37). Shelley's shift in point of view allows for direct comparison and contrast between the characters, as the reader hears their stories through the use of first person. As the reader compares the monster's circumstances to those of Victor and Walton, the reader's sympathy for the monster greatly increases.
Victor Frankenstein is originally a happy character that loves to learn and read a large variety of books. He was a fiery individual who sought to understand all knowledge; regardless of how practical the information was. Evidence of this is when his father tells him not to worry about fictional writers like Cornelius Agrippa. Yet, Frankenstein states, “But here were books, and here were men who had penetrated deeper and knew more. I took their word for all that they averred, and I became their disciple” (21). Frankenstein embodies the movement in science to understand everything, and that is not necessarily a good thing (Storment 2). Frankenstein only understands that this train of thought is bad when he reaches the pinnacle of knowledge and produces the creature. The fruits of Frankenstein’s labor end up costing him the lives of his friends and family, as well as his own sanity. The feeling of guilt thrives in Frankenstein because he knows his work was the direct cause of the chaos in his life. In Frankenstein’s case, his goal of total enlightenment led to his pitiful demise. Frankenstein’s creature was not originally a monster. He is born with good intentions and is a gentle- although atrocious looking- being until he learns of the sins of the human race. The ultimate factor in the creature’s progression from harmless to
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. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) describes ‘human’ as being ‘Of, belonging to, or characteristic of mankind, distinguished from animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright posture.’ (OED). The term ‘monstrous’ is described as ‘The condition or fact of being abnormally developed or grossly malformed.’
Monsters can come in various physical forms, but all monsters share the same evil mentality. A Monster is a being that harms and puts fear within people. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a prime example of how appearance does not determine whether a creature is a monster or not. In the story, Victor Frankenstein tries to change nature by creating a super human being. The being appears to be a monster. Victor becomes so obsessed with his creation and then rejects it. Victor is the real monster because of his desire for power, lack of respect for nature, and his stubbornness.
If someone were to ask people who Frankenstein is they would probably describe a tall, hideous monster with bolts sticking out of its neck. But long before movies reinvented their version of the monster, there was a novel by Mary Shelley entitled Frankenstein. In her novel, the monster is shown as child-like and uneducated. But what really makes someone a monster? Who is the true monster of Mary Shelley’s novel? Victor and the Creature present similarities and differences in their action and character throughout the novel.
Frankenstein shows that what looks like a monster in appearance my not be and what looks normal on appearance may be a monster. While a scary ugly creature may look like a monster a true monster is formed from within and is scene through actions. Along with this knowledge is power and power has the ability to make monsters. The pursuit to know more is a never ending road that leads to lies, secretes, and monstrosity. “How much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow,” while knowledge is boundless and beautiful an excess of anything can create a monster.