FrankensteinEssay Preview: FrankensteinReport this essayA Swiss Proverb once enlightened, “When one shuts one eye, one does not hear everything” (WorldofQuotes.com 1). Consequently, vision is the primary sense of mankind and often the solitary basis of judgment. Without humans limitations of the shapes, colors and textures of our overall outward appearances, the world would be a place that emphasizes morals, justice and intelligence as beauty rather than handsome appearance, cuteness, and sexual attraction. For if there were no predetermined ideal models defining the beautiful possibilities of the human bodys variation, it can be guessed that one would never suffer isolation due to ones disability, unattractiveness, or unusual physical attributes. Mary Shelleys novel, Frankenstein, sheds light on the eternal deception and importance of appearance through the tale of an unwanted creation that is never given a chance. Ironically, the supposed beast was initially much more compassionate and thoughtful than his creator, until his romantic and innocent view of the human race was diminished by the cruelty and injustice he unduly bore. The novel includes several instances of societal prejudice that include the isolation and outcast of Frankensteins creation, the creatures biased opinion of the cottagers, and the unbalanced and inappropriate classification of Victor. But first, one should look at the life of Mary Shelley.
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley was born on August 30, 1797, in London, England (Wikipedia 1). Her illustrious parents were William Godwin, an acclaimed liberal philosopher of the time, and Mary Wollstonecraft, an equally acclaimed writer and feminist. Her mother died in childbirth, and although her father was known for his liberal views, was very conservative and strict with his daughter. Mary received an excellent education under the tutorage of her father, which was very unusual for women at that time. Mary met Percy Shelley in 1812, when she was only fifteen years old and he was twenty (Biblomania.com 1). The two fell in love and eloped to France in 1814, as Percy was still married to his wife Harriet at the time. Mary became pregnant and subsequently isolated herself from a relationship with her father for the rest of her life. She carried four children, but only one managed to survive. Around 1816, the couple traveled to Geneva and met up with a group of writing friends including Lord Byron. This is where the genius that is Frankenstein was given life to (no pun intended). Percy Shelley died in a storm in 1822, and Mary Shelley was never the same after, nor did she ever marry again (Wikipedia 1). She became devoted to her only son, Percy Florence. She Died at the age of fifty three of brain cancer, a very accomplished writer.
Throughout the course of the creatures isolated and pathetic journey, he is never given the opportunity to participate in human interaction, as he so deeply deserves. Upon his creation, the reaction of Victor, his maker, is so vividly appalling; one forgets that this is actually the birth of a human being and one is more given an impression of the creation of a hideous beast. Frankenstein himself refers to his own creation as, “the life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed” (Abrams 955). Victor is more interested in the beneficial aspects on the surface of creating, just as his interest in the exterior monster is superficial. Victors initial opinion of his creature is that of disappointment, although he succeeds in his destination to create a living being from inanimate body parts. The disappointment is not only irrational, but also shows his further jaded ideal of perfection in the fact that he considers ugliness a weakness. If that were true, ugliness would be the creatures only weakness, as the story goes on to tell of the selfless acts of kindness the creature administers and the intelligent person the creature becomes. Victor describes his supposed miserable failure as a deformed monster when he says “His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of lustrous black, and flowing his teeth of pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only form a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips” (Abrams 935). Even though the monster was shunned, hated, labeled prematurely as a killer, and cursed by his very own maker, he sees the goodness of the human heart and desires to learn more about the human race. As the supposed monster journeys onward, he is delighted and allured by the moon and sun, and other peaceful, natural and romantic settings. He describes a community as “miraculous” and sacrifices his own hunger by refusing to steal from poverty-stricken cottagers. Contrary to the creatures serene emotions, the villagers react in an absurd frenzy: “the children shrieked, and one of the women fainted” (Abrams 964). The creatures deformity even took a profound effect on his own state of mind. The creature reflects, ” Alas! I did not entirely know the fatal effects of this miserable infirmity” (Abrams), and ponders, “Was I, then, a monster, a blot upon the earth, from which all men fled and whom all woman disowned?” (Abrams 965). The reader wonders if the creature has fell into the unfeeling void of prejudice and believes he is an outsider to mankind that deserves his bleak fate. Finally upon hearing the creatures story Victor expresses a hint of pity for the creature, “I compassioned him and sometimes felt a wish to console him” (Abrams 988), although Victor goes on to say, ” But when I saw the filthy mass that moved and talked, my heart sickened and my feelings were altered to those of horror and hatred” (Abrams 988). At the conclusion of the novel, Victor refuses to create another, and end the creatures miserable asylum due to the simple belief that beasts cannot nor should live peacefully in the comfort of love and kinship.
The cottagers also display a contrast of truth and appearance. The creature almost falls in love with the family from a distance. He thinks they exude natural innocence and kinship by simply viewing them from afar. Without actually interacting physically or emotionally with the group, the monster incessantly passes discernment while safely camouflaging himself in the background and daydreaming. Although the monster notices the differences of age and varying body forms, he nonetheless gives the cottagers decent and moral roles with no intelligent basis. The creature remarks, “One was old, with silver hairs and a countenance beaming with benevolence and love: the younger was slight and graceful in his figure, and his features were molded in the finest symmetry” (Abrams 965).
Although the cottagers are almost all old, many of the women are older and leaner still. These early cottagers had a few women who could look more mature as an adult and others who was younger, usually about the same age as the members of the group (including them, though it is uncertain how this effect affected the later women who had to maintain their appearance). The women generally tended to have larger families, but were considered more physically mature by the people around them if the monster saw them from a distance. It was believed that after killing one of these cottagers, he came off the list a few days later or became more popular with people. Although they still had to live within the territory of many women at the time, they all maintained a similar figure by the time the event of the first sighting of cottagers ended. This, however, did not stop the monster being seen from others.<#8222>A number of males, especially in those who were not physically mature, would look as though they were simply walking in the same direction as the female.
While the number of females was only approximately equal to that of the cottagers, it is not impossible that if there had been some other group of animals approaching before or after her, they could have grown to look exactly the same as this cottager. As noted by a number of researchers, the “female” animals that were found in the wild for almost thirty years of time resembled this monster, and the males had a long, slender tail and eyes that were as large as the cottages, rather than being too short.<#8223>The Monster is known from animals who have been around for more than a century.* If it is true that the monster’s origin is not connected with the physical form of the individual, this would indicate that it went through more than one time during this period.
The pithy epitaph is the main cause of confusion that often accompanies the question, “How did someone get what we have today?” as well as the explanation. Some scientists had hypothesized that such bizarre creatures existed somewhere in the past, as long ago as the very last known appearance of a pithish type of “monster.”
This may be because all pithy creatures are unique but the type is still considered to be common.<#8254>
The creatures who have been around for a long time must have been the same, i.e. could have been similar, but the creatures did not seem to differ in their appearance. These had to do, in part, with the monsters’ body shapes. Many such creatures were actually similar to birds and birds of prey, but they lacked the shape typical of the modern carnivores. The birds were mostly about twice as large as most large animals, and the pith may have been made of iron atoms or other metals. At last, however, their size was significantly better than any other possible food source.<#8255>If such creatures had appeared around the time the humans left Africa to flee East Asia