*I have a different version of this novel, the page numbers differ*
I was greatly surprised at this book. A great deal of things struck me as odd because I had never read it before and did not know the story well. I was under the mistaken impression that Frankenstein was the name of the creature. I also believed that the creature was a mindless murderer, not a being with thoughts and feelings, such as his remorse and loneliness. The creature's desire for companionship was the overwhelming theme through the book. Did he desire this because he saw it in the family he observed? Or was it simply an example of instinct that draws living things together? Mary Shelley seems to say that this was something he learned through example, but I feel differently about his motives.
"...no Eve soothed my sorrows, nor shared my thoughts; I was alone" (137). It seems as if he almost expected a comfort, in female form(at first), because that was what he saw in the family he observed. But, once Frankenstein refuses his creations demand for a female companion, the creatures need does not stop there. While the creature's following behavior is filled with anger, violence and the murder of Emily, there is more left to it. The creature drags Frankenstein on a long chase through horrific conditions, all to torture him yet more. But, at the end of the story it becomes clear the creature has another motive for doing this. He is lonely, still desiring contact, Frankenstein is his only link to the world of men.
"...still I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned... But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless...(240-241). He claims to have wanted all these things, yet he only acted in anger. But, there is a side that explains his embitterment. He was shunned by his creator, making him feel more wretched than he already believed. All the creature seems to want at the end is for Frankenstein to forgive his wrongdoings because he is all that the creature has ever held in connection with himself. "Oh, Frankenstein! generous and self-devoted being! what does it avail that i now as thee to pardon me? I , who irretrievably destroyed thee by destroying all thou lovedst. Alas! he is cold, he cannot answer me" ( 238).
The creature does the unthinkable to Frankenstein, knows it, but still clings to his creator because it is all that he has. It seems if companionship was a learned behavior, he would understand that there needs to be a mutual connection and admiration. But, it seems that it was innate and natural. The learned part is the piece that the creature never got to understand. He never understood how to deal with others in the right manner, like not murdering and conspiring, regardless of his want for their company.
The creature is a victim of ignorance of society. His creator shunning him should not have created such a horrible outcome had he learned to want others through observation. Rather, he knew he needed contact because it was part of his nature, regardless of seeing it or not. His path of destruction was simply a unsuccessful and brutal attempt at companionship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Heather,
ReplyDeleteVery nice post. I'm wondering if you might be able to apply some of these ideas to Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. As we discussed briefly in class, Heathcliff is a product of his oppressive environment, and yet those "creators" reject him for his odious appearance and manners. In spite of his rejection, though, Heathcliff cannot help but seek revenge and thus becomes intrinsically intertwined in the lives of the upper class. You write in your post, "The creature does the unthinkable to Frankenstein, knows it, but still clings to his creator because it is all that he has." Here, I couldn't help but wonder about Heathcliff, as well. Why doesn't Heathcliff just "walk away," find himself a better life, a better woman (!) who appreciates who he is in spite of his lack of money? Obviously, if he did, we wouldn't have WH, but why cling to those who seek to oppress and destroy you? In some ways, we can see how these characters become mirror images of each other: Frankenstein/the Creature and Catherine, et al./Heathcliff. Could the Creature and Heathcliff be aspects of these characters' "unconscious" and by extension society's unconscious?
I'm sorry I am responding so late to this, I didn't realize you had responded to that post. I just had a few answers to your questions.
ReplyDelete-I think Heathcliff clings to the wrong-doings of people in this book because he is not entirely mentally sound. I think a lot of the characters in this book have the same issue. Healthy people typically learn to walk away from bad, oppressive situations. But, not only does Heathcliff not do this (at least not for long), he comes back and seeks to be part of the monstrosity of a situation.
-As for the Frankenstein/Heathcliff parallel, it is definitely evident. But, I think Frankenstein clings to those who shun him because he has known no one, has had no companion ever. Heathcliff, while considered "dirty" and strange, was not completely removed from society. He was able to speak and connect with people if he so chose to, but he did not.