In so many ways, the "monster" that Frankenstein creates mimics a human; he is made with human parts, and appears to think intelligently and feel deeply, much like his more natural human counterpart. I feel, however, that the monster's simple lack of a name says much about it's perceived humanity, or lack thereof. The act of giving someone a name is a way of making them special, saying that they are of importance. We even name our pet animals that we are fond of. Frankenstein not giving his creation a name serves not only to alienate him from other members of the human race, but essentially put him in league with the nameless wild beasts.
If the monster is seen as something less than human, how can we possibly justify judging him as a human being? There is no doubt that his emotions are very human, but I question whether he is truly able to understand human emotions and sympathize/empathize with others. He is entirely lacking in any positive human interaction directly involving him. Everyone has the ability to outwardly learn the difference between right and wrong, but if it is not instilled within one by a certain age, one will not be able to internally and intuitively know the difference. This may be the case with our monster. At some level, I do believe that he knows it is "wrong" to kill a human being, but he blinded by his selfishness. He neither displays sympathy for the victim nor shows that he is able to understand the greatness of the impact that the death has on those who survive the victim. He sees the impact as a cause and effect relationship. If he kills Frankenstein's dear brother, then the monster knows that it will give rise to a reaction from his creator, but he is not able to understand within himself the complex human emotions of Frankenstein that yield his expected reaction.
Frankenstein does a wonderful job in creating a creature that so closely resembles a human, but that is all it will ever be: a resemblance, a copy, never an original. The monster is to be looked upon with pity, something that never once felt human love and lived knowing that he was unwanted, created and thoughtlessly thrown away. I feel that is would have been quite possible, with nurturing, for the monster to become a kind and unselfish being. Once sprouted, however, a seed left in the dark will soon die. And so I do not feel that we can blame the monster for his acts, but must instead shift the blame to Frankenstein, who failed him in every sense.
One of the morals that I received from this book is that of responsibility. We are responsible for those things which we conceive and bring to life, whether it be an idea, a child, or your very own monster of Frankenstein.
Yes, there is a barrier to the humanness of the creature. But going back to the name question: is a being to be held responsible for lacking a name? Surely it's someone else's failure, not naming him (parent, creator, god-parent...)? And the ability to show empathy: how do we learn that but by watching others do it?
ReplyDelete