As I stated in class, I think that Victor Frankenstein is an irresponsible person. He went through all the trouble to create the monster but once he bought him to life he did not want to take care of his creation. I believe that he was just in love with the idea of creating the monster and played the role of God. Furthermore, the fact that he abondons his creation on sight reveals that he thinks he made a mistake but does not want to take responsibility for what he has done. The once his brother dies/ is murdered he automatically blames the monster without question. I believe that Victor should have taken the blame for his brother’s death because he created the wretch and did not teach him right from wrong. In the end, the death of William is Victors fault and I believe it is very selfish and irresponsible of him to blame the wretch intead of himself.
I think that this is an excellent novel to discuss concerning the issues of ethics, especially in how they pertain to the discussion of science and nature. How much should man intervene in a persons’ life before it becomes playing God? What’s more important the quality of life or the existence of life? These are all questions that must be taken into consideration upon the reading of Frankenstein. Frankenstein also calls into question our definitions of human, monsters, and who deserves pity or feelings of resentment.
The creature seems more human that his creator might at times. Victor much of the time is only concerned with his immediate safety. He fails to have the foresight to predict Elizabeth’s death and Henry Clerval’s. He immediately blames the Creature for William’s death without any proof, and yet does practically nothing to help Justine who is getting blamed for William’s murder.
The death of Elizabeth, I felt, was so foreseeable to the reader, and yet Victor remains so clueless about it and is only concerned for his with his own safety. I think this is one of the worst tragedies of the novel. If only Victor would open his eyes to the big picture, he would really be a much better person rather than living according to tunnel vision.
Frankenstein has been my favorite reading so far this year. I really like the question of: what division is there between a man and a monster? In the novel, Victor is the human, and the wretch is the monster, yet they possess the same qualities.
The wretch is no less of a monster than Victor. Victor is irresponsible in his work when he just flees after he sees his creation. He did nothing to prevent the deaths of his friends and family. Instead, he took time off to clear his head, and let the wretch out in the world to fend for himself. Because of his actions, or maybe inactions, he is just as much of a monster as the wretch.
The wretch posses human qualities like Victor. He kills characters in the book, but it seems to me, it is more Victor’s fault for running from him and his error. The wretch is strong, but ugly in stature and face which gives him the appearance of a monster. Victor has the appearance of any normal man, with no major malfunctions. However, both possess human and monster-like qualities. So what is the division between a man and a monster? In Victor’s and the wretch’s case, the line is fine.
We talked about the wretch killing the boy in class, and many often deem it as a horrible act. Since the monster has no remorse for the act, it just makes it seem worse. Though if we look into the context of the situation, I believe the act could be more justified than most people automatically believe.
It is true that the monster kills the boy, and technically, the boy is harmless compared to such a gigantic, inhuman creature. But if we look just prior to the monster’s taking the boy out to kill him, he first asks the boy to listen to him; merely to hear his story. The boy is culturally trained already, even at that young age, to reject the wrtech and see him as a disgusting creature and not a living, breathing, similar being. This I think is what put the monster the most over the edge. Perhaps if society didn’t train the boy to be so closed-minded, the monster wouldn’t have been so offended and acted on his anger.
Yes, the boy was only a child, and the monster is just that – a monster. But often, people are too quick to judge when things seem wrong – without the facts. Most violence can be justified for the most part, as a result of twisted circumstances. That’s the real monster.
As I stated in class, I think that Victor Frankenstein is an irresponsible person. He went through all the trouble to create the monster but once he bought him to life he did not want to take care of his creation. I believe that he was just in love with the idea of creating the monster and played the role of God. Furthermore, the fact that he abondons his creation on sight reveals that he thinks he made a mistake but does not want to take responsibility for what he has done. The once his brother dies/ is murdered he automatically blames the monster without question. I believe that Victor should have taken the blame for his brother’s death because he created the wretch and did not teach him right from wrong. In the end, the death of William is Victors fault and I believe it is very selfish and irresponsible of him to blame the wretch intead of himself.
I think that this is an excellent novel to discuss concerning the issues of ethics, especially in how they pertain to the discussion of science and nature. How much should man intervene in a persons’ life before it becomes playing God? What’s more important the quality of life or the existence of life? These are all questions that must be taken into consideration upon the reading of Frankenstein. Frankenstein also calls into question our definitions of human, monsters, and who deserves pity or feelings of resentment.
The creature seems more human that his creator might at times. Victor much of the time is only concerned with his immediate safety. He fails to have the foresight to predict Elizabeth’s death and Henry Clerval’s. He immediately blames the Creature for William’s death without any proof, and yet does practically nothing to help Justine who is getting blamed for William’s murder.
The death of Elizabeth, I felt, was so foreseeable to the reader, and yet Victor remains so clueless about it and is only concerned for his with his own safety. I think this is one of the worst tragedies of the novel. If only Victor would open his eyes to the big picture, he would really be a much better person rather than living according to tunnel vision.
Frankenstein has been my favorite reading so far this year. I really like the question of: what division is there between a man and a monster? In the novel, Victor is the human, and the wretch is the monster, yet they possess the same qualities.
The wretch is no less of a monster than Victor. Victor is irresponsible in his work when he just flees after he sees his creation. He did nothing to prevent the deaths of his friends and family. Instead, he took time off to clear his head, and let the wretch out in the world to fend for himself. Because of his actions, or maybe inactions, he is just as much of a monster as the wretch.
The wretch posses human qualities like Victor. He kills characters in the book, but it seems to me, it is more Victor’s fault for running from him and his error. The wretch is strong, but ugly in stature and face which gives him the appearance of a monster. Victor has the appearance of any normal man, with no major malfunctions. However, both possess human and monster-like qualities. So what is the division between a man and a monster? In Victor’s and the wretch’s case, the line is fine.
We talked about the wretch killing the boy in class, and many often deem it as a horrible act. Since the monster has no remorse for the act, it just makes it seem worse. Though if we look into the context of the situation, I believe the act could be more justified than most people automatically believe.
It is true that the monster kills the boy, and technically, the boy is harmless compared to such a gigantic, inhuman creature. But if we look just prior to the monster’s taking the boy out to kill him, he first asks the boy to listen to him; merely to hear his story. The boy is culturally trained already, even at that young age, to reject the wrtech and see him as a disgusting creature and not a living, breathing, similar being. This I think is what put the monster the most over the edge. Perhaps if society didn’t train the boy to be so closed-minded, the monster wouldn’t have been so offended and acted on his anger.
Yes, the boy was only a child, and the monster is just that – a monster. But often, people are too quick to judge when things seem wrong – without the facts. Most violence can be justified for the most part, as a result of twisted circumstances. That’s the real monster.