Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shelley's presentation of the creature
17 resultsFrans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals
Shelley's presentation of the creature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Shelley's presentation of the creature
Introduction
It is easy to regard Frankenstein’s Creature as the terror of all terrors. Look into horror fiction and you can easily assess the long-lasting impact of Shelley’s magnum opus. Halloween costumes in all sizes and hues, three cinematic adaptations, countless spin-offs…Stripping away the distillation of mainstream culture, however, it must be said that Shelley’s idea was more substantial than to create the stuff of nightmares. In the book, the monster is anything but the mumbling, shuffling oaf as depicted in the 1931 film. He is an eloquent soul, with full capability of higher thinking, so eerily human that Shelly makes frequent comparisons between him and Adam, the embodiment of humanity, God’s own first creation in Milton’s epic Paradise Lost.
This essay seeks to compare both these characters from the philosophic perspective of free will. In the first part, I will analyse the free will of the duo by analysing their characters; in the second part, I will venture into the religious messages and literary themes behind the tales. The thesis statement I want to address in this essay is that because Frankenstein’s Creature embodies more free will than Adam, he is less sympathetic.
Free will and moral responsibility
The subject of free will has challenged the most famous of philosophers; every one of them has their own argument, not to mention the theologians. As a layperson (and because this is not a philosophy essay), I will not dawdle on the specifics, but much is certain that ethical philosophy is founded on this assumption: human beings are autonomous (moral agents), and thus they are held accountable for their own actions (moral responsibility) . On the basis of this assumption I argue that because Franke...
... middle of paper ...
...lton, J. Paradise Lost. Retrieved from www.planetebook.com/ebooks/Paradise-Lost.pdf
Secondary Sources
Aristotle, Ross W.D. (tr.) (2009)
The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, New York: Oxford University Press
Plato, Jowett B. (tr. with modifications) (1991)
Republic, New York: Vintage Books
Godwin, W. (2011) Thoughts on Man, His Nature, Productions and Discoveries Interspersed with Some Particulars Respecting the Author, Kindle Edition
O'Connor, T. (Spring 2013) "Free Will", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/freewill/
Eshleman, A. (Summer 2014) , "Moral Responsibility", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/moral-responsibility/
Feinberg, Joel and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group, 2002.
Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, illustrates the Romantic idea of the sublime naturalworld as an emotional experience for the characters of the novel. Within the text, Shelleyutilizes an allusion to the John Milton’s biblical story, Paradise Lost, to make a parallel betweenthe characters. Within the passage, the monster compares himself, as well as his creator, Victor,to the characters Adam and Satan. He comes to realize that he is more similar to Satan;ultimately, leading him to his reign of terror and the revenge he wishes to impose on Victor. Themonster realizes that he is similar to Adam in Paradise Lost in that they both do not want to bealone. The monster also realizes that there is good in the world that is deeply contrasted with
In this essay, I will explore the concept of free will by drawing a correlation to determinism and analyse if free will is dictated for us. I will argue that the future is
What is a monster, really? Is it really a Creature that has three eyes instead of two, with pus seeping out of every crevice in his face and an abnormally large form? Or is it someone with a mind so corrupt it rivals that of Satan? Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a story within a story that centers on the tale of a man with an immense thirst of knowledge and a fetish to imitate the Creator. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a lot like the Greek mythological tale of the Greek God, Prometheus, and his brother, Epimetheus, who were assigned the task of creating man. The story captivates the theme of monstrosity. Mary Shelley wrote the novel in a form so the reader’s opinions never stray far from sympathy for the monster and apathy for Victor Frankenstein. The novel looks at “Monstrosity” and “Humanity” in a deeply analytical way.
If someone were to ask people who Frankenstein is they would probably describe a tall, hideous monster with bolts sticking out of its neck. But long before movies reinvented their version of the monster, there was a novel by Mary Shelley entitled Frankenstein. In her novel, the monster is shown as child-like and uneducated. But what really makes someone a monster? Who is the true monster of Mary Shelley’s novel? Victor and the Creature present similarities and differences in their action and character throughout the novel.
There are many arguments for and against the freedom of will. The distant causation argument seems to show that the freedom of will is a deception. Since, it states that our actions are all the product of causes that happened outside of our own control. In the essay I will be discussing how effective this argument is in showing that our freedom of will is actually an illusion.
Shelley’s novel Frankenstein is a story about the dangers of knowledge and the consequences of overstepping moral and ethical boundaries. By examining Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein through a psychoanalytic lens, it can be interpreted that the creature is a mirror of Victor Frankenstein’s personality. Psychoanalysis argues that the conscious and unconscious mind are made up of the id, superego and ego. In order to self-actualize the conscious and unconscious mind must be in equilibrium. The creature and Victor both strive for self-actualization through their yearning to understand the world. They share the experience of lower-level emotions like the need for revenge. Ultimately, the destruction in the novel is rooted in Victor’s and the creature’s experience of parental abandonment,
The creature’s moral ambiguity characteristic was a vile ingredient to the construction of this novel Frankenstein because it made the reader 's sympathies with him even after the audience knows he had committed murder because the readers had seen the truth this creature had to face. That he had tried everything within his power to peacefully live with them, to interact, communicate, and befriend them “these thoughts exhilarated me and led me to apply with fresh ardour to the acquiring the art of language”, that even though he was seen as a monster because of the looks he was created with, something he had no control over, he still had hope to be seen as equals, ”My organs were indeed harsh, but supple; and although my voice was very unlike the soft music of their tones, yet I pronounced such words as I understood with tolerable ease. It was as the ass and the lap-dog; yet surely the gentle ass whose intentions were affectionate, although his manners were rude, deserved better treatment than blows and execration;” this hope of his was utterly crushed, and can only set him up for utter disappointment(12.18). Because in the end he only received hates, scorns, violence, and prejudice from his good will. So in the end of the story, Mary Shelley’s forces the readers to see within the creature’s heart and for
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is ‘one of the pioneering works of modern science fiction’, and is also a frightening story that speaks to the ‘mysterious fears of our nature’. Mary Shelley mocks the idea of “playing God”, the idea that came from the Greek myth of Prometheus, of the Greek titan who stole Zeus’ gift of life. Both the story of Frankenstein and Prometheus reveal the dark side of human nature and the dangerous effects of creating artificial life. Frankenstein reveals the shocking reality of the consequences to prejudging someone. The creature’s first-person narration reveals to us his humanity, and his want to be accepted by others even though he is different. We are shown that this ‘monster’ is a ‘creature’ and more of a human than we think.
Kane, Robert. "Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Safer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 425-437. Print.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
Throughout the novel, Shelley investigates the idea of monstrosity. She makes the point that a monster does not have to be genuinely evil in order to be considered monstrous. Shelley presents two characteristics of mankind in order to prove her case. The first example is Frankenstein’s creation. Upon first being introduced to his creation, the reader initially labels him as a monster because of his physical appearance. He is portrayed as a man with “…yellow skin scarcely cover[ing] the work of muscles and arteries beneath…watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set…shrivelled complexion and straight black lips” (Shelley 58). Not only does the reader view him as...
I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.
t is intriguing that when a person is presented with the ideas of free will or determinism, they usually jump rather quickly to the conclusion of free will. Most people appreciate the genuine freedom that accompanies choice, but do we really possess it? Complete free will would mean that our decisions would be unrelated to other factors such as the environment or genetics. In reality, our free decisions are based on factors that are beyond our own control. When exercising certain choices, we conclude that we have acted freely and distinguish our actions from situations in which we believe were not in our control. The events that are not in our control are pre-determined for us, which lead us on a path to a determined life. Even though we may be making our own unique decisions, they all connect to form a single planned outcome.