In “Monsters and the Moral Imagination,” Asma notes that one can, at the same time, be both a monster and, well, something other than a monster. The anecdote about Daniel Silva, the knife-wielding man who attacked patrons of a coffee shop, is certainly a horrific tale. But to say whether Silva was a monster depends on perspective. For anyone in the coffee shop that day, he was absolutely a monster. A seemingly unprovoked stranger attacking multiple people with a knife seems like a no-brainer. But when we zoom out a bit, we are forced to question the monstrosity of the man. Silva, described as “a mentally ill man who snapped and seemed to think that his mother had been wronged and felt some obscure need to avenge her,” is as much a victim as he is a monster. The same can be said of the creation (it seems wrong in this case to call it a monster) in Grimley’s Frankenstein. At first glance, he is an affront to nature. But when we finally meet him, we can immediately see the humanity within. Frankenstein may not be able to see past his first impression, but readers likely find themselves sympathizing with the monster, rather than continuing to condemn him.
The readers are definitely sympathizing with the monster because of Frankenstein's lack of responsibility to his creation. I really like how you noted the use of perspective. Frankly perspective is so key to our idea of monsters. Even if we simplify it down to a very human level and consider dogs. Many people see Pit Bulls as monsters, where as their owners see them as lovable loyal companions. Our experience and lens in which we view the "monster" has so much to do on whether we have a monstrous experience.
ReplyDeleteI keep struggling with this idea of sympathy. Obviously, once we get to this point in the story, we have a greater sympathy for the creation. But I also think Victor is in a pretty tough spot in life, and I do pity him for it. In all honesty, I don't blame him for his initial treatment of the creation. It didn't occur to me that he might have a responsibility as the creator until the creation demanded it of him. Maybe this makes me a little cold-hearted to the creature, and maybe my opinion will change by time I finish reading, but I don't think Victor is entirely in the wrong at this point.
DeleteI want to respond to your last sentence, because I was particularly struck by it: the idea of Victor's impression of the creature. That scene is so emotionally charged for Victor--the realization of two years worth of work, coupled with the horror of being confronted with the end result--that you are exactly right: Victor's initial impression of the creature is too strong to overcome. It's interesting to me that we know what Victor's impression of the creature is (as it is described for us) and yet we are able to overcome that impression to move into a sympathetic space.
ReplyDeleteI always had a hard time with this since I first read Frankenstein. We get the story as it was told to Captain Walton. That means Victor himself describes every bit - the monster's perspective included, yet he still fails to see the humanity in the creature. Maybe THIS book should have been titled "First Impressions".
DeleteI just shared some etymology on Kelsey's post; based on this, what do y'all think this particular monster is meant to teach us? What warning does he bring?
ReplyDeleteThis particular illustration struck me as I read the book. The pure simplicity of the drawing, as if the monster itself had created it to be hung on a refrigerator, just hit me in my soul. It brings the soul of the monster to light in an absolutely brilliant way!
ReplyDeleteThe idea of what is a monster or not varies from person to person. A heinous person can be a monster, or some sort of animal. What makes Frankenstein a "monster", is maybe that fact that he was indeed created. The fact that things that are not humans, are able to possess human traits is mindboggling. It is almost as if anything can have feelings or compassion.
ReplyDelete