NOTE: I originally said to
read all of Volume 2, but I’m backtracking a bit since we only covered Chapter
V in class on Friday. So just read a few more chapters for Monday, or if you’re
behind, hopefully this will help you catch up.
Answer TWO of the
following:
Q1: Upon learning that the
Creature has killed William and framed Justine, Victor reflects, “A thousand
times rather would I have confessed myself guilty of the crime ascribed to
Justine” (83). However, he never confesses or even tries to intercede on
Justine’s behalf: why? Do you think he really would sacrifice himself to save
Justine, or is he truly incapable of saving those he loves?
Q2: Remember that the
entire story is being told to Walton, who is writing it all down for
posterity, so his sister can read it. With that in mind, so you feel that
Victor is telling the absolute truth? Is he a reliable narrator? Are there any
scenes or moments that you feel he could be hiding actual events, or making
himself seem better—or more innocent—than he actually was?
Q3: Though we expect the
Creature to be a savage, mindless monster, he appears quite reasonable, and
even sympathetic when they meet in Chapter II. Why does Shelley turn the tables
on us here, and how she does make us consider the Creature as more than a mere
monster? You might also consider whether or not Victor responds the same way as
the reader does.
Q4: How does the Creature
receive his education after being banished from Victor’s presence? Who becomes
his ‘foster’ parents and what instruction do they offer him? How might these
passages address the ‘nature vs. nurture’ issue that was a big issue in the
19th century? In essence, are people born human, or do they have to be taught
to be human?
Q1: I think that Victor is bound and trapped within the world he has created. He cannot allow himself to help Justine, even if part of him truly wants to, because he is controlled by his inner darkness. To the reader, his excuse seems weak and flawed. Why wouldn't he risk people calling him mad if it meant that an innocent woman was spared? In my opinion, he would most likely think the same thing if he was not mentally unstable. But because he is sick, his mind perpetuates a narrative and I think he thinks and acts within that narrative.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The Creature says to Victor, "How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favorable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion." Shelly switches our opinion of the Creature by showing us his thoughts and feelings. We can sympathize with him on many levels. What would it be like to be turned out by your parents as a child, helpless and susceptible to the cruelties of the world. The Creature is tormented by the fact that his creator does not want him, and the fact that he cannot find anyone else who can. The creature has never been shown the most basic and necessary parts of humanity, love and affection.
Yes, I think most people would risk anything to save someone they loved from being executed--his reasons seem weak and grasping (sure, few might believe him, but it might be easy to convince them he had something to do with it, and so exonerate her). Clearly he cares more about living than saving her, and this alone makes us question how much he did know about her demise. Statements like "I bore a hell within me" makes me question how innocent he truly is, all the more so when the Creature says the same sentence a few chapters later!
DeleteQ2 Victor tells the story to Walton only from his point of view which lets the reader see only one side of the story. In any case, multiple accounts of the same thing are needed to confirm truth and the actual flow of events. Due to Victor telling us his story it is assumed that he would buff himself and make himself out to be not necessarily "good" but just to make himself seem less mad.
ReplyDeleteQ3 When the monster sets out on his own he finds a family that teaches him the ways of human life. This gives him an identity. Coming from Victors secluded lair he had no available preconception of life as he was brought into being in an unnatural state. This would lead the reader to think that the monster would act in unnatural practices, but since he is slightly educated, he forms an understanding of our world and is taught to be and act human..for a time, that is.
Yes, Victor would hide certain details--much as he hides his experiments from his family--and Walton might go the extra mile to make his hero look heroic. While Victor does make himself look bad throughout, he might not realize how bad he truly looks--nor how sympathetic he makes his Creation. Or maybe his story simply runs away with him? Either way, his sells himself out in his narrative and makes it clear who the true 'monster' is.
DeleteQ2: Victor being the one telling the story to Walton, could lie about what actually happens. He could make-up parts that never happened just to make himself seem more interesting to Walton. Victor could also be hiding details about his involvement with the monster, and us as readers would never know about it. If Victor is hiding stuff from Walton to make himself seem less mad, or to help Walton see him as innocent we will never know. We as readers can only believe what is being told is the truth and not some make believe story.
ReplyDeleteQ3: She makes the monster appear to be sympathetic and trying to reach out for Victor. He is scared of what he has created and runs away. The reader could see the monster trying to touch Victor, like a child would want to hold their parents hand or see what Victor sees, which is a monster. Not the idea he envisioned in his head. Victor response to the monster by running away, to scared to go back to his home. The reader could response the same way or see something different. It all depends on your perspective of the story and the way you read it.
Bailey Copeland
Good responses--we really don't know what to believe since we only have the narrators' word, and each one has ample reason to lie and/or to misrepresent the truth. We know Victor is capable of lying (he hides his experiment from everyone he loves, and allows Justine to die for his secret), and even Walton shows signs of following in his footsteps.
DeleteQ1: it is quite possible that he himself killed his brother and framed Justine. given that he just so happens to not be in town when it occurs and that when he visits the site of the murder he sees his monster. if this is all true then in my mind he isn't capable of doing the right thing, he either knows he has done it and won't admit it or that he so completely believes the disillusion of his monster that he worries that he will sound insane explaining it while that would also incriminate him to the crime.
ReplyDeleteQ3: this turn around of perspectives makes the story much more appealing and thought out, it questions peoples thoughts on what they consider a monster. a plot twist that no one was expecting, shows us that there is more humanity within the monster than we originally thought. victor at first has nothing but hatred to this creature but after hearing his story he doubts himself for a moment and sees the reasoning of the monster. he doesn't completely change his mind about the monster (for good reason) but he is starting to see the humanity that is within his creation.
Great responses--it is a plot twist that no one really sees coming, and it turns the entire novel (and the protagonist) on its head. Could the human be the monster, and the monster be the human? And could they both destroy each other? The tragedy of this novel is that Victor could have saved his Creation so easily, but refuses to, almost as blindly as Cunegonde's brother refuses to bless Candide's marriage to his sister. Some kind of wicked pride seems to be behind both refusals, and the kind philosophy of the Creature is crushed blow by blow, just like Candide's faith in Optimism. If only the Creature found a garden to retire to!
DeleteQ3. We hear Victor’s accounts of his innocence and doubt it because he stresses it in spite of great evidence to the contrary. Likewise, he tells us repeatedly that the monster is a monster, even when we are given testimony that disproves this (partially). Whether or not the monster is real or imagined, it’s important that we’re getting all of these contradictions from Frankenstein himself. It’s Shelley’s way of showing who the real perversion of nature is.
ReplyDeleteAlthough—the lines between the good guy and the bad aren’t so clear cut. In the monster’s narrative, he also skews events to make himself more sympathetic even though what he was doing was heinous. He blew up the house of his ‘protectors’, he attempted to kidnap and then strangled a little boy, he framed an innocent woman, and he is threatening Victor to create another monster or else lose everyone he loves. Some of these we might call crimes of passion, but others are coldly plotted. Both of these men are trying to justify the things they do as necessary, and I suppose we are all guilty of that when we do/say something we know is wrong—we think “This isn’t like me, but…” The ‘Not Me’ factor is a heavy theme of this book.
Q4. In the monster’s narrative, we hear an account of him evolving over a couple of years. For much of that time, he is alone. What the creature does learn is from books found (conveniently/suspiciously) in the woods and from spying on a family of protectors. The view we have of their lives seems to be a heavy-handed lesson on morality, but it carries one important message—the family we are born into are not necessarily the ones that are best for us. (That’s part of Candide and Into the Wild as well). I think it’s crucial that Shelley stressed the poverty of the family, particularly because of the scorn much of the author’s society had for the lower class.
Also--because I can't get this out of my head:
DeleteWe are treating the conviction of Josephine and Victor's behavior as either proof of the monster or proof that he is a figment of the man's imagination. But isn't there a third option? In the story, the man consistently places women on a pedestal. Could Josephine have really committed the murder, but Frankenstein couldn't face it?
Ah, that's a nice reading! Maybe Justine DID do it? He would have trouble admitting that kind of blackness exists in the world. And yet, it seems more fitting that he would frame her and further destroy Elizabeth's belief in the kindness and goodness in the world--almost as if he's punishing her for being what he cannot. After Justine dies, Elizabeth sees men as "monsters thirsting for each other's blood" (like vampires). In essence, he's reduced her to his level, which is what he does to the women in his life--he destroys them before they can abandon him (like his mother). So it seems very fitting that he would destroy Justine in a way calculated to harm Elizabeth, too. But who knows--maybe Justine's a monster, too? :)
DeleteQ1: Victor is afraid that he had something to do with William’s death and the framing of Justine as the murderer. He is starting to become unhinged and is separating himself into two different entities, ala Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If he speaks up on her behalf the judge might suspect him as an accomplice or the actual murderer, or he might also see how unstable Victor is becoming. This event pushes Victor off the edge and we as readers really start to see him falling apart.
ReplyDeleteQ2: In fiction there is always the possibility of an unreliable narrator especially in the format that Shelley gives us. Either Victor Frankenstein is lying to preserve his own conscience or Walton is sparing his sister from the ravings of a lunatic. The scene where Victor tells Walton that he couldn’t have killed William because he had been gone for a month is definitely quite suspicious.
Great responses...again, it's impossible to say for sure, though this does seem like a precursor to Stevenson's story, The Strange Tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Even if the Creature exists, it's clearly the "light" side of the "dark" Victor Frankenstein, bearing his inner ugliness but his outward beauty. In this sense, it's also like Oscar Wilde's later story, The Picture of Dorian Gray, where a beautiful, ageless man keeps a portrait in his house that reveals his inner decrepitude. The Creature seems to be a portrait of his lost innocence and outer despair.
Delete1. I think some part of him feels responsible for the death of William, through his 'monster', which he immediately just /knows/ is responsible. Quite the leap for a learned man. I mean, what are the odds that the creature, basically a newborn in the world, found exactly where Victor lived and killed someone important to him? There is the angle that he didn't want to be seen as crazy, but his insistence that he knows Josephine is innocent is almost too heavy. He reveals his hand (assuming you believe that the monster is metaphorical and that somehow Victor is aware of that.
ReplyDelete2. I'm fairly certain that Walton isn't telling the whole truth. I mean, the story is shocking, but i can see Walton fudging the details to help his sister get through the story. Maybe Victor's friend couldn't help. Maybe Victor was actually there when William was murdered. These aren't details that you'd say to reassure your sister that your new bro is totally cool. There's no telling how much could have been changed to make it more 'palatable' or to protect more delicate sensitivities.
Great points--the Creature did find his hometown pretty quickly considering he knows nothing about the outside world. Cunning--or convenient? He definitely knows Justine is innocent, which works with either reading of the novel, but he seems very convinced of it--as if the blood is on his hands. On some level, he knows he did it.
Delete