Frankenstein has been a classic for many years, and for many years to come. It strikes me to be one of the few horror stories one can actually read without vomiting, and instead, sympathize with. The book deals with a handful of things, as the moral dilemmas of interfering with nature. But, is it possible to connect this horror story with today's society? As we read the story about the man Frankenstein and his creation – it is often described as if he's making a monster. He puts together a man, made from other dead men, to make him alive. He constructs him to be one of his greatest creations of all time, from something that shouldn't be tampered with. Taking something that used to be human, to make another human being. As it turns out, the “monster” is indeed more deep and appreciative than many humans. Bear in mind, that this is fiction that holds a large pile of moral dilemmas. Frankenstein tampers with natures course when he use the dead to make something alive. As we put it in to today's society, we can see a lot of red lines used in a range of different fields. It frightens the normal humans, because they are not used to it. Take science, food making and other things we now evolve. Can we place the dilemma of Frankenstein's morality, to say – food (GMO, genetically modified organisms used in food), or babies from test-tubes? Genetically modified organisms used in food – some might say that this is wrong. Why is that? Most of the food we eat grows naturally. Either from trees, soil, plants, amongst others. This is what we call “natural” food. But isn't all food natural? You would think so, as they come naturally from the ground or anything else. But if we look at science today, used for many years now, it is used things i... ... middle of paper ... ...we'll end up seeing this as natural course of evolving the human being, and our needs and rules? Interfering with nature may not be natural, but it might just be the thing to help us continue with the natural course of humans actually existing. If we put Frankenstein's creation beside problems we face today, we can see a clear line. The story about the monster, can be translated in to being our issues today with the tampering of nature. We have a handful of problems, a handful of changing nature, but nothing in these days has gone as far as making a man out of dead bodies. When this comes, we can argue that things have gone too far – but how far things have gotten now, it is not a bad thing in my opinion. Natures course is plenty of things, and there is so much we can do to tamper with it. It is not always right, but not always wrong. This needs to be remembered.
The fact that Frankenstein’s creation turns on him and murders innocent people is never overlooked; it has been the subject of virtually every popularization of the novel. What is not often acknowledged is the fact that Frankenstein himself embodies some of the worst traits of humankind. He is self-centered, with little real love for those who care about him; he is prejudiced, inflexible and cannot forgive, even in death. While some of these traits could be forgivable, to own and flaunt them all should be enough to remind a careful reader that there are two "monsters" in Frankenstein.
After his creation, Frankenstein’s monster is left in isolation, cursed to endure people’s hatred towards him. This revulsion met by onlookers is merely based on the creature’s hideous looks. The monster is not actually a monster at all. He displays more humanity than many other characters in Frankenstein. The ultimate irony is that the prejudicial belief is what caused the reanimated human to become a monster. In the nature versus nurture debate, proponents of the nature theory believe that a person is unchanging and that one’s experiences do not affect that person’s behavior. If this were true, the monster would not change as a result of his interactions with humans. It is undeniable that the creature does immoral things, but when Frankenstein’s monster saves a little girl from drowning, Mary Shelley takes a clear stance that the creature was naturally noble but became monstrous as a result of interactions with humans.
Over two centuries ago, Mary Shelley created a gruesome tale of the horrific ramifications that result when man over steps his bounds and manipulates nature. In her classic tale, Frankenstein, Shelley weaves together the terrifying implications of a young scientist playing God and creating life, only to be haunted for the duration of his life by the monster of his own sordid creation. Reading Shelley in the context of present technologically advanced times, her tale of monstrous creation provides a very gruesome caution. For today, it is not merely a human being the sciences are lusting blindly to bring to life, as was the deranged quest of Victor Frankenstein, but rather to generate something potentially even more dangerous and horrifying with implications that could endanger the entire world and human population.
Frankenstein has become a symbol in contemporary society. Upon hearing the name, one might imagine a tall, muscular green man with short black hair, a flat head, and two bolts pierced on both sides of his neck. Although that is the Frankenstein present now, the modern Frankenstein is only an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s original creature. Shelley’s Frankenstein, 1818, is a gothic novel in which she tells the tale of a man creating life. This creation of Victor Frankenstein’s monster eventually hurt the people he held dear. Following the popularity of the book, James Whale directed Frankenstein, in 1931, which started the movement of Frankenstein’s contemporary image. While in comparison to the novel’s questionable identity of the monster, Whale’s adaptation addresses the creation as the true monster. Whale is able to accomplish his reanimated version of the original creation through a series of drastically different aspects involving both personality and appearance in his cinematic production. Whale’s monster lacks the human appeal of Shelley’s creation through his motivation of his transgressions, lack of speech and physical appearance.
In the nineteenth century, the idea of creating life was thought to be science fiction. A nineteenth century writing, Mary Shelly's novel Frankenstein, portrays Victor (the creator) as innocent and the creation as evil at the beginning of the novel. Later, it becomes evident that the monster was not evil when created, rather that the creature was made evil by the surrounding environment. Victor's immediate response was, as Shelly writes, "Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath" (??). The monster soon understood that he was in fact hideous. Shelly writes, "Knowing social opinion, the monster explained after his agonizing shock of self-discovery, 'All men hate the wretched'" (??). Whereas the cloning of humans may not produce a being like Victor's creation, there is little doubt that society may react harshly to this new type of being. The expectations would be enlarged for the creation, which may lead to negative consequences for both the creation and society.
...f science it is a risky business. Victor Frankenstein broke these ethics when his creation came to life and thought he could play God. Consequently, this backfired on him when he did take responsibility for his creation and it lead to deaths of his family and friends. As to what Mary Shelley has shown through her novel, Frankenstein, it is that ethics are not meant to be broken but followed in order to keep a balance between human knowledge and natural occurrences.
Frankenstein and his abominable creation are two characters inexorably linked with eachother, as father and son, as inventor and invention, and even as reflections of eachother. Their conflict deals with themes of the morality of science and the fears of child birth, and their characters are drawn from a wealth of experience and reading. Shelley’s doppleganger of mankind is like a twisted vision of reality; based in some sense on reality but wildly taken out of proportion, the monster is so inhuman that it cannot reconcile itself with its master or the world of humanity. Its tragic story serves as a warning of what mankind could become as well as a reflection of Shelley’s own personal demons, and her creation has changed the face of literature.
“I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other.”
For moviegoers Frankenstein’s Monster is a green, shambling corpse, with its stitched together construction held together by two bolts on its neck, as it moans and groans inhumanly. A deeper look into the actual book by Mary Shelly, Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus, however, shows a far more terrifying visage: something that’s almost, but not quite, human. A being that, while “about eight feet in height”, still had a soul that “glowed with love and humanity” at birth, which causes it’s transformation into a serial killer to be far more chilling (Shelly 100). The source of the Monster, and how it differs from other characters, is what obviously creates this irreconcilable gap from the human characters. Contextually, during the writing of Frankenstein, industrialization swept through Mary Shelly’s Great Britain. The change in society caused by industrialization can be seen in the work as a whole. Thus it is clear Frankenstein argues that the loss of originality in an industrialized society leads to dehumanization and alienation, as exemplified in the manufactured Monster.
Most Americans have some idea of who Frankenstein is, as a result of the many Frankenstein movies. Contrary to popular belief Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a scientist, not a monster. The "monster" is not the inarticulate, rage-driven criminal depicted in the 1994 film version of the novel. Shelley’s original Frankenstein was misrepresented by this Kenneth branagh film, most likely to send a different message to the movie audience than Shelley’s novel shows to its readers. The conflicting messages of technologies deserve being dependent on its creator (address by Shelley) and poetic justice, or triumph over evil (showed by the movie) is best represented by the scene immediately preceding Frankenstein’s monster’s death.
The atmosphere in the whole journey of Frankenstein was dark and moody, creating an amazing image of how ugly humanity can be when faced with something grotesque that seemingly has more power than themselves and can threaten their whole way of living. And how easily they can turn a blind eye to the supernatural, or leave it for another person to deal with. (“Was man indeed, at once so powerful, so magnificent, yet so vicious and base?”), (Ch.12,
Before or after an action is completed, the question of right or wrong arises. To be clear, morals are the fundamentals of judging right and wrong, however, ethics are the fundamentals of right behavior. Having morals is what defines human beings, by knowing what’s right and wrong. Ethics help with decision making and increase the chances of staying on the right path, not doing wrong. Being ethical, impacts society as well, because ethics sometimes surpass laws in keeping society safe. Sometimes ethics triumph over some unjust laws. When unjust laws fail that is where ethics come into place. In the novel, “Frankenstein”, composed by Marry Shelley is a story of the monster created. Victor Frankenstein strived for education and became obsessed
The novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, centers around a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, and the creation that comes from one of his experiments. In her book, Shelley addresses the concern of technology going too far and disrupting human life. She argues that the progression of technology becomes monstrous when humans can no longer control it. In many cases, the use of genetic engineering leaves scientists useless because they have no control over the consequences that come from it. Victor Frankenstein is trying to recreate life, but does not understand everything that comes with it. His attempt to copy life ended up disturbing the natural order of human life because of the unexpected actions of the creation. The use of genetic
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus, raises many ethical issues that are relevant to today’s society. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein is portrayed as God as he is able to create a new species by reanimating dead tissue. Today, scientists aren’t able to perform such experiments as fictional as bringing back the dead, but they are able to perform other serious experiments like cloning organisms for example. Cloning and growing organs, a sub-branch of cloning, are scientific achievements done out of acts of utilitarianism: to help patients gain happiness by “intended pleasure and the absence of pain” (Cahn, 2011, p.93) through replaced organs and replicating organisms for other purposes.
The pop culture version of the novel Frankenstein depicts Victor Frankenstein’s need for science and creation, a need that results in him creating a monster. An ingenious and inventive scientist, Victor mastered everything he learned from his professors. Unfortunately, he ultimately created something he regrets and pays for until the day he dies. Victor Frankenstein takes his interest in science and creation to an unhealthy and extreme level, and plays God. In playing this God figure over his creation, he creates this being with no intentions of giving it love or happiness. He is selfish and creates it for himself, and he brings the unliving to life out of old used parts.