The definition of human is “of,
pertaining to, having the attributes of, a being belonging to the species of the Homo sapiens,” while another states that humans may
also be considered “social animals capable of showing sympathy with other beings, and
living life with (inherent) values and ethics.” Although there are clear, undeniable textbook definitions of the word
human, there is still some ambiguity that exists due to individual
believe ─ whether religious, scientific, or philosophically based. One can only
begin to formulate an opinion on their own, unique interpretation of the word
once they have found the definition which most represents their beliefs; and
the above mentioned happens to be mine. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein there is a complex, yet intriguing question: Can the “monster”
be considered human? In fact, this question can be answered because even though
he is referred to and seen as a monster, he embodies the aforementioned definition
by displaying several humanistic features, clearly displaying the ability to
comprehend or be reasoned with, and being able to express emotions explicitly.
By taking a
biological perspective momentarily and connecting it to the initial definitions
will offer some insight into how the monster is human. Let’s simply start by
addressing the idea that we evolved millions of years ago as a species from
apes to become Homo sapiens. Like our ancestors, we are bipedal. We know the
monster is one that walks and runs on two feet. Besides that, the physical
features which typically denote someone being a person consists of two arms,
two legs, a face, two eyes, a nose, and a mouth (barring any birth defect or
accidents). Maybe even most importantly is the function of a coherently
thinking brain. At no point in the reading was it told that Frankenstein’s
creation lacked any of those qualities. Victor himself demonstrates his
intention to specifically create a man when he says, “It was with these
feelings that I began the creation of a human being” (Shelley 49). It was to be
composed of the same veins, muscles, and intricacies any man has (Shelley 48). Shortly
after he begins the planning phases of his experiment by scavenging the
graveyards for bones and other “materials.” The creature is composed of many
intricate bones and joints just like any other human is. Clearly, the monster
is of exact anatomical similarity to a male human being, besides the gigantic
stature (which is inconsistently seen even today). This support, plus the sheer
physical characteristics described in the book allows this claim to hold truth.
When Victor
ascends to the top of Montanvert he specifically sees the outline of a man far
away. Of course this turns out to be the monster swiftly approaching. When he
meets him it is with violent, scornful words, but to his dismay the monster wants
to reason and pleads for his story to be heard. A logical human being, unlike
any other animal or creature in nature, is the only thing capable of having
rationale. He is now beginning to show the ability to reason sensibly through
the use of speech. This conversation where he displays such reasoning and
emotion is evident when the monster says “Be calm! I entreat you to hear me,
before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered
enough that you seek to increase my misery (Shelley 106)? With even the most
basic understanding of this grotesque creation anyone can see the existence of
human nature engrained deeply in him. His counterargument yearns for sympathy,
but more importantly for survival. This is even more displayed once he explains
his tale to Victor. Being forced to adapt in the wilderness, the monster sets
out and discovers what it is like to be cold, hungry, and become
self-sufficient to live. The progression of this monster being presented to all
new stimuli, to developing into a logical, independent human being is shown
when he expresses, “One day, when I was oppressed by 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” (Shelley 112). Once again, this reiterates his humanistic
ability to survive and adapt through conscious and logical comprehension of how
the world works.
Nothing is
more enchantingly complex than human emotions. Some may argue that the power of
emotion or lack of it is the epitome of the human nature, and determines how we
choose to act throughout our daily environment. Frankenstein’s monster is no
different. He is an emotionally fragile character begging to be accepted by his
counterparts. As he encounters the forest and then the cottagers, he describes
the sound of birds as “pleasant” and the sound of the instrument playing as
“lovely.” There is something quite profound, but beautiful about this ghoulish
man as he interprets the world. As he spies on the cottagers, he is overwhelmed
with a great amount of emotion when he views the girl shed tears at the sound
of the old man’s instrument playing (Shelley 117). Maybe even more surprising
is the monster yearning for companionship in the cottagers that he watches
daily. This emotion derives from the gratification of security when we have
companionship. This is one of the strongest points as to why he is human. Also,
the monster has an understanding of compassion for the cottagers because he not
only brings them firewood every morning to help with their struggles, but also
realizes the impact he has on the family when he takes food for himself. Shelley
conveys the monsters understanding of his wrongdoings when she writes “I had
been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my own
consumption; but when I found that in doing this inflicted pain on the
cottagers, I abstained, and satisfied myself with berries, nuts, and roots…” (121).
The creature is very capable of acknowledging rudimentary emotion and adapting
from it.
It is human
nature to fear the unusual and unknown; the monster is no different in this
case. However you choose to define human, it cannot go without understanding
that only humans are of a specific physiology and anatomy. We all amount to
flesh and blood, just like Victor’s creation was. We have the ability to reason
logically like the monster did with Victor on top of Montanvert and later when
he understood the need to gain fire, food, and shelter to survive. And only
humans can infer and then react to emotions appropriately which is what he did
throughout his storytelling.
Work
Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein.
New York: Dover, 2009. Print.
"Human." - Definition from
Biology-Online.org. N.p., 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
<http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human>.
2 comments:
Shane,
I like that you include your own definition of what it means to be human, while also recognizing that others may have varying views. Also, your quotes offer good support of your point. However, sometimes your sentences are a little long and difficult to follow. Perhaps if you intermixed simple and complex sentences it would make your writing flow a little better. One of my favorite parts of your essay was when you discussed human emotions. Maybe you could explore the complexity of human emotions a bit more - research studies on human emotions and connect it to the text. Another way you could revise, would be to explore the multiple views of what it means to be a human and see if they all recognize the monster as a human being.
Becca
I'm actually not sure at the end of the introduction what your preferred definition of humanity is, or why you prefer it, which seems like a problem.
What does the 2nd paragraph accomplish? I think you're arguing that physically the monster resembles a human - but then so does a gorilla, for instance. Does the monster resemble a human *enough*? To put it another way - I think you're making out the question/problem to be a little easier than it is.
Re: the 3rd paragraph. Certainly this is human-like language and human-like logic. Think about your last sentence with me: "Once again, this reiterates his humanistic ability to survive and adapt through conscious and logical comprehension of how the world works." I need to point out that an "ordinary" human could not, in fact, survive as the monster does, living on a glacier, nor could one of "us" speak or survive in this way at the age of two. Now maybe you want to argue that just because he does things that we can't doesn't mean that he's human - that humanity is defined by certain minimal characteristics, maybe. But if you want do do that, do it, rather than just ignoring the hard stuff.
Your initial discussion of emotion is fine, although I do wonder whether anything you've touched on genuinely exceeds what other highly social animals (say, Chimpanzees, Wolves, African Painted Dogs, etc.) are capable of. The real problem, though, is that you do an incomplete discussion of language and logic paired with an incomplete discussion of emotion, rather than doing either one in depth.
The conclusion makes an interesting shift to an discussion of inference - focusing on inference as *the* human characteristic would be one bold way of uniting the threads of this draft in a future revision.
Post a Comment