Is Victor’s Monster Human?
As times
change, so too must our definition of things. We live in an age where the
traditional idea of the family unit is being rethought, where our idea of what
is and is not technologically possible changes every day, and what we view as
acceptable in our society is in a state of constant flux. So, taking a more
modern perspective, I argue not whether or not Frankenstein’s monster is human
but rather, how could he not be? It is worth noting, I fear, that this argument
may end up hinging on one’s political beliefs more so than any other factor.
For
starters, let us examine the monster as a sum of his parts. The monster is made
up solely of human parts, “Scrounged,” as Shelley describes them from various
graves. If one takes the argument that being human (not necessarily being
possessed of “humanity”) means being made up of human flesh and bone and having
a human brain, the Monster is decidedly human. I liken this to the practice of
calling a dead body “he” or “she” rather than “it” as many societies are prone
to do. Whether living or dead, the body still belongs to a human thus we, as a
society, imbue it with a certain removed humanity, still referring to it by a
gender specific, possessive name. If the Monster is made up of dead human
flesh, it is no different than any other dead body (aside from the fact that it
is something of an amalgamation) and should therefore be referred to as one.
Once
Victor manages to imbue the Monster’s flesh with life, it is worth mentioning
that what was once a dead human body is now, well, alive again. All of the
Monster’s biological processes are functioning well enough to sustain his life.
While his motor skills and mental abilities are not yet developed, this would
be expected with any human who has just been brought to life or, “born.”
Many
people, myself included feel that what truly separates humans from animals is
their capacity for high reasoning and complex emotion. As the Monster’s mind
develops, the reader sees him display both of these abilities time and time
again. In chapter thirteen, the Monster
asks, “When I looked around I saw and heard of
none like me. Was I, the, a monster, a blot upon the earth from which all men
fled and whom all men disowned?” (Shelley, 110). This particular passage
is important for two reasons. He displays acute reasoning skills (all things
considered) by deducing that he is the only “monster” on earth. It shows that
he has observed and processed his surroundings with enough intelligence to
conclude that he, despite being made of the same biological material as
everyone else, is somehow different. In itself that is an intelligent deduction
but does not display his full humanity. In calling himself, “a blot upon the
earth from which all men fled and whom all men disowned,” he shows that his
conclusions have had an emotional effect on him. He feels isolated. Lonely.
As if this were not enough, in chapter sixteen, the
monster provides a definitive declaration of existential suffering. “I am alone
and miserable,” he says simply (Shelley, 129). It is possibly the simplest of
quotes but it tells the reader everything they need to know. The Monster is
intelligent enough to recognize his feelings for what they are and is eloquent enough
to give voice to them.
Taken as a whole, it is only logical to conclude that
Victor’s monster is human. He is made of identical building blocks to all other
humans, operates by the same biological principles (once reanimated), reasons
the way that other humans do and to a level that not all are capable of. Most
of all though, he feels the same existential pain that other humans feel. Such
experiences are part of being a human.
1 comment:
Jackson - the first paragraph is vague but also interesting - I like the direciton, but you could have been more precise.
Minor point: it's a preconception - not part of the text itself - that the monster is made up of sewn-together body parts. Note the contrary evidence we might find in the description of the assembly of the female monster...
"Many people, myself included feel that what truly separates humans from animals is their capacity for high reasoning and complex emotion." - this is vague, and problematic in the light of what we know, e.g., about Chimpanzees. Defining "high reasoning and complex emotion" in a way that excludes chimps but includes us is actually pretty tricky - you don't bother to definine what you even mean by "high" or "complex" here.
Note: his understanding of himself as a "blot" provides evidence for his humanity, as you say. It also provides evidence, perhaps, that he is aware that a contrary, exclusive definition of humanity exists. What is it?
For what it's worth, I actually think that defining humanity by way of existential suffering is the best idea you have here. I would have loved to see an essay on this topic. It's precise, insightful, and focused enough to really defend in relationship with the novel. Maybe you can boil down "complex" emotion and "higher" reasoning to the capacity for existential suffering?
Overall: I expected something much more clear and precise about the political dimensions of how we define humanity. That is, our politcs provide our definitions - I thought that was your approach. That was a fine, if vague idea. The existential suffering thing was very clever, if a late arrival. The vaguer (non)definition of "complex"/"higher" wasn't as good. Regardless, focusing throughout on either the political or existential woudl have been a good approach. As it stands, this essay is a worthy source of ideas/revisions, but lacks a true focus throughout.
Post a Comment